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> Thu, 05 July 2012 14:43 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 CD96A21F84C9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, 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 aM2PllOptIiL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66ACE21F8554 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:43:27 -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 1SmnCQ-0007Wm-Us for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:38:30 -0400
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:43:27 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
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: <6F9AF4A4C9466A87A81F1823@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120615202915.11032.53296.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20120615202915.11032.53296.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.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
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: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:43:29 -0000

--On Friday, June 15, 2012 13:29 -0700 The IESG
<iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:

> 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@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