On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Paul:
It implies that the current RFC will become the initial web page content. I
think that is not the case. Rather, the initial content will come from
draft-hoffman-tao4677bis.
Good catch. I'll add explicit text in -02 that says that the initial text will
come from the most recent proposed revision (and I will *not* put in a draft
name).
Do you want draft-hoffman-tao4677bis to be published as the final RFC version
in the Tao series?
No. That seems silly, given that the web page will be done before the RFC.
On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:17 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
If the community cares about developing and maintaining a clear
history of changes, it might be slightly advantageous to:
(i) Make the current RFC the initial web page content
(ii) Immediately replace it with a (possibly further
revised) version of draft-hoffman-tao4677bis.
(iii) Put the Tao aside until we are ready for another
update.
Yuck. The slight advantage there is hugely overwhelmed by the process hassles.
Instead, the first web page should have a section talking about where it came
from.
I have trouble convincing myself that is worth even the marginal
extra effort it would take,
Good. :-)
but I can see the advantages if
others disagree. On the other hand, publishing
draft-hoffman-tao4677bis in the RFC series seems to me to have
no value at all. There should be an RFC 4677bis but it should
probably say little more than "Tao is now a web page at .... and
it is not being maintained in the RFC Series".
That's the purpose of this document.
--Paul Hoffman