Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Revision of the Tao of the IETF
Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Fri, 08 April 2022 20:19 UTC
Return-Path: <warren@kumari.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 22E123A119A for <tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari.net
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 UOVRhwf57J65 for <tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x633.google.com (mail-ej1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::633]) (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 44DCD3A11A1 for <tao-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x633.google.com with SMTP id l7so14023993ejn.2 for <tao-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari.net; s=google; h=mime-version:from:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=euX3HcfcW68j7wtPlI21w6la3AFYbkvoO62EBaBCqp0=; b=VRuqpu64Az217hu/46nKP9Ee7MbzVqwPZZMWI+i81YNerJBo1x82v2zkWgQdyBlNS3 vwJ93+UEQ21AmsgHRCrX8YpXQ5OGWe7BPoZqpkYpixwvnLxD9lcH5b9Fndcg56yxYD5i w0aA8EpAlZSuz6o/GZRV9+25qo87MJ6O0HWofNQJlbA63HTcKkMxkqmnr4tcYuME4krx QTSYCJ/Tv7kIadZ3ipahd2DHoJj8PKds9GzR6rKKHeVX4qOWh3tI/gNu8ODMeDWdPpov VbzHZ5ihHMMeJCFyjBPH1lihXKOS9J9AtRhIV3vGLBm1JpFjTYUOtP/pLdZCi/n0gkRh fKeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=euX3HcfcW68j7wtPlI21w6la3AFYbkvoO62EBaBCqp0=; b=VLxfCbd+JDmuCvL2pHb5Fg+gXiqBBJivhbrtnrQZKL/Rqgw/clcZAuqLIVaw37RpT9 2FdSBzoZyRldfR06X93FeXVimvFohJ7az+iC7qMGMck2TQPeARGYQ7VPjq1Of+g+qBby 03JVTuRrJg7V8Mf3jT2vasjAHOK1FIeYi26GhveCyorFpGK5wZwWdigMHgQo5yF7kEkl kKpb0xbwuCFggasiYb2qP4h+b3hA/TfnwFP34fwnBfhrF6GmOeZV1jTq6hjiaf3TxEVp L+FERgxGMgl9Erb/PNZYLNh9cjf6mNeu2fdfwKrLPXMAE3bjWU2/UOVHc1aBTSrP4jrY TGFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53336a2ruVaXZBpxPSgXxJdfabuIY3pZnOD7bBvUdo63+wufCYsN sNK4H/AGCEjzIfJrwum/7GoHHBnzXoEIBpPwytHYbQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzoFNXJjqgtbmViE1pmLyH6BlZ/7jT0zvq+ERrzEOEiqJ9hvSdlShpx/Qt34pc98iLFp40mZmrSf/CJa11ZwGc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:dc8d:b0:6db:572b:df24 with SMTP id cs13-20020a170906dc8d00b006db572bdf24mr20114094ejc.193.1649449140936; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 649336022844 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:19:00 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
In-Reply-To: <3cd4806d-cbf9-e78d-4709-d9fb98ce1ed2@gmail.com>
X-Superhuman-ID: l1qvf1cw.d272ccac-79fd-483a-8292-4a1c842b399c
X-Superhuman-Draft-ID: draft0072c8579ec7c3f0
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>
X-Mailer: Superhuman Desktop (2022-04-07T22:13:15Z)
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:19:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iLYoxV+jyT6Kh3Gk2LXA5Q_9Mf9SVKyAfM7W-CjoUcj+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Rich Salz <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, tao-discuss@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001efc2205dc2a4ee4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tao-discuss/XU2gORnhqqJUFnuylHibTXL1SL4>
Subject: Re: [tao-discuss] 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 20:19:09 -0000
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 4:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I sent that message without proof-reading, so where I wrote: > > I urge the IETF, busy as you are, to take this review issue seriously. > > I meant: > > I urge the IESG, busy as you are, to take this review issue seriously. > > 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. > I'll note that, even if RFC6722 were a "Standards Track With A Cherry On The Top" document, what it says is: "The Tao has traditionally been an IETF consensus document, which means that the IESG has had the final say about what the Tao contained before it was sent to the RFC Editor. Thus, the IESG should have final say regarding what the Tao says when it is a web page." I read that as "it used to be a consensus document, and the IESG had final say. As a web-page the IESG still has final say", with an implication that the same sort of review would continue to be done. There is nothing that says that the IESG should do the review on our own, nor that we cannot or should not ask the community, just that the final say/approval is the responsibility of the IESG. When it used to be published as an IETF consensus document, the normal process would have been for the IESG to ask the community to review it (by doing a last-call). I don't think that we can use the current tooling to do a last-call of a web-page/site/something other than a draft, but it does seem like we should be able to do something close enough by sending mail — something like: --- The IESG has received a request from the editor of the Tao to consider the new version: <here> For background, RFC6722 - Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page ( https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6722.html) describes the process by when the Tao of the IETF is edited and published as a webpage. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-04-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. ---- Actually, I personally think that the Tao itself should be still published as an RFC, which can then be prettied up into "glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each" and posted on the website, but that's just my personal view - I don't really know the history behind RFC6722, and so I don't know why we moved away from that model. W > > Regards > Brian > On 08-Apr-22 08:36, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > On 08-Apr-22 07:52, Salz, Rich wrote: > > I would ask though that going forward, we find a way for the IESG to > review just the changes to the Tao again - that is how we usually evaluate > "bis" documents. ADs don't have much time, and reviewing a diff is much > faster than reviewing an entire document. > > FWIW, I recommend that going forward, the IESG doesn't review this > document, as it doesn't officially review the rest of the website either. > > And there's the bug. Not only the lack of IESG review, but also the lack > of community review, of our face presented to the world. > > Maybe it should be an EMODIR document. > > EMO does a great job. But that doesn't exempt their output from community > review. > > I urge the IETF, busy as you are, to take this review issue seriously. > > Brian > > Ah well, I'll have a 6722-bis to bring to DISPATCH for IETF 114. > > > _______________________________________________ > tao-discuss mailing list > tao-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss > > >
- 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