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

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

That’s a rendering decision, not a content decision.

I’m pretty sure most of us point any newcomers to the Tao.  

I do that because I think it represents the consensus (key word) of who we are and how we work.  I do not trust a website content creator to get that right.  And I’d prefer not to have to trust a self-selected group (a work group) to get that right without review.  It’s a small stretch to say the IESG has to review and approve, but I think that just using the RFC process is the best way forward.  

Once we have the consensus on the words, you can render them in some pleasing way on the website.

Brian


> On Jun 3, 2022, at 11:43 AM, Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>>  Dunno, ISTM that the simplest, most straightforward solution is just make the TAO an RFC again.
>> 
>> I very strongly believe that this misses the point.  "It is not a formal IETF process document but instead an informational overview."
> 
>>  That seems to be a distinction without a difference, because, I think, it ought to get an IETF-wide review, and, I think, the IESG should review it.
> 
> You are comparing "Tao as RFC" with "Tao under the current process (RFC 6722)" and I mostly agree that there is no effective difference between those two.  The proper evolution of 6722 is to just make it a web page, developed by professionals. 
>