On 06/15/2012 11:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 15, 2012, at 2:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
One possible oversight is that this I-D does not describe how the editor
will work on the tao-possible-revision.html file (e.g., will only the
editor have permissions to work on that, might there be multiple
committers, will it be under source control?). Are such details
intentionally out of scope?
I would imagine that that would be determined by the IESG when they pick a Tao
editor.
Adhering to the principles of oversight rather than control, I would
imagine that the IESG would tell the editor to use his best judgment,
and if they don't like his judgment, they'll replace him.
But then I'm an optimist :-)
ObDraftComment: I support the draft.
ObMinorTweak: I think the URL structure for the dated versions is not
the best one, because it requires all Tao versions to be in the root
namespace of the IETF web service.
I would prefer that they be named
www.ietf.org/tao/archive/YYYY-MM-DD.html, which would also give rise to
a presumption that one could list all versions by going to
www.ietf.org/tao/archive.
I'd even support the reference to the archive being in the Tao itself,
making another layer of indirection possible. But the ability to say
"the Tao said THIS on Feb 16, 2013" is important.
Yours for more nits in the Last Call process :-)
Harald