ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt

2012-06-11 11:11:18
Tony,

Is there a need to draw a line (over which we will, no doubt, manage to fight in
the future)?

Can we not just say that updates will be batched and approved "in a timely
fashion", and know that updates will receive as much review and discussion as
the community thinks they merit?

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Tony
Hansen
Sent: 11 June 2012 17:05
To: IETF
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt

I'm wondering if there needs to be a distinction between "minor updates"
and "major updates". Minor updates would be the typo variety or a URL
change and wouldn't require much review at all. Major updates would
require non-trivial review.

     Tony Hansen

On 6/11/2012 11:43 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Paul and Brian:

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.
It is not what was intended.

- There was no mention to me of "ad hoc last calls", so I did not include
them
in the draft.
Well, that was presumably an oversight. The IETF always works by
a consensus process, afaik.
The IESG thinking on this is in line with Brian's thinking.  In the past,
the Tao has
been published as an informational RFC.  The approval process included
community comment and IESG evaluation.  A parallel approval process ought to
be used here.

Let's use of a well-known URL for the current approved Tao and a well-known
URL for the draft of the Tao that is under consideration.  This will
facilitate review
of updates.

- Is there an appeals process for the content of the various web pages
created by the IESG?
Yes. For many years there has been a presumption that the appeals
process in section 6.5 of RFC 2026 can be applied to *any* IESG action.
That being so, I suppose it isn't vital to write it down in every
document, but it makes things clearer.
Indeed.  Any decision by the IESG is subject to the existing appeals
process.

Russ