[tao-discuss] Revising RFC6722? (was Re: Review Request for Possible Revision of the Tao of the IETF)

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2022-4-7, at 23:50, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> But I wasn't wrong. I think RFC6722 was very wrong not to require IETF
> review of updates to the Tao, especially for a massive update like this
> one. It's quite unreasonable to put that extra load on the IESG alone.
> RFC6722 being informational, it isn't a rule, so I urge the IESG to
> put this out for community review. That can only make it better.

if people think that RFC6722 should be revised, the other thing I find problematic about it is that Section 2 prescribes a certain detailed way in which proposed changes are supposed to be published, archived, etc. This might have made sense at publication time in 2012, but seems overly constraining now.

(I'll note that the current GitHub process for editing is more in line with one of the alternative approaches described in Section 3 than anything else.)

Given that RFC6722 is Informational, I'm not sure if it's worthwhile updating it. But someone who felt more strongly about it could prepare a bis document.

I think the main motivation behind RFC6722 was that Tao revisions were only very infrequently published, and a more lightweight process was desired. After ten years, we could certainly ask the question whether this process change was a success, and if not, what could be improved.

Thanks,
Lars