Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Revision of the Tao of the IETF
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 14 April 2022 21:13 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 34CC13A18F1; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 Qbni1P5gO2dH; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (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 964733A18EF; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id s8so5888525pfk.12; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:13:51 -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=m7aKL4D9WrQR+Uz4s6EIYWtZAgevKy6i17251QqUH5I=; b=S3E6R1k4Q4HdMM+BnbP125CrdO9LEr4y8gbulpSBWk/lCNlX7RjkAR1/U/zeY851eX LwUtAW3qdsMSsDtuHhRtGSVdJOmsrqPz0NDA6rxDmRq+5AEHZjRb8SrmDCBNw6+VEftd qI6FnxWRr7At3acTvYC1k8X4OD3cwdhGSh0TTFk2FtOyUWvRhlRBFlLZDbgAsd9SNb5/ 2X4QVOw3WqXb4AlMaNnFGj3tHrDL9lPCyFLnNR7+T/UdZXRmSILFniOsuI9c2vlF6iUg MpTD3JxHjhtAYuo1ZTpHc4G2VTQ9CKbScWaHLIXZzN9sYeMYQMfzA4g/Wo2H5COPdjsT ZMYA==
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=m7aKL4D9WrQR+Uz4s6EIYWtZAgevKy6i17251QqUH5I=; b=cQt0Xv9OhJVxO421/ZU8kXOgpSnbNOqls0AOR1EiLkK3H33Gvbg9djgjeypkJk64bJ PWNcKxabPFVgftOO/3N/bAuNShg6Xj4Em+CilGdKJt47LzAFwG6l+kR5MJ0RT425n/ag yh8Mwcv5arUgbTf3BJeRIx23xJM2FcT072vFHnAhyt05AEXfH9NPN9IbyUPJFai0OI34 iSpIVz8+egnJgPyTE1nWaYgfWT8mDde3UparKF5TwNGcMmzhJY4n4qlCjrOGoVqNv2V8 zzha2vsVUGr4eAurwcGqbzpIYJdaQf5yO/iB6mvZBjBFVBSRliY7FNqGueIpS70aqPT9 qHAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531yOdCrwOeTbE86EMnXGqzA5an3n1FfOvMwfogZmxdRYmHlMIAh oIxs6+YU7sk85+QxGyQzfII=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzejhBwbNIUTcepBvV6qu7xItznFrmMBHG3ZSmfp3KdPi6IvRZa0S6SEwC15iM+6eiiEMAjsg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:fb05:0:b0:39d:a07b:cf4 with SMTP id o5-20020a63fb05000000b0039da07b0cf4mr3794497pgh.440.1649970830085; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:13:50 -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 t14-20020a056a00138e00b004fb1d833668sm765226pfg.33.2022.04.14.14.13.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>, "tao-discuss@ietf.org" <tao-discuss@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Greg Wood <ghwood@staff.ietf.org>
References: <905c834c-30d7-ede7-6ea1-a5b200a249d7@nielstenoever.net> <45a73c1d-0564-10a6-4243-bf1a209da307@gmail.com> <0C41A5AD-CEFB-4A37-9229-64C03723193F@akamai.com> <c9679cee-afa4-f7d4-80a1-83e635d8ad26@gmail.com> <FE38E0F3-C368-42B6-9FD8-2804C38EC7E1@eggert.org> <62445876-1CCA-4D1A-9E30-00E7EDDEE130@ietf.org> <78BF279C-DEED-42BD-897D-1BC3DC972DE2@akamai.com> <BD1AA00F-A0B6-4FB1-8BC8-7AC0732E7038@kuehlewind.net> <4cd18fef-7621-48de-b7b6-c8f6ce8a9142@nielstenoever.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11c41858-aa5e-9771-8d80-7bfc5c225b3c@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 09:13:44 +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: <4cd18fef-7621-48de-b7b6-c8f6ce8a9142@nielstenoever.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tao-discuss/k39xZ_qN3TD_7Q3pSbTToJa6sVM>
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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 21:13:56 -0000
Niels, everybody, I can see the argument for splitting the material in the Tao into more reasonable sized pieces and integrating it better into the rest of the "newcomers" material. I suspect that is best done in many smaller steps rather than in one big effort. My suggested course of action would be to complete the Tao update, which is well advanced, and then create replacement pages one at a time. I personally think that we don't need an RFC. We have a big mess of process-related RFCs already, and I think the decision to get rid of the Tao as an RFC was the right one. There's a great danger in "a document people can reference which holds the main processes and procedures of the IETF which is also citeable." The danger is that it will unintentionally be inconsistent with the official process. Yet again I must point to https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informal/ . (It's out of date, by the way, and I have stopped suggesting updates some time ago.) Jay and Greg are IMHO spot on in their comments. Rob said: > I would really like all the IETF process documents to not be RFCs/BCPs at all (RFCs/BCPs should only be the output of the IETF), but instead migrate to a set of web pages/sites, probably with a lower review barrier than full IETF consensus for most of the content. I understand that desire, but remember that our most formal process documents are essentially legal tracts that have been checked by our lawyers and formally accepted by the ISOC Board. We really can't replace them with malleable web pages and any attempt to paraphrase them in simple language is problematic. As the informal guide says "To avoid any accidental ambiguity, this guide does not attempt to paraphrase or summarize the contents of listed documents." Regards Brian Carpenter On 15-Apr-22 03:20, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Thank you for this. I fully agree. The name 'Tao' is not very helpful and the document itself is too long (something which we tried to address). > > However, I do think it is useful to have a document people can reference which holds the main processes and procedures of the IETF which is also citeable. This would be an argument to make the Tao (which would then not be called 'Tao' anymore) an RFC and have smaller more accessible bits on the website. > > Best, > > Niels > On 14 Apr 2022, at 16:03, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net <mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote: > > I would like to note that there is some kind of tradition or cultural identity of this community connected to the Tao. However having said this, Jay, I think your analysis is right: it doesn’t serve the intended audience well and there is not one intended audience. I’m all in to reorganise all content related to participation on the webpage in a more useful way but then let’s do that and just not call it Tao anymore. > > On 14. Apr 2022, at 16:53, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com <http://40akamai.com>@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Very nice analysis! > > While I admire the effort that has gone into the Tao, I think we need to move on from this style of documentation. Replacing it with several smaller documents/sites/pages would be much more useful: "Guide to the role and structure of the IETF", "Guide to participating in IETF working groups", "Guide to making the most of IETF meetings", and so on. > > > Works for me. I am happy to completely stop working on it. Although what's on the website is seriously cringe-worthy. How that should be addressed I leave to you. I note that the RFC requiring IESG review is informational, not even BCP. Hint, hint. > > >
- 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