Re: Last Call: <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt> (Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page) to Informational RFC

Abdussalam Baryun <> Fri, 06 July 2012 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57B4021F86EF for <>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 15:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.464
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xhvUmuDjCmPd for <>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 15:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD9E21F86E0 for <>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 15:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so6990476vcq.31 for <>; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:16:41 -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 :cc:content-type; bh=n9yZyaaEJ8Ptdo9FwTj8lOKUjGIQ8Y+DvTGujlsdiAw=; b=HnzF+8zGdsr/MgAdIZvr6H91gHfxhOYwU2KwBuo/zizLVpQXzGIuJY34Q5u3KgS+R0 4rKTxwVN/YwgsK4/IuQldRnsA4zGRUKkzSuR/8fAMOQWfGswRrJ6N/YjZdnCAAJeL81F 5zrkBSlZHfax5poLjG2bUO2Mj46ID6egHwi8k9dU26INdRWz4fYwcPO72o0aMLcI0iz4 6I5L1ppf0fVzRS1/7KN323zushl/Js+HOYyR6wKS7GUNkXKlEs77pooBjaRN1dNuDWw2 H6YxOFhwN/NlAKQnOfrYlJIwxZnm7hG5h8Jkw1v/IuUn+uonhKIEOYOihwGBuVMIA3KV bdsw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id t20mr15273931vcv.12.1341613001688; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 15:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 00:16:41 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt> (Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page) to Informational RFC
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <>
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: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:16:25 -0000

Hi John,

Let's wait for the iesg and I trust they will find the solution after
they read our comments. I beleive that your comments are sound, and
will be taken by the iesg. If things turn against your suggestions
there are some procedure-options to go forward, but I don't think will
be in that direction.


On 7/6/12, John C Klensin <> wrote:
> --On Friday, July 06, 2012 07:16 +0200 Abdussalam Baryun
> <> wrote:
>> +1
>> I support all your suggestions (i.e. point 1 and 2, and nits i
>> and ii ) , and hope that iesg, and editor agrees, and that the
>> community considers them for progress. I seen the change in the
>> draft-document-03 which I think getting better but still not
>> satisfied
>> The new vesion 3 draft (dated 5 July) does not include all your
>> suggestion, please read and comment on draft-03 (the subject
>> refers to draft-02, did you read draft-03?).
> Abdussalam,
> Paul's note about draft 03 indicates that he posted it partially
> in response to my comments.  Those comments were based on 02.
> >From my point of view, there is always a question about how much
> energy a document like this is worth: it is not normative or
> authoritative and, while I'd prefer to see it done differently
> (and said so in a follow-up note after skimming -03), I've got
> other IETF work to do and would prefer to see Paul and the IESG
> working on the Tao text itself rather than fine-tuning this
> document.
> I personally believe that the document could be further improved
> by moving it toward my earlier suggestions.   I believe that
> more "what is this about" text belong in the Abstract and, in
> particular, that the relationship of the Tao (whether as an RFC
> or as a web page) deserves more explicit treatment than the
> second sentence of the Introduction.  And I believe that forcing
> another RFC if details of the revision process are changed is a
> bad idea and so think that Section 2 (of -03) should talk about
> an initial procedure and/or in much more general terms but
> should then push details and changes off to the Tao itself
> (perhaps as an appendix).  Ultimately, if we cannot trust the
> IESG and the Editor to be careful and sensible about this
> document, we are going to have problems that fine-tuning the RFC
> text can't prevent.
> But, if Paul and the IESG don't agree, I'm not convinced the
> subject justifies a lot more energy.
> best,
>    john