ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

2012-06-21 04:17:30
Hi SM,

I thank you for your comments and input,

The I-D being discussed (draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02), does
mention the discussion on a list, but it does not mention the
community or consensus. The point of this I-D is to make the process
easier and valuable for users and memebrs, so I don't suggest to make
such discussion on the list mandatory for this webpage process.

RFC 4844 discusses about RFC Series and the streams used by the
various communities to publish a RFC.  One of those streams is for
IETF Documents.

Please note that the milestone/aim of the I-D and the webpage is to
produce a RFC in the end of its progress. I think the webpage is a
IETF document published and edited differently than IETF-drafts. So
RFC4844 should be considered. Furthermore the I-D avoids to reference
or mention IETF procedure documents (mentions obslete documents), I
don't know why?

 In the I-D being discussed, the document will be
published on a web page.  The IESG will choose Paul Hoffman as the
editor.  I gather that those details are not a problem.

The problem is not choosing editor, but the webpage process. The Tao
webpage is a document but the question was is this document an IETF
document or a non-IETF document. Under the procedure IETF-documents
have a process. The <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02> draft has a
different process even though it is an IETF-document. The draft if
approved will Obsletes RFC4677 (this document went through IETF
process, and will be replaced by webpage with different process) so
the only reference is the webpage and its progress is through new
stream of Tao-process.

 Are you suggesting that the changes should
be discussed in a Working Group or something else?

I suggested the below message:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73750.html

I think that discussions should be limited times (in hours or few
days) which I prefer to take place in the IETF meetings and getting a
community consesus on the updates of the webpage. Because if we have
all individual-submissions with discussions and consensus of working
group then it will be disaster not making things easier. That is why I
suggest Editor acceptance with community consesus, and limited
discussions to solve the purpose of this I-D.

BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete.

I agree with this suggestions.

Regards,
AB

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 6/20/12, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
At 03:51 20-06-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
 I refere to the IETF process of: preparing the I-D by WG,
Community-accepting, Submitting, and IESG-approval. The new
Tao-update-process of the draft is not including the community. The
IETF process in draft is as : individual preparing, individual submit
to Editor, Editor decides and accepts, Editor submitting, and
IESG-approval.

The above are two different IETF submission streams, which may be
consistent if we include *the community* in accepting submission to
IESG.

RFC 4844 discusses about RFC Series and the streams used by the
various communities to publish a RFC.  One of those streams is for
IETF Documents.  In the I-D being discussed, the document will be
published on a web page.  The IESG will choose Paul Hoffman as the
editor.  I gather that those details are not a problem.

draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02 mentions that the changes will be
discussed on an open, Tao-specific mailing list.  The second
paragraph of Section 2 and the third paragraph are not so clear about
changes, i.e. the editor accepts proposed changes and the IESG
accepts proposed changes.  Are you suggesting that the changes should
be discussed in a Working Group or something else?

BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete.

Regards,
-sm



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>