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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 06 July 2012 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 76E6A21F8701 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 04:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 0uBKHbIjAqqy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 04:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CF021F8739 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 04:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Sn6G7-0009Ff-RB; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:59:35 -0400
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 07:04:31 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.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
Message-ID: <25428E776486D6F2DF98C25B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FF66982.70308@att.com>
References: <20120615202915.11032.53296.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6F9AF4A4C9466A87A81F1823@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <F404FCF4-3E55-4F5B-A17C-B6D85C84824C@vpnc.org> <4FF60B17.1060600@att.com> <CAFCD98A-246D-482C-B8CD-6875D49ED94F@vpnc.org> <4FF659F0.1020104@att.com> <9DF09405CDDF0E625FA03977@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <4FF66982.70308@att.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ietf@ietf.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 11:04:36 -0000

--On Friday, July 06, 2012 00:28 -0400 Tony Hansen
<tony@att.com> wrote:

> Authoritative, no. But definitely referenced by many, many
> people and IMO worthy of a certain amount of care.

No disagreement about care.  But it seems to me that adequate
care requires keeping track of a future version, a current
version, and a previous version (or maybe two).   The ability to
easily find and trace back through the entire history of the
document seems appropriate for something normative but well
beyond what is required for reasonable care with a document like
this.

Just my opinion, however.  I have trouble convincing myself that
the issue is really important enough to hold things up.

    john