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

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Thu, 21 June 2012 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.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 F0A5621F859B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RNhCryr6nHmm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6130121F8599 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so266297vbb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=FZ/Y5W9qYQFQQwWfnapdnsDNe3DEjiVBByIWwmPDudg=; b=AQG5VugRebKLem+TepK3EwKlfhNPpO3IyscO2uP/fO0U576nOzErj6qYLefD8zff/P cjV0mknwel88BjnQCrkPp2gepQumd56t0n6ZlqpP7A3o0uk+0A14URY/JIVd845rNQRg YPIofhGxX1cUnux38ajAtjp3CYm2/B5P5o3rqCjJnbO5SmI1/2tu+9c8lNG6vb37itQt vgcriy3GhTPOHrAd8ylYbhdsBqS81lxTpkwLQwQlTxbPFMrVa3IMo7MthU395/1RgTNe Ks3yfspmaMgPLSwi3RF8xx5FRVgXjDdzYMvVnlYmJboY6LNrES1YAIxd8+H4FwLu7RrI 7u2w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.149.15 with SMTP id r15mr13416031vcv.1.1340274893561; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.211.72 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8-kndVu9=4hG=hKPuTu960gEorac2w5gO6XJaL96gGrJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADnDZ89XGzmqRTL61rc9MSYRJCjs3BgwSDcM=J+_sKvoR1muEw@mail.gmail.com> <CADnDZ88jqzUpFwkyr9rtGQsoq3fNea_j-g2wpfz2081VrUakZg@mail.gmail.com> <CADnDZ89fxJo_YbVMrVr+-Q_-nF72W9iG9vZapZNV+1O0gckpow@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120620072437.0ad66a00@resistor.net> <CADnDZ8-kndVu9=4hG=hKPuTu960gEorac2w5gO6XJaL96gGrJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:34:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8-01L10ywMfW=2N90AnQRv2U3Vhp=qgJtpRL5KAgC=8XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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, 21 Jun 2012 10:34:55 -0000

Hi All

Discussing the draft <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02>

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

-Why the document/draft does not mention/reference other descriptive
related works?

-Why the document/draft obsoletes RFC4677, is there a big reason?

-Why is the document/draft not clear of its aim, objectives,
sub-process-periods, and update-announcement-procedure?

In the introduction>
[This document contains the procedure agreed to by the IESG. The Tao
has traditionally been an IETF consensus document,..]
-Why the document/draft in section 2 does not mention consesus while
mentioned in introduction.

-Why the document/draft does not include section about the Tao-list
and this discussion method and purposes.

-Why the document/draft has one section after the introduction,
avoiding important sections like in RFC2418 (WG procedures) or as:
       a) Roles of Tao-webpage update.
       b) Roles of Individual submission to Editor.
       c) The community input to the webpage.
       d) What is the Editor criteria of accepting and refusing such updates.

>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.

Yes the early versions were obsoleted by a new RFC, not obsoleted by
RFC-that-references-webpage. I am not against the webpage, but against
to obsolete RFC4677. There should be a way to make one Tao RFC alive
while having the webpage. Maybe this I-D can update RFC4677 to add the
possibility of both RFC and webpage.

>I'll +0 the draft to avoid changing the state of consensus.

I agree and want the *consesus* and *community* input to be clear in the draft

I hope my message language is good/ok to understand, if not please
advise and I will send another clarification,

Regards
AB
==================================================