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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 09-Jun-22 09:08, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>     That is a key point and is behind the disagreement about whether we need a separate Tao-like document as well as carefully designed web pages and "journeys". But the downside of having both is that we risk ending up with *four* versions of the truth about IETF procedures:
> 
> I assume you meant nothing denigrating by putting journeys in quotes.

No, but IMHO it isn't a universally recognised term of art.
  
> Given that we have the historical Tao RFCs, and we could publish the final approved version as an RFC if we wanted to, what is the point of having another source of truth that would need to be kept current?  That is *not* a rhetorical question.

Well, no, and it goes to the heart of using the RFC series both as an archive and as a living series. If we still had the FYI series and the Tao had an FYI number, we'd know how to cite the latest version. As it is, we don't, and I suppose the intent of RFC6722 was to solve that problem.

However, the point (I think) would be that some people prefer a stable document as their way to look stuff up, rather than web pages that might not even exist the next time they needed them.

Would it work for you if https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/ consisted essentially of a *maintained* list of pointers to pages covering its main topics? Not a journey, but a stable index.

    Brian