RE: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Tony,

Is there a need to draw a line (over which we will, no doubt, manage to fight in
the future)?

Can we not just say that updates will be batched and approved "in a timely
fashion", and know that updates will receive as much review and discussion as
the community thinks they merit?

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tony
> Hansen
> Sent: 11 June 2012 17:05
> To: IETF
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt
> 
> I'm wondering if there needs to be a distinction between "minor updates"
> and "major updates". Minor updates would be the typo variety or a URL
> change and wouldn't require much review at all. Major updates would
> require non-trivial review.
> 
>      Tony Hansen
> 
> On 6/11/2012 11:43 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> > Paul and Brian:
> >
> >>>> Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that
> >>>> the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG
> >>>> (in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF
> >>>> consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls) and subject
> >>>> to appeal like anything else. This is so obvious in the IETF
> >>>> context that I didn't even notice that it wasn't stated.
> >>> It is not what was intended.
> >>>
> >>> - There was no mention to me of "ad hoc last calls", so I did not include
them
> in the draft.
> >> Well, that was presumably an oversight. The IETF always works by
> >> a consensus process, afaik.
> > The IESG thinking on this is in line with Brian's thinking.  In the past,
the Tao has
> been published as an informational RFC.  The approval process included
> community comment and IESG evaluation.  A parallel approval process ought to
> be used here.
> >
> > Let's use of a well-known URL for the current approved Tao and a well-known
> URL for the draft of the Tao that is under consideration.  This will
facilitate review
> of updates.
> >
> >>> - Is there an appeals process for the content of the various web pages
> created by the IESG?
> >> Yes. For many years there has been a presumption that the appeals
> >> process in section 6.5 of RFC 2026 can be applied to *any* IESG action.
> >> That being so, I suppose it isn't vital to write it down in every
> >> document, but it makes things clearer.
> > Indeed.  Any decision by the IESG is subject to the existing appeals
process.
> >
> > Russ
> >