Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the IETF" published
Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net> Fri, 09 September 2022 17:48 UTC
Return-Path: <mail@nielstenoever.net>
X-Original-To: tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A25C15271D for <tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FoKUXZF__PRK for <tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB4AEC1527A0 for <tao-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <85c844e3-f5f1-6851-e4d6-f57e837fe159@joelhalpern.com>
References: <64E2EB34-AD95-479D-BCE8-998967380C04@ietf.org> <85c844e3-f5f1-6851-e4d6-f57e837fe159@joelhalpern.com>
X-Referenced-Uid: 45683
Thread-Topic: Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the IETF" published
User-Agent: Android
X-Is-Generated-Message-Id: true
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----ZPCH7V4OCB9PD90HLQSOAJBZTE4P9P"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2022 19:48:39 +0200
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
CC: tao-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <5ea192bf-b64c-47bb-b98b-d7474619a569@nielstenoever.net>
X-Authenticated-As-Hash: f1842a279235a42f6aa2a2a81130733515c5a4ec
X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.greenhost.nl
X-Scan-Signature: b3afa36468376ddabc7954bcace4fe00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tao-discuss/7P9M5C1uqOdrlvQ5K7dMMy_xubU>
Subject: Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the IETF" published
X-BeenThere: tao-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the Tao of the IETF <tao-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tao-discuss>, <mailto:tao-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tao-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tao-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tao-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss>, <mailto:tao-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2022 17:48:56 -0000
Hi Joel, Is it not the case that the IESG also reviews the other stream RFCs to ensure that there is no overlap? I thought that is how it is described in several process documents, at least I case for IRTF RFCs, but i think also for IS. But then of course theory and practice might vary. Best, Niels On 9 Sep 2022, 18:46, at 18:46, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: >I do not want to be too picky. I understand that it is impossible to >get the wording of the Tao perfect. And I understand that it does not >need to be precise or complete in describing our process. (If it were, > >it would likely be unreadable.) > >However, in the section describing the IESG processing of RFCs, I see >that the text claims that the IESG reviews EACH (emphasis added) drafts > >that are becoming RFCs. And the text as written implies that in all >cases those reviews result in ballots with the described positions. >However, that is not the case, IRTF drafts and Independent Stream >drafts do not get that treatment. When we next edit this, could we >change that slightly? > >Maybe make it "each IETF produced RFC"? Or at the section that says >"As >part of the document reviews" make that "For IETF produced RFCs, as >part >of the document reviews"? (I would have used "stream" rather than >"produced" but I think that might be confusing for newcomers as they >often are not familiar with RFC streams.) > >Yours, > >Joel > >On 9/9/2022 10:27 AM, IETF Chair wrote: >> [Forwarding this on behalf of the Tao editors - Lars] >> >> Dear all, >> >> I am very happy to announce the new version of the Tao of the IETF >[0]. >> >> This version significantly benefited from suggestions and >contributions by the community, most notably from Rich Salz, for which >I as editor am very thankful. >> >> This publication would also not have been possible without the >support of Greg Wood and the review of the IESG. >> >> The IESG requested for future iterations to have smaller changes, so >I intend to increase the publication pace. However, this also depends >on the discussion about the future of the Tao. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> Editor of the Tao >> >> PS New suggestions are of course always welcome on tao-discuss and on >Github as PR (https://github.com/ietf/tao/blob/main/Tao.md) >> >> [0] https://ietf.org/tao >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list >> IETF-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > >_______________________________________________ >tao-discuss mailing list >tao-discuss@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss
- Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the … Joel Halpern
- Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the … Niels ten Oever
- Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the … Joel Halpern
- Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the … Niels ten Oever
- Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the … Niels ten Oever
- Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the … Joel Halpern
- Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the … Niels ten Oever
- Re: [tao-discuss] New version of the "Tao of the … Brian E Carpenter