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 <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 06 July 2012 05:16 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B97821F87E4; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.464
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jFsyVLxbkmfX; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0095921F87E0; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so6446284vcq.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=YycPJoQrjLEA8iAGzexnxeHUbLPX3CHokplDnvM2/cE=; b=xf9v0ur7ilUB4SUH0Z4LWSXJSqTHSriDX2B97JZE9SpmDhSZzDNLzcPmxsGy7Pe82Q ANxCBlg/dk4V3ZFP2bTJQCQZqfvwJ+r8rStfnDfaGITmp0vGhBufLP3H/jtfh+QXbnGO XpM7aQ4VURhGr2nGsSFDAYQuO98eedKhaztLi8T8kCHQHFEH5YXRBNz7w9PpftwlAkTY +s+NGvLFHVYOeXHWKXPc5Q0AXz2t+7vGjBm3CnSVSo2gVVT1NKWtPDsELxqqp3BEjVB7 CIFMnuPTNGmE5VOimr+nC+owOjjI0sBu2nx4zrNjbdq5pui1YEaRTnNwRBr10X6tvAqK Hf/A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.90.144 with SMTP id bw16mr11551710vdb.129.1341551793022; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.110.130 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:16:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8-hoTgc=Q4AW0E7L+UeKqMQ0HVpW-6gDUzSkDNGLuieEA@mail.gmail.com>
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 <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: john-ietf@jck.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 05:16:19 -0000

+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

AB
=============================================
My previous input to the subject:
+++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73771.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73776.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73781.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73782.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73791.html
==============================================
>
>> 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 ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by
>> 2012-07-13.
>
> Hi.
>
> Just to make a pair of comments that I've sort of made in other
> contexts in the particular context of the Last Call.   I won't
> repeat the details.
>
> (1) As a general strategy, doing the Tao as a web page seems
> like exactly the right thing to do.  Some sort of staging
> process and opportunity for review of working drafts by the
> community as well as the IETF seems important.  As far as I can
> tell, the document covers that adequately although some details
> are not spelled out as well as some would perhaps prefer.
>
> (2) The document itself mixes a historical discussion of how
> things got to where they are with what is being done going
> forward.   I believe it would be desirable to more clearly
> separate that material, into either separate documents or into a
> brief core document that focuses of the three questions of "what
> is the Tao", "where can it be found", and "what is the revision/
> update procedure" and an appendix that includes whatever else is
> determined to be necessary.  In that regard, the abstract of the
> core (or only) document should not concentrate on when
> discussions occurred, etc., but simply on what the Tao is and
> why it might be useful.  Liberal borrowing from the abstract of
> RFC 4677 (or just copying it) would be, IMO, quite appropriate.
>
> This is less of a problem than it might otherwise be because the
> document is so short, but a document that obsoletes RFC 4677 and
> its predecessors should address the substances addressed by
> 4677, not serve as a historical summary of a few months of
> community discussion.
>
> Nits:
> (i) In recent years, the IESG has insisted on specific
> documentation when one RFC obsoletes another.  This draft does
> not mention the "obsoletes" relationship in the Abstract,
> Introduction, or any other prominent place.
>
> (ii) Second paragraph of current Introduction, first sentence,
> should contain "discussion that led..." rather than "discussion
> that lead...".  I believe that paragraph is part of the
> historical discussion that belongs somewhere else.
>
> thanks,
>    john
>