Huh?
Make tao a directory.
Put the document in the directory as index.html.
Now www.ietf.org/tao will redirect to www.ietf.org/tao/ will redirect to
www.ietf.org/tao/index.html.
Tony Hansen
On 7/4/2012 1:54 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Julian:
No, I was just trying to understand *why* the
On 2012-06-21 23:08, Russ Housley wrote:
This URL http://www.ietf.org/tao will bring up the current document. It works
exactly the same as http://www.ietf.org/tao.html.
This means that http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive cannot be used as suggested
on this thread.
...
Sorry?
Julian:
Do you object to http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive for the old version of the Tao?
Russ
On Jul 4, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-06-21 23:08, Russ Housley wrote:
This URL http://www.ietf.org/tao will bring up the current document. It
works exactly the same as
On 2012-07-04 16:52, Russ Housley wrote:
Julian:
Do you object to http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive for the old version of the Tao?
Russ
No, I was just trying to understand *why* the archive can't be at
http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive.
Best regards, Julian
Julian:
No, I was just trying to understand *why* the archive can't be at
http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive.
I was told that we cannot have http://www.ietf.org/tao directed to the document
and also be the directory containing the archive directory.
Russ
Propose to include in the I-D draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt
an IETF-WG that is created in the IETF General Area to discuss Tao
document/webpage issues,
AB
===
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
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
On 6/21/12 1:16 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
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.
Hi: if you're concerned about and familiar with community
This URL http://www.ietf.org/tao will bring up the current document. It
works exactly the same as http://www.ietf.org/tao.html.
This means that http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive cannot be used as suggested
on this thread.
I propose the following URLs for the Tao:
- current Tao:
Hi Abdussalam,
At 03:34 21-06-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
-Why is the document/draft not clear of its aim, objectives,
Paul Hoffman actually asked what was not clear to me. It does not
mean that the draft is not clear.
I agree and want the *consesus* and *community* input to be clear
I got a request to clarify (language and reference) my message:
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.
I refere to the IETF
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
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
Hi Paul,
At 09:25 20-06-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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.
Yes. :-)
Can you say what was not so clear? I absolutely want
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
Hi Barry,
I think from your message, you agree that discussion is important in
the decision of updates, which I share. I agree to not repeat any
unnecessary info, but if contradictions appear to procedure, it then
needs a reference or repeat.
The problem is that the I-D does not mention in the
On 6/18/12 3:11 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
It is clear from the draft if you read it, that the decision *is not*
for the internet-community in two issues: a) editor decision of
accepting a propose change, b) editor decision of change-updates to
submit to IESG. The discussion in the I-D is
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
