On Jun 20, 2012, at 8:39 AM, SM wrote: > 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.
Errr, maybe. The IESG could easily choose someone else; many individuals in this community would be fine at being the Tao editor. Remember, I was the third editor of the document. > 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. Can you say what was "not so clear"? I absolutely want that bit to be clear. Proposed text is appreciated here. > BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete. Earlier versions of the Tao were made obsolete, not moved to Historic, so I thought it was most appropriate to do that here as well. FWIW, the definition of "Historic" in RFC 2026 is for specifications, not descriptive documents like the Tao. --Paul Hoffman
