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

Paul Hoffman <> Wed, 20 June 2012 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A1521F86EC for <>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iXdAdfwPkw7Z for <>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558AF21F86E4 for <>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5KGPUrr041672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:25:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Subject: Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:25:30 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: SM <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
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 16:25:36 -0000

On Jun 20, 2012, at 8:39 AM, SM wrote:

> RFC 4844 discusses about RFC Series and the streams used by the various communities to publish a RFC.  One of those streams is for IETF Documents.  In the I-D being discussed, the document will be published on a web page.  The IESG will choose Paul Hoffman as the editor.  I gather that those details are not a problem.

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.

> draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02 mentions that the changes will be discussed on an open, Tao-specific mailing list.  The second paragraph of Section 2 and the third paragraph are not so clear about changes, i.e. the editor accepts proposed changes and the IESG accepts proposed changes.  

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

> BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete.

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.

--Paul Hoffman