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

Abdussalam Baryun <> Wed, 20 June 2012 10:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E4721F8738; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8vjhZpwM9Ycu; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9955421F861C; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so4263769vcq.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wpPSoaOiu4cIZDZbRgBku7E2hiTQEJlg+cs/x/ewn7U=; b=WCToj5D4uN+OhVhJjYZMjY9fd9JJY2sYWUH58Pjx+Cuvm3DeZf6FnRq0HpEWNIpER1 lmG2UOBPAhBXD0EaYypn+fNNXmM0EgZxzox20FNOFI5caovyyqdHZ7yx1Gsbw3FD5sN1 0J+DQ5f01iD63lxRYdbFNS+kWH3U5aTo/7i+13JkL//ofs+ngtG95x9b9OElfpcyM2uJ JXlmGfXnq5QWx1wlRDBEB3YWz7xVdrOcoq71/qqmMEGXZ+iIAFsytlpZnQYnysR2mxLv fIk8+0rvKfVNlOpKCbD5LMPVz8GCbk1iT9ec2alcZVThstbAL9IxU/zABjR0yBzPqhHu hjkg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id eu4mr9220262vdb.66.1340189496993; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:51:36 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Paul Hoffman <>, "" <>
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 10:51:38 -0000

I got a request to clarify (language and reference) my message:

> Conflict process if we consider the I-D process as a IETF process. It
> is not consistent with the IETF procedures. It can be consistent if
> the IESG amend the I-D submission-process or take my suggestions.

 I refere to the IETF process of: preparing the I-D by WG,
Community-accepting, Submitting, and IESG-approval. The new
Tao-update-process of the draft is not including the community. The
IETF process in draft is as : individual preparing, individual submit
to Editor, Editor decides and accepts, Editor submitting, and

The above are two different IETF submission streams, which may be
consistent if we include *the community* in accepting submission to


RFC4844>section 4.1.3>

4.1.3. Process Change
>From time to time, it may be necessary to change the approval
processes for any given stream, or even add or remove streams. This
may occur when the RFC Editor, the IAB, the body responsible for a
given stream of documents, or the community determines that there are
issues to be resolved in general for RFC approval or for per-stream
approval processes.
In this framework, the general approach is that the IAB will work
with the RFC Editor and other parties to get community input and it
will verify that any changes appropriately account for community

RFC4844>section 5>
The subsections below identify the streams that exist today. There
is no immediate expectation of new streams being created and it is
preferable that new streams NOT be created. Creation of streams and
all policies surrounding general changes to the RFC Series are
discussed above in Section 4.

5.1. RFC Approval Processes
5.1.1. IETF Document Stream
5.1.2. IAB Document Stream
5.1.3. IRTF Document Stream
5.1.4. Independent Submission Stream


To understand IETF procedures of processes and document-streams I
refer you to sections 4 and 5 in [RFC4844], and section 4 in [RFC5378]
, may read also RFC5741, RFC5742, and FC2418.

However, if you still don't understand my language or if I
misunderstood, please advise/comment :)



On 6/19/12, Abdussalam Baryun <> wrote:
> Hi Melinda, and All,
>>This is consistent with how individual, non-WG documents are
>>progressed in the IETF.  I don't see a conflict or discontinuity.
> Conflict process if we consider the I-D process as a IETF process. It
> is not consistent with the IETF procedures. It can be consistent if
> the IESG amend the I-D submission-process or take my suggestions.
> Yes I agree that non-WGs documents take different submission stream
> than IETF-WGs documents. One is named non-IETF submission and the
> other IETF submission streams (two only streams so far). In the I-D we
> are discussing of [publishing the Tao of the IETF], the submission
> stream was not refered to which of two submission streams. It is most
> likely understood as a new second IETF submission stream (I may name
> it IETF-Tao stream), because this I-D affect the community (it must be
> a group production not an individual production).
> Please note that:
> 1) The subject I-D obsoletes RFC4677 if approved. The RFC4677 is a
> IETF WG's procedure overview.
> 2) RFC4677 is not a formal IETF process document but instead an
> informational overview.
> The IETF procedures are only done in the IETF WGs or IETF community,
> how can an individual decide for the community!!! That is why we are
> discussing it in a IETF-list, not in a non-WG-list.
> AB
> ====================
> On 6/17/12, Abdussalam Baryun <> wrote:
>> The abstract mentions 'many people',  because many people may mean 4 to
>> 10
>> people. The annonced I-D lacks the method of discussion in the community
>> (discussing such change), the draft mentions the input from any community
>> individual to be accepted by editor and then approved by IESG, but does
>> not
>> mention the methodology of discussion between community members nor
>> between
>> editor and members, also no announcements of such updates mentioned in
>> draft.
>> suggest> amend in abstract the word 'many' to the word  'some', or
>> mention
>> like in the introduction the desire of community.
>> suggest> to add> to the draft that a discussion group to discuss
>> inputs/suggestions before the editors undertakes changes. The draft to
>> specify the discussion ( may be either on-List or during the IETF
>> meetings). I prefer to mention; the face-to-face IETF meeting discussion
>> in
>> this procedure issue.
>> suggest> to add>  the announcement for last call of Tao changes by the
>> IESG,
>> suggest> replace in section2> line 7> The editor of the Tao decides which
>> proposed changes should be submitted to the IESG for the next version of
>> the Tao.
>>      replace with> The editor of the Tao decides which proposed changes
>> should be
>>                           submitted to the IESG for the next version of
>> the
>> Tao after
>>                           the community discussed the changes.
>> suggest> A time period of updates to be made, and input from the
>> community
>> to be collected, and editor to submit to IESG. It will be helpful also to
>> AB
>> ==============
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, The IESG <>
>> 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
>>> mailing lists by 2012-07-13. Exceptionally, comments may
>>> be
>>> sent to instead. In either case, please retain the
>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>> Abstract
>>>   Discussion of the "Tao of the IETF" during 2012 made it clear that
>>>   many people want the document published only as a web page, not as an
>>>   RFC that needs to be periodically updated.  This document specifies
>>>   how the Tao will be published as a web page.
>>> The file can be obtained via
>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.