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

Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net> Wed, 08 June 2022 06:12 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 77CB9C15D89F for <tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 23:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.783
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.783 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, 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 AqSCRvpm7Jvw for <tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 23:12:27 -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 34CC3C15D89E for <tao-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 23:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f02f98af-0b23-2e4b-4ffb-d93f14588e0a@nielstenoever.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 08:12:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: tao-discuss@ietf.org
References: <CAC9wnY-03+ToGL4KjjRaXBquxV2DeBaax67bxJB9qZEj=PSELg@mail.gmail.com> <48a0df92-497a-6747-a8e6-ba93abc7f3d8@joelhalpern.com> <1A1A07E4-A8A9-4D44-AC61-8CAE9B4D6DAC@akamai.com> <68405df2-2808-8739-9c7f-4fc04744f594@joelhalpern.com> <A68A6825-685F-40D6-8978-E853A62A5631@akamai.com> <e321e11e-a70f-e50c-c014-0891708c867a@joelhalpern.com> <145A06D8-7927-44C1-95B6-625529C91DDD@akamai.com> <CABcZeBMH32C2ogd8+hLt_6PEqVxSJV0tBAVygswLtSKhvpVs+Q@mail.gmail.com> <9a29ffe1-c78e-77ad-86ce-661265e5d2df@joelhalpern.com> <A9BAD84B-9228-494B-A988-8665768061B0@akamai.com> <340d6b2a-6cd2-ccdd-6d0b-a2a9ac44e7d8@gmail.com> <CABcZeBN_ATZbA+txPFH3F6OyTpn1WEZ3kC1hBvcvHoShFNibSw@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sw8aMA68Pp5UJ2VDtFzsZ+WDJ2yOXFNgi=1qrEL4FtFMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iKOAkj1TAZ0fvDKi_x1gNs7jPBgt--_ZR99NLc-tUXOUw@mail.gmail.com> <90f43001-461a-5eff-ccb5-59ac70ec71df@gmail.com> <CA77A52B-370B-4366-828E-0C57E6234259@akamai.com> <E095FA37-6C80-4014-865F-D09B9D784D3D@ietf.org>
From: Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>
In-Reply-To: <E095FA37-6C80-4014-865F-D09B9D784D3D@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Authenticated-As-Hash: f1842a279235a42f6aa2a2a81130733515c5a4ec
X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.greenhost.nl
X-Scan-Signature: dfea3049d3b923820beb462d65569822
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tao-discuss/LyuTckP4hsNRQxhZkOzMJb6fQyI>
Subject: Re: [tao-discuss] [Gendispatch] Requests for IETF 114
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: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 06:12:31 -0000

On 07-06-2022 13:04, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> The problems I have with it though are not minor. The name itself, ’Tao’, is a reference too far. Sure some of use have read "The Tao of Pooh" and get the allusion but for most people, it goes straight over their heads
> 

I agree with this point. The name 'Tao' is neither funny nor helping people understand what the document is about.

> More importantly though, I sincerely doubt that it is of any practical use to its intended audience - it’s far too sprawling, detailed and full of rules to be of use to a newcomer. To be quite candid, every time someone recommends to a newcomer that they read the Tao, I cringe. What it does do is provide a useful reference for long-term participants (where else are the dot colours documented) but that’s not the intended audience. It’s become more a series of authoritative statements that can be referenced/found individually than a flowing document.
> 

I think there is place for a 'Tao'-like document - if only for referencing by newcomers.

I don't see why an RFC'ed Tao, a good website, and video content could not all live side-by-side. We don't need to have one learning path for all newcomers, people consume knowledge in different ways.

Therefore I agree to obsolete RFC6722.

Best,

Niels

-- 
Niels ten Oever, PhD
Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of Amsterdam
Affiliated Faculty - Digital Democracy Institute - Simon Fraser University
Non-Resident Fellow 2022-2023 - Center for Democracy & Technology
Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas
Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina

Vice chair - Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)

W: https://nielstenoever.net
E: mail@nielstenoever.net
T: @nielstenoever
P/S/WA: +31629051853
PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

Read my latest article on Internet infrastructure governance in Globalizations here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2021.1953221