Re: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 10 June 2012 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9617721F85BE for <>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.395
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.296, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kz9JNRfMaLMR for <>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E685021F8471 for <>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eaaq13 with SMTP id q13so2302234eaa.31 for <>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=b1RlpsrUFcT8dp8x9Y+EZ/vlufR63PhTDPIgnhbiECQ=; b=O7ihaKPnoY4ZPQb7ntBwpTVbp/mFIzYgOSBJq9P04VhVhUxEcUDy4z1UC/yQyXsufE B9cLHfg3/973Jn2BaPiH3z3aAP5ab2jVSSp7usBKg8+8NxpC53sKIuRNTgfLH7y12SSt 4WXttMRhCw5zRCP4BH2WMjetPdUrOUbstz5vTq7yJr1HqSyi6ogdWb3/TdC0gtOt3rFz qYpQ0cxmECsGd/4Fx+Yfo8lbe90hw4YvkBD4P7fpBSn2U7QU/RwcNRaqTJuSKIweF752 JDfHLCBVcD6y5LQV9LwqX//HV/iebYFPJbE0h5jz2BOTewuFGhK6+WlGPtmqrCWWS5aU pvRg==
Received: by with SMTP id w11mr5424737eef.67.1339344035834; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id h53sm42978836eea.1.2012. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:00:31 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF discussion list <>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:00:37 -0000

Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that
the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG
(in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF
consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls) and subject
to appeal like anything else. This is so obvious in the IETF
context that I didn't even notice that it wasn't stated.

The sentence that should state it belongs about here:
  "The Tao
   has traditionally been an IETF consensus document, which means that
   the IESG has had the final say about what the Tao contained before it
   was sent to the RFC Editor.  Thus, the IESG should have final say for
   what the Tao says when it is a web page."

The IESG's "final say" is of course always in the context of determining
IETF consensus.

   Brian Carpenter

On 2012-06-10 11:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> This draft should formally obsolete RFC 4677. Otherwise, I think it's fine.
> This doesn't need to be in the document, but having a fixed location for
> the pending version might be good, e.g. .
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter