Hi Melinda, and All,
This is consistent with how individual, non-WG documents are
progressed in the IETF. I don't see a conflict or discontinuity.
Conflict process if we consider the I-D process as a IETF process. It
is not consistent with the IETF procedures. It can be consistent if
the IESG amend the I-D submission-process or take my suggestions.
Yes I agree that non-WGs documents take different submission stream
than IETF-WGs documents. One is named non-IETF submission and the
other IETF submission streams (two only streams so far). In the I-D we
are discussing of [publishing the Tao of the IETF], the submission
stream was not refered to which of two submission streams. It is most
likely understood as a new second IETF submission stream (I may name
it IETF-Tao stream), because this I-D affect the community (it must be
a group production not an individual production).
Please note that:
1) The subject I-D obsoletes RFC4677 if approved. The RFC4677 is a
IETF WG's procedure overview.
2) RFC4677 is not a formal IETF process document but instead an
informational overview.
The IETF procedures are only done in the IETF WGs or IETF community,
how can an individual decide for the community!!! That is why we are
discussing it in a IETF-list, not in a non-WG-list.
AB
====================
On 6/17/12, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
The abstract mentions 'many people', because many people may mean 4 to 10
people. The annonced I-D lacks the method of discussion in the community
(discussing such change), the draft mentions the input from any community
individual to be accepted by editor and then approved by IESG, but does not
mention the methodology of discussion between community members nor between
editor and members, also no announcements of such updates mentioned in
draft.
suggest> amend in abstract the word 'many' to the word 'some', or mention
like in the introduction the desire of community.
suggest> to add> to the draft that a discussion group to discuss
inputs/suggestions before the editors undertakes changes. The draft to
specify the discussion ( may be either on-List or during the IETF
meetings). I prefer to mention; the face-to-face IETF meeting discussion in
this procedure issue.
suggest> to add> the announcement for last call of Tao changes by the
IESG,
suggest> replace in section2> line 7> The editor of the Tao decides which
proposed changes should be submitted to the IESG for the next version of
the Tao.
replace with> The editor of the Tao decides which proposed changes
should be
submitted to the IESG for the next version of the
Tao after
the community discussed the changes.
suggest> A time period of updates to be made, and input from the community
to be collected, and editor to submit to IESG. It will be helpful also to
AB
==============
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, The IESG
<iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page'
<draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt> as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2012-07-13. Exceptionally,
comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
Discussion of the "Tao of the IETF" during 2012 made it clear that
many people want the document published only as a web page, not as an
RFC that needs to be periodically updated. This document specifies
how the Tao will be published as a web page.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.