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

SM <> Wed, 20 June 2012 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3894821F8644 for <>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.558
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KE-WVUZwVBfn for <>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284C421F8643 for <>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5KJBaT1003603; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1340219542;; bh=ri4fAXsXaW8cWfPgZubDig1TSr/nOndI0Cspozb8OcE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=UYOLrkV6ZTgVN2fjNAz3NGvA1dLr6jhAkbtxDQdYU/cEOL9YF+zWXpxmZZ+PqyDFT GBHlqDm6GuXDEe7U90wGrwej7WhuMtx3nrfXJyt3WD09nK1w2Obs2sxsquwvyA8Nct sM2OR3d6JE09O6NDuXj7qhSKkNSoZEREMKKIWqF4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1340219542;; bh=ri4fAXsXaW8cWfPgZubDig1TSr/nOndI0Cspozb8OcE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=DfsxSXuqtMlrbiFqgqbCY2kefsmHyVX0rEOWtJ1+0MbJOM8Qb4yDmRpxridz2mwi9 1+HTD0BsLXeqJ2FkLuh/kslXeBWo4h7kxKsPzLGnPUSWilK9FJQXqZYtAtVH0Er3si a84PrkSbyW0SNZpo5cgTDOUUR5CYoE30qL+57uzY=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:02:08 -0700
To: Paul Hoffman <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
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: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:12:28 -0000

Hi Paul,
At 09:25 20-06-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>Errr, maybe. The IESG could easily choose someone else; many 
>individuals in this community would be fine at being the Tao editor. 
>Remember, I was the third editor of the document.

Yes. :-)

>Can you say what was "not so clear"? I absolutely want that bit to 
>be clear. Proposed text is appreciated here.

I would not put too many administrative details in a RFC as it will 
be read literally.  Here's  some suggested text which I'll leave to 
author discretion:

    The Tao will be edited by one person who is chosen by the IESG.
    The changes can be discussed on the mailing list.
    The editor submits the revised version of the Tao to the IESG for approval.
    The revised version is published by the IETF Secretariat at

What was not clear is the how changes make it into the 
document.  Instead of using two steps, you could keep the URL above 
as the stable one and use your discretion for the editing part.  I 
removed the tao-possible-revision.html as "we" do not want to see a 
RFP where the IETF gets billed for such work. :-)   The editor can 
work out some details such as automatically picking changes from SVN 
and pushing it to some work-in-progress web page with the IETF 
Secretariat.  I did not mention "community" in the above.  Feel free 
to add that.  There is some overhead in the above.  As people will 
probably get bored after a while, it should be less work.

>Earlier versions of the Tao were made obsolete, not moved to 
>Historic, so I thought it was most appropriate to do that here as 
>well. FWIW, the definition of "Historic" in RFC 2026 is for 
>specifications, not descriptive documents like the Tao.

RFC 2026 is the alternate reality of the IETF.  It's convenient to 
cite it every now and then.  If the IESG asks, you could tell it that 
the information in FYI 17 is simply and obviously obsolete and fits 
its published "statement" for Historic.  I take it that nobody would 
refer anyone to RFC 4677 except for historical reasons.

I'll +0 the draft to avoid changing the state of consensus.