Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Revision of the Tao of the IETF

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Thu, 07 April 2022 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 927163A1126; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 RwQ6Lj_Hfkzt; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 007C63A1109; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:28ff:791:c421:2ceb]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8B3928025D; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 20:31:58 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1649352718; bh=SqxA6FRgCSYAh6f4o7AsnM4csOmQQHNEcyhBQP01Pak=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=tLy7Qu2FB4QDlv7nm73Qe6oiEP0yHvVz/E7sqD39+xsBe0LPs2byQJJ9VKP2eLOHz 2IsX4BDOjPskz39GPrMUij0MqgdDvIn585mqXFrVrJ09AOXTmBXyRlRsV48fLoL5ls 3KS6fVj9utPBMNL5tRtCKdDbdtQbWYutemCj6ehE=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6B37A71A-AE9D-46B1-8CFD-6FCAB9469572"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.80.82.1.1\))
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <D6FFB194-FBC9-4AC1-B29F-B00A9A3C2E3E@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 20:31:58 +0300
Cc: Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "tao-discuss@ietf.org" <tao-discuss@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <C41F2B92-1216-4A2F-99D8-611D0457AE97@eggert.org>
References: <905c834c-30d7-ede7-6ea1-a5b200a249d7@nielstenoever.net> <0192FFCD-2410-415B-90B2-248F2823CC97@eggert.org> <D6FFB194-FBC9-4AC1-B29F-B00A9A3C2E3E@akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-MailScanner-ID: C8B3928025D.A41A3
X-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tao-discuss/vyVFQ_3BYcdhku4cj9EfJbf32Oo>
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, 07 Apr 2022 17:32:10 -0000

Hi,

On 2022-4-7, at 19:27, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I don't think a comparison/diff review is particularly useful. I encourage people to read the document and see if it's useful to newcomers, or it's omitting things or goes into too much detail, or has factual errors.

makes sense, if there are sweeping changes.

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.

Thanks,
Lars