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 <[e-mail]>]

--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