Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that
the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG
(in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF
consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls) and subject
to appeal like anything else. This is so obvious in the IETF
context that I didn't even notice that it wasn't stated.
The sentence that should state it belongs about here:
"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 for
what the Tao says when it is a web page."
The IESG's "final say" is of course always in the context of determining
IETF consensus.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2012-06-10 11:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
This draft should formally obsolete RFC 4677. Otherwise, I think it's fine.
This doesn't need to be in the document, but having a fixed location for
the pending version might be good, e.g. http://www.ietf.org/draft-tao.html .
Regards
Brian Carpenter