Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

Abdussalam Baryun <> Tue, 19 June 2012 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C7F21F85F3 for <>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1j9WAZrEnKI8 for <>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB78B21F85F2 for <>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so3679688vbb.31 for <>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=SKVHYNvXeOivwFZ/CnsjG0hEfTjJ3b0gy84BeCxNP8w=; b=T1b7Gri2+PXcfdF3+A3xtI6MkRUBRk98WClJLwyj9tltWOy4sn7awoMwCtAwWVRXVf b21zjOoE5k+HddcPMr/iezldKECNPDwzTGiBM8FbcTRDCetQDGqO1ZWiiOy2rrUkTd/a Nk8xAyifNyrcXPFJAufn4sGoiFHrjt7h0jnhtYTt5Z1t2gbYspjUD3rTDdjr2VZqiexJ dKaP1MNshr1X2t+V7Gg4EJhFwc8T8d8uDD15WqSgylERW0atf8MOI9wBKcJjQAIgUDBd pu8eoeT40IClUTwAzquCKnvG3j2tm7bWLb9XzNCoSSKCxYjz5CJxUvzBV0f5T6cZ6sSn 7RrA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id r15mr9445353vcv.1.1340102384947; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:39:44 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:39:47 -0000

Hi Melinda, and All,

>This is consistent with how individual, non-WG documents are
>progressed in the IETF.  I don't see a conflict or discontinuity.

Conflict process if we consider the I-D process as a IETF process. It
is not consistent with the IETF procedures. It can be consistent if
the IESG amend the I-D submission-process or take my suggestions.

Yes I agree that non-WGs documents take different submission stream
than IETF-WGs documents. One is named non-IETF submission and the
other IETF submission streams (two only streams so far). In the I-D we
are discussing of [publishing the Tao of the IETF], the submission
stream was not refered to which of two submission streams. It is most
likely understood as a new second IETF submission stream (I may name
it IETF-Tao stream), because this I-D affect the community (it must be
a group production not an individual production).

Please note that:
1) The subject I-D obsoletes RFC4677 if approved. The RFC4677 is a
IETF WG's procedure overview.

2) RFC4677 is not a formal IETF process document but instead an
informational overview.

The IETF procedures are only done in the IETF WGs or IETF community,
how can an individual decide for the community!!! That is why we are
discussing it in a IETF-list, not in a non-WG-list.

On 6/17/12, Abdussalam Baryun <> wrote:
> The abstract mentions 'many people',  because many people may mean 4 to 10
> people. The annonced I-D lacks the method of discussion in the community
> (discussing such change), the draft mentions the input from any community
> individual to be accepted by editor and then approved by IESG, but does not
> mention the methodology of discussion between community members nor between
> editor and members, also no announcements of such updates mentioned in
> draft.
> suggest> amend in abstract the word 'many' to the word  'some', or mention
> like in the introduction the desire of community.
> suggest> to add> to the draft that a discussion group to discuss
> inputs/suggestions before the editors undertakes changes. The draft to
> specify the discussion ( may be either on-List or during the IETF
> meetings). I prefer to mention; the face-to-face IETF meeting discussion in
> this procedure issue.
> suggest> to add>  the announcement for last call of Tao changes by the
> suggest> replace in section2> line 7> The editor of the Tao decides which
> proposed changes should be submitted to the IESG for the next version of
> the Tao.
>      replace with> The editor of the Tao decides which proposed changes
> should be
>                           submitted to the IESG for the next version of the
> Tao after
>                           the community discussed the changes.
> suggest> A time period of updates to be made, and input from the community
> to be collected, and editor to submit to IESG. It will be helpful also to
> AB
> ==============
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, The IESG <> wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>> the following document:
>> - 'Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page'
>>  <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt> as Informational RFC
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> mailing lists by 2012-07-13. Exceptionally, comments may be
>> sent to instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>> Abstract
>>   Discussion of the "Tao of the IETF" during 2012 made it clear that
>>   many people want the document published only as a web page, not as an
>>   RFC that needs to be periodically updated.  This document specifies
>>   how the Tao will be published as a web page.
>> The file can be obtained via
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.