Re: Making the Tao a web page

Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> Mon, 04 June 2012 03:49 UTC

Return-Path: <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
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 D84C221F881C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 t-pLaApXfU3r for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AFD321F87A9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E693A60003; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zdp709f6u3gu; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.6.75] (ip-64-134-67-225.public.wayport.net [64.134.67.225]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7086339E8006; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Making the Tao a web page
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
In-Reply-To: <35398D42C139212863F6D771@PST.JCK.COM>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:49:19 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <4D72EB63-90AB-4A01-989C-6C40B2453619@cs.ucla.edu>
References: <20120530225655.19475.74871.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CE474406564976FC0A885D95@PST.JCK.COM> <DAEDF66E-8FB3-4A00-846A-FECE181E2EC3@vpnc.org> <4FC7FF09.4020701@inex.ie> <98BC45C2-3C58-4DC6-89FA-766B426778BF@vpnc.org> <4FC8AFA9.1020200@inex.ie> <9C30E960-D656-4651-9AB6-9ECEE5196E3D@vigilsec.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120603145115.09cfc558@resistor.net> <35398D42C139212863F6D771@PST.JCK.COM>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, IETF <ietf@ietf.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: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 03:49:20 -0000

On Jun 3, 2012, at 6:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> ... I further guess that
> "on an ongoing basis" will be better for the document than
> getting a new snapshot out as an RFC and seeing how long it
> takes to get stale and how long after that it takes the
> community to notice. ...

I second the above statement
(my apology to John for quoting this single sentence out of his whole msg)

Lixia