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 <[e-mail]>]

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.

AB

On 7/6/12, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> --On Friday, July 06, 2012 07:16 +0200 Abdussalam Baryun
> <[e-mail]> 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?).
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-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
>
>