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
