Re: [tao-discuss] [Gendispatch] Requests for IETF 114

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 11:35 AM, Rich Salz <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >For the general "how to participate" and "general IETF web page that can
> be revised as freely as ekr suggests", we already have these — they are the
> "general IETF web page that can be revised as freely as ekr suggests" :-)
>
>
>
> Then what is the purpose of a Tao RFC? We already have BCP 9 and RFC
> 2028bis. Based on the activity around the currently-suggested Tao revision,
> attempts to “summarize” those will fail because someone’s important point
> has been omitted.
>


To my view, the documents that make up the BCP9 set (and RFC 2028bis)
describe the processes that we use - they describe the *how* of what the
IETF does.

The Tao, on the other hand, sets the stage on the culture, and more of the
"why". There is a reasonable amount of overlap on many topics, but things
like the description of the bits fit together in the Tao (
https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/#2-2) is much more approachable
than that in 2028/2026++. The descriptions of the areas in the Tao
("Applications and Real-Time Area - Protocols seen by user programs, such
as email and the web and delay-sensitive interpersonal communications" is
clearly not very precise, but makes much more sense to someone trying to
understand the org than other documents.  BCP9 et al are written for IETF
participants, the Tao covers these sorts of things for people who might
become IETF participants.


The Tao contains useful information about things like dots (
https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/#3-6) history (Humble Beginnings
<https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/#2-1>), how to participate,
including "Letting Go Gracefully", "Getting Things Done in a Working
Group",  what to expect when attending a meeting ("Dress Code", "Meals and
Other Delights", etc). For many of these, I'm sure that the counter would
be "Well, that could also be on the website" — yes, it can, and should be….
but, having a "foundational" document that we "all" have reviewed and which
has the consensus view is (to my mind at least) important — it's all in one
place, it (hopefully!) isn't too long, it's an overarching summary. Also,
the main way that the IETF publishes out output is through RFCs - it
"feels" right to me that we should be able to publish our "this is our
foundation" for newcomers in the same way.

>From participating in NOGs,  dayjobs, random evangelizing of the IETF in
various venues I have often pointed people at the Tao (a quick search
through my email show at least 34 times) - it's much much easier to say "We
have this document <link> which describes the organization and is a
friendly overview" versus "Meh, there is a massive trove of stuff on
<website> and the formal definitions of process are in these hard to read
formal documents".

It is entirely possible that I'm irrationally attached to the Tao; I care
about tradition and feel that we run the risk of losing our way if we don't
forget where we came from, and so some of this may be "Damn kids, git off
mah lawn!" / "Old man shouts at cloud" driven.

W