Hi All
Discussing the draft <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02>
>Can you say what was "not so clear"? I absolutely want that bit to be clear.
>Proposed text is appreciated here.
-Why the document/draft does not mention/reference other descriptive
related works?
-Why the document/draft obsoletes RFC4677, is there a big reason?
-Why is the document/draft not clear of its aim, objectives,
sub-process-periods, and update-announcement-procedure?
In the introduction>
[This document contains the procedure agreed to by the IESG. The Tao
has traditionally been an IETF consensus document,..]
-Why the document/draft in section 2 does not mention consesus while
mentioned in introduction.
-Why the document/draft does not include section about the Tao-list
and this discussion method and purposes.
-Why the document/draft has one section after the introduction,
avoiding important sections like in RFC2418 (WG procedures) or as:
a) Roles of Tao-webpage update.
b) Roles of Individual submission to Editor.
c) The community input to the webpage.
d) What is the Editor criteria of accepting and refusing such updates.
>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.
Yes the early versions were obsoleted by a new RFC, not obsoleted by
RFC-that-references-webpage. I am not against the webpage, but against
to obsolete RFC4677. There should be a way to make one Tao RFC alive
while having the webpage. Maybe this I-D can update RFC4677 to add the
possibility of both RFC and webpage.
>I'll +0 the draft to avoid changing the state of consensus.
I agree and want the *consesus* and *community* input to be clear in the draft
I hope my message language is good/ok to understand, if not please
advise and I will send another clarification,
Regards
AB
==================================================
