Re: [tao-discuss] Revising RFC6722? (was Re: Review Request for Possible Revision of the Tao of the IETF)
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 21 April 2022 02:56 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 0E2ED3A0BB5; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QYQRkRROEcF0; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B3A03A0B8F; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id t4so3502577pgc.1; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kYlo42KtPzkBF9aGlZfaebcwgnCpEdRUH/NGe/mry5I=; b=lyEdM3ZbjzGFfoX9FM+CwLaFiGCYxDRDTZMikWgCtZIVjGitE4i3L19TM2capzNLtH Emz40SuHsvo8gTgznqYBT+7y5qqcd01K1pJpoS10cG1vKg4M9UpuW1I8NnzlO04vCRYs wb7aqKRje85tDh9quxxbhomNsHYt4MBTLU84jjC4l1OqtM/8PoH/P8TtOZj36AHVLCBn wsLv0En8ojulZ+l1uN5UyN0jr2gMNw/DHMzAz6Obiv/i4mEAGbj7yNw4GvAfL+UTklDf DW/B3w7X0w9ENbmRP7IYea0jLrzshHYfgrCPyRqNnaGRQ2b4m9RJ2q/rwQzX07t0MGcD 4WSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kYlo42KtPzkBF9aGlZfaebcwgnCpEdRUH/NGe/mry5I=; b=xw4hhVClSHY3a4KT6mf+7bd2lWVgAt+WKwz4Fd7NI314n2WypOS5jS8NOiGLbPqYHJ 7Qcnlqtanui+FgMh4VCMLAPg+IvDIqUN2f2SW5br7Kw5gGbF+ZkCXbLCxKqasakJEocW s+y6EmcQX9VbX/em0T3V04xqoqLJLpdstg5sVQEOtqOzsZkEbQzcyyagaQfMeJveDsAA 1rzqUN9Vu8j7NUCyESHNwoKUuzJo3uyezWrxzABN0PG14z7f0X8qWZmux1SoLQElpak8 6VUhFGKTPtW3AoZ7TmliNTxqNzM/YUdYts9//GWixtH2pS60TUrutfDCOHR21KOib6jX 2IIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532RIWm3tJ3dwB95iWUyaxcS+kF9jhjB/8t1M9O3q9q2HWZEpOKr xXLpUxNIuSDMAMkACpzryTceIjKYig5JFIkH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzwhF7/tRAYMa9IzGrtyiI++jffDOYtCrYf39zKQKvJbgmM9QAJKkcsrQUCECaxajSvwVf7A==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:fd53:0:b0:386:66d:b40c with SMTP id m19-20020a63fd53000000b00386066db40cmr21847109pgj.266.1650509808780; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.248.23.127] ([125.168.223.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lp5-20020a17090b4a8500b001cb978f906esm599841pjb.0.2022.04.20.19.56.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tao-discuss@ietf.org" <tao-discuss@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>
References: <905c834c-30d7-ede7-6ea1-a5b200a249d7@nielstenoever.net> <0192FFCD-2410-415B-90B2-248F2823CC97@eggert.org> <D6FFB194-FBC9-4AC1-B29F-B00A9A3C2E3E@akamai.com> <C41F2B92-1216-4A2F-99D8-611D0457AE97@eggert.org> <D91F9FE6-4641-4C7D-92A7-CE6F57AD00FC@akamai.com> <fb4d1b71-a13c-b98d-be48-cd2d4007a909@gmail.com> <3cd4806d-cbf9-e78d-4709-d9fb98ce1ed2@gmail.com> <5097E7DA-82F7-4DCA-B24A-9815625E417E@eggert.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <817a03aa-aea7-3bea-3abe-7840d10de444@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:56:40 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5097E7DA-82F7-4DCA-B24A-9815625E417E@eggert.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tao-discuss/7TrT9KqgWYYC1JV8mbu8ioZ_StM>
Subject: Re: [tao-discuss] Revising RFC6722? (was Re: Review Request for Possible Revision of the Tao of the IETF)
X-BeenThere: tao-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 02:56:52 -0000
On 08-Apr-22 20:21, Lars Eggert wrote: > Hi, > > On 2022-4-7, at 23:50, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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. Yes, I agree. And (especially given the proposal to split the Tao into bite-sized pieces, which seems reasonable) we might want to generalize this to cover all the "general information" content on the web site. I don't at all think we should take the responsibility for the web site content away from the LLC + EMO + IESG, but just have a principle that non-trivial changes should be given some sort of community review. > (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. It wasn't a success in terms of having the Tao revised more often, and the result is that we now have a major revision that calls for a lot of effort to review. I'm not pointing any fingers, simply observing what happened. Rgds Brian > > Thanks, > Lars >
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Lars Eggert
- [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Revisio… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Salz, Rich
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Lars Eggert
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Salz, Rich
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Salz, Rich
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Brian E Carpenter
- [tao-discuss] Revising RFC6722? (was Re: Review R… Lars Eggert
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Salz, Rich
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Warren Kumari
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Salz, Rich
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Lars Eggert
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Salz, Rich
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Jay Daley
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Salz, Rich
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Greg Wood
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tao-discuss] Revising RFC6722? (was Re: Revi… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tao-discuss] Revising RFC6722? (was Re: Revi… Salz, Rich
- Re: [tao-discuss] Revising RFC6722? (was Re: Revi… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tao-discuss] Revising RFC6722? (was Re: Revi… Salz, Rich
- Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Rev… Lars Eggert