Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Revision of the Tao of the IETF
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 13 April 2022 21:09 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 C65033A0E64; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 aOj074C8VwCr; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) (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 1C61E3A0E62; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id v12so3000452plv.4; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:08:59 -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=lgQhsYI/gieFcTmM+ox6ChjIDOIMxvrOp/vdkaiEwR4=; b=nQKJjPZkkKHBxPuDIGz+q6ivokh5PdoLspUBj/ge0fWtLWwBgIjgZ2kl7xoGuLNywJ X7FsOM8ky6Ebq2qZ2q5Nf2z48htdF2fQRniHkE80s0WCPo+vxi/ZBJnTxPgjgYqktH5q 16OjWkt8FFkJo4MmpZsrU/h4dV4UOgbAuswXDFG1IZJuCULzH3VPGssf+3qx+kKI7yIC GXwNK7ZeYH7wRucSXlog1cnDNFDaHSRrG1S79bJxetVOxuLC7fw4qkibWCbN+2rK/kNt 7NcjcDROZs3ckbStKQ08stDpslP1Orpy486iE7Td04CTbaEbp9YgegayZ2ohhWsaJVnc h7Rw==
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=lgQhsYI/gieFcTmM+ox6ChjIDOIMxvrOp/vdkaiEwR4=; b=daG9bl9/KXzhtZaV9QoyAbpnOn0d2v6Q6jgK1cA8V90vYj+Ay1K/TUyBqheJA1gyQK gKXgFle9eNxsPT5mdp9wycqQmvxcfADr+8rkqSA+YeBaC9z8hW5rzFNl/g+33FvzttWm RHhz1BXEuLwdvPA/12kG6/d8LhTMJ54bBLXOuhIqgI0trat+idlEZ8auBCc9YREuOjlz 2O3LaEEqvHEMTNrqMX2Dcd6gmggNFJskQcK5hEjFwuYWqL1bxoQKCiXeONnE41dsRVIu HBgwdvlJ9g7WVSOh/4+JgsFgc9rNKZXwEXO8SPUyMXYT3hDGYKxfV/BBgc9USnpJoh5C mTJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+/n54YJMK3jMCJhRFcJ7iPduqIlYAVObWJOMuoXjxinGYXyds 1oHt7n3QVBt/UQuC5fkn51IgDYiT0Co0qA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJziWdIMZp4wAJC6v+OGUU04p/o1BslwWzskZLLFDJwdOq8zVMi0HQwhCQonfzZCSfZvcyvOkQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:41c9:b0:158:9990:a9fa with SMTP id u9-20020a17090341c900b001589990a9famr7075086ple.0.1649884137715; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1005:b501:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1005:b501:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k92-20020a17090a4ce500b001ca69b5c034sm3779411pjh.46.2022.04.13.14.08.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "tao-discuss@ietf.org" <tao-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <905c834c-30d7-ede7-6ea1-a5b200a249d7@nielstenoever.net> <45a73c1d-0564-10a6-4243-bf1a209da307@gmail.com> <0C41A5AD-CEFB-4A37-9229-64C03723193F@akamai.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c9679cee-afa4-f7d4-80a1-83e635d8ad26@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:08:52 +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: <0C41A5AD-CEFB-4A37-9229-64C03723193F@akamai.com>
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/_Ct_TOKh0hm--aSlSyv7HE4rQL8>
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: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:09:02 -0000
On 14-Apr-22 01:44, Salz, Rich wrote: >> Not having write access to the repo, it seems I can't issue a PR. > I have a branch and a PR ready to go, with a modest number of minor > fixes, if someone can authorize becarpenter. > > If that is necessary, it would have to be Neils or maybe Greg. I don't have any permissions. I don't think I was "added" to the repository, and I don't recall asking for permission to make a pull request. You sure? I'm sure of nothing when using gh, but GitHub Desktop on Windows told me I had to be authorized to publish a branch and issue a PR. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. > > > Marshall Rose once remarked that the IETF was a place to go for "many > > fine lunches and dinners". > >> This statement from the old Tao has disappeared. I think that's a shame, >> but to restore it, some explanation would have to be added. > > Are you sure about the reference? The only place I could dig up was a reference to Carl Maladum's travelogue. I was also told that it was about ITU/ISO meetings, as a pejorative comment that this was their main purpose. Perhaps it shows up in Marshall's "The Open Book" or n the "Beep" book, but I don't have those any more. Maybe someone else could check. I also think without context it makes no sense, and is an amusing (perhaps cynical) comment not appropriate for a newcomer's doc. I think the original citation is Marshall T. Rose., 1990, "The open book: a practical perspective on OSI", Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA. "A Goer attends meetings to deal with weighty political issues, travel, and have many fine lunches and dinners..." (Google found that; I don't have the book.) He was sneering at the difference between Goers and Doers, and I think it's never been quite rightly used in the Tao, even back to RFC1391. So let me rephrase my question: do we want to mention the difference between Goers and Doers? > >> > WG chairs are advised to participate in the WG chairs lunch mid-week... > >> That doesn't seem to be mentioned any more. Was that intentional? > > Yes, because WG chairs aren't newcomers. OK, makes sense. > >> > However, some WG chairs never manage to get their WG to finish,... > >> This topic seems to have vanished. Do we want to pretend it never > happens? > > What was the last time it happened, PKIX? I don't think it's needed in this informal introduction to the IETF and its processes. Not perhaps in those words, but perhaps what's really missing is a paragraph about the appeals process and when it might be reasonable to bypass the WG chairs and contact the AD. > >> > Some Working Groups have complex documents or a complex set of documents >> > (or even both)... > >> Ditto. But it leads to those terrible AUTH48 delays. Do we want to pretend > that never happens either? > > Longer documents take longer to prepare. Kinda obvious, no? To people with SDO experience, yes, but the issue of multiple interlocking documents is less obvious. > >> > If a participant makes significant contributions, the document editor or >> > chair can invite the participant to become a co-author or co-editor, ... > >> This point seems to have got lost too. > > Not "seems" :) Yes it was removed. > > An overall comment on your feedback. You can't have an informal document *intended for newcomers* that is comprehensive and covers every nook and cranny of IETF history and procedures. For example, one of the most important take-aways in Section 4 is the preparation section, which says "[they] are explicitly not for education" and read the documents first. Discussion of authorship is in the noise compared to that. > > Of course, this is my opinion. Yes, what goes in is a judgment call. I picked on things I personally would leave in. Brian
- [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Revisio… Niels ten Oever
- 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… 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