Subject: Tao questions

From: "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:15:54 -0400 (EDT)

Greetings - a few questions to mull over. First, here's part of the Table
of Contents from the new draft:
        
2.2   The Hierarchy
        2.2.1 ISOC (Internet Society)
        2.2.2 Working Groups (WGs)
                2.2.2.1 WG Chairs
                2.2.2.2 Getting Things Done in the WG
        2.2.3 IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group)
        2.2.4 IAB (Internet Architecture Board)
        2.2.5 IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
        2.2.6 RFC Editor
        2.2.7 IETF Secretariat

Paul adopted my outline for this section, but now I'm wondering:

       - Should we add ICANN to the top of the list?

       - Do WGs fit as a part of the hierarchy? (they're not listed as
         such in the original Tao or in Donald E's version)

       - Should the RFC Editor and IETF Secretariat be included in
         the list? (They're not in the original or in Donald's.)
        
Also, can someone refresh my memory from Adelaide and tell me why the
Registration section wasn't included in the Webized Tao?  Should it be
included in the revised RFC?

Finally, a question for Paul - in the draft you included a pointer to "Why
this document is called Tao," but didn't include the text from the
original.  Did it not seem right to you:

    Pronounced "dow", Tao means "the way." It is the basic principle
    behind the teachings of Lao-tse, a Chinese master. Its familiar symbol
    is the black and white Yin-Yang circle.

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:56:14 -0700

>        - Should we add ICANN to the top of the list?

No! (Sorry for shouting in a small room like this...) ICANN is *not* 
"over" ISOC or the IETF in any way. ICANN (through the PSO) is 
responsible for the IANA function, and should be mentioned in the 
IANA section, but they do not control ISOC in any way.

>          such in the original Tao or in Donald E's version)

My thinking on this is that WGs feed the IESG. In retrospect, that's 
probably a weak argument, and the description of WGs could be moved 
elsewhere.

>          the list? (They're not in the original or in Donald's.)

I think so. The RFC Editor actually has some power here, namely they 
are the final decider on whether or not an Informational or 
Experimental RFC is published. They are also very much a separate 
organization from the IETF, and their role is often unclear (if not 
completely misunderstood) by novices. As for the Secretariat, they're 
the day-to-day workers holding the IETF together. They deserve 
discussion (and thanks!) and it seems like putting them in the 
hierarchy is a good way to include them.

>     is the black and white Yin-Yang circle.

I left it out because that says what Tao means, but not why this 
document is called Tao. There is nothing about our document that 
explains "the way" (in fact, we do just the opposite and explain the 
parts and the actions, but not the way). The only thing 
black-and-white about the IETF is the way we believe in our protocol 
decisions. :-)

I know this is a play on "The Tao of Physics" and "The Tao of Pooh", 
but I think those references are becoming more obscure as we all age. 
Maybe someone else can make a stab at explaining how we aren't really 
talking about the way, but reading the document will lead you to your 
own way (which is the essence of ancient Taoism but is lost in most 
modern Taoist sects).

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:48:13 -0400

Hi,

From:  Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Message-Id:  <p0432040bb5a3e3da9daa@[165.227.249.17]>
In-Reply-To:  <[email-masked]>
References:  <[email-masked]>
Date:  Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:56:14 -0700
To:  "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>, USWG <[email-masked]>

>IANA section, but they do not control ISOC in any way.

Agree with your emphatic point but disagree with your characterization
of the very complex situation with IANA/ICANN/PSO/IETF about which,
perhaps, the less said in such an introductory document, the better.

>hierarchy is a good way to include them.

Absolutely!

>black-and-white about the IETF is the way we believe in our protocol 

Well, as long as the document is called "Tao if IETF" and we think
some readers may not know the word, it seems reasonable to me to give
a definition of Tao.  And in fact, the wording of the original and
such things as the notice posted by the Adelaide IETF T-shirt BoF do,
I think, convey at least some of the early basic spirit of the IETF.

How about leaving in the definition and adding "The Tao that can be
written down is not the true Tao." ?

>own way (which is the essence of ancient Taoism but is lost in most 

Maybe need a section of koans.  What is the sound of a packet being
routed?  Does the DNS have Buddha nature?  ...

>--Internet Mail Consortium

Donald
===================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                    [email-masked]
 140 Forest Avenue                          [email-masked]
 Hudson, MA 01749 USA     +1 978-562-2827(h)    +1 508-261-5434(w)

---

From: "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:32:17 -0400 (EDT)

> own way (which is the essence of ancient Taoism but is lost in most 

Hmmm ... I like your last thought about 'leading to your own way,' but to
me, the original document did say a lot about the way IETF is. It's loose,
consists of separate entitities that somehow make up a focused whole, and
requires background work and concentration to be satisfying.