Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page
draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-04

[Ballot comment]
The author has agreed to add a note saying:

  Translations of versions of the Tao are made into other languages from time to
  time. These do not represent IETF consensus and are provided on an "as is"
  basis. The issue of how translations are recorded, made available,
  cross-referenced to versions of the Tao, and archived is outside the scope of
  this document and for future study.

---

Unclear to me why the document needs to limit the edit team to exactly one person for all time.  Suggest "one or more people as designated by the IESG"

[Ballot discuss]
I support the publication of this document. Before moving to a "Yes"
ballot, I would like to discuss how translations that are produced
from time to time will be made available and archived

[Ballot comment]
Unclear to me why the document needs to limit the edit team to exactly one person for all time.  Suggest "one or more people as designated by the IESG"

[Ballot comment]
The draft says in Section 2 "is based on the last Internet-Draft that was meant to replace".
Should we add, just for completeness, an informational reference to this draft?

Otherwise, this draft might be hard to spot.

However, this might be only of interest to archaeologists...

[Ballot comment]
My four points are not really a DISCUSS, but I really would like to see it addressed, or at least discussed

1. This document has two parts, a correctly explained in the Introduction section.
    - it explains that the "Tao of the IETF", which has been published as a series of RFCs in the past, is now published as a web page.
    -. it explains the new procedure. "This document contains the procedure agreed to by the IESG"

My issue is: The abstract only contains the first part 1.
Here is a proposal:
OLD


  This document describes how the "Tao of the IETF", which has been
  published as a series of RFCs in the past, will instead be published
  as a web page.

NEW

  This document describes how the "Tao of the IETF", which has been
  published as a series of RFCs in the past, is instead published
  as a web page. Furthermore, this document contains the procedure for
  publishing and editing the Tao


2. Why do you always use the future tense in the draft?
  - "This document describes how the "Tao of the IETF", which has been
  published as a series of RFCs in the past, will instead be published
  as a web page."
- "The Tao will be published at " (note: it's done right in the security considerations section
- etc...
Specifically for the section 2, the procedure should really use the present tense.
OLD:

The Tao will be edited by one person who is chosen by the IESG.

NEW

The Tao is edited by one person who is chosen by the IESG.



3. I would make sense to set up the mailing in advance and mentioned it in draft

  The Tao will be edited by one person who is chosen by the IESG.
  Suggestions for changes to the Tao will be discussed on an open, Tao-
  specific mailing list.


4.

  Each version of the Tao will have a visible timestamp near the
  beginning of the document.  All published versions will be archived
  using URLs of the form
  .

If there is right now http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive/tao-20120713.html, how do I know the date of the previous version?
I guess that the http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive/ directory will list all the entries, right?
If this is the case, please mention it in the draft

[Ballot comment]
My four points are not really a DISCUSS, but I really would like to see it addressed.

1. This document has two parts, a correctly explained in the Introduction section.
    - it explains that the "Tao of the IETF", which has been published as a series of RFCs in the past, is now published as a web page.
    -. it explains the new procedure. "This document contains the procedure agreed to by the IESG"

My issue is: The abstract only contains the first part 1.
Here is a proposal:
OLD


  This document describes how the "Tao of the IETF", which has been
  published as a series of RFCs in the past, will instead be published
  as a web page.

NEW

  This document describes how the "Tao of the IETF", which has been
  published as a series of RFCs in the past, is instead published
  as a web page. Furthermore, this document contains the procedure for
  publishing and editing the Tao


2. Why do you always use the future tense in the draft?
  - "This document describes how the "Tao of the IETF", which has been
  published as a series of RFCs in the past, will instead be published
  as a web page."
- "The Tao will be published at " (note: it's done right in the security considerations section
- etc...
Specifically for the section 2, the procedure should really use the present tense.
OLD:

The Tao will be edited by one person who is chosen by the IESG.

NEW

The Tao is edited by one person who is chosen by the IESG.



3. I would make sense to set up the mailing in advance and mentioned it in draft

  The Tao will be edited by one person who is chosen by the IESG.
  Suggestions for changes to the Tao will be discussed on an open, Tao-
  specific mailing list.


4.

  Each version of the Tao will have a visible timestamp near the
  beginning of the document.  All published versions will be archived
  using URLs of the form
  .

If there is right now http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive/tao-20120713.html, how do I know the date of the previous version?
I guess that the http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive/ directory will list all the entries, right?
If this is the case, please mention it in the draft

IANA has reviewed draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02, which is currently
in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no
IANA Actions that need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-07-13. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Discussion of the "Tao of the IETF" during 2012 made it clear that
  many people want the document published only as a web page, not as an
  RFC that needs to be periodically updated.  This document specifies
  how the Tao will be published as a web page.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Informational, because it is a process document. Note that this document
obsoletes RFC 4677, which is also Informational.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document is not "technical". It proposes a change to the process of
publishing the Tao of the IETF, namely to make that publication on the IETF
web site instead of as an RFC.

Working Group Summary

This document was discussed on ietf@ietf.org, but not in a Working Group.

Document Quality

The document describes a process that is yet to be implemented.

Personnel

Paul Hoffman is the document editor and document shepherd; Russ Housley is the
sponsoring AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document was discussed on the ietf@ietf.org for a short period of time,
but there were no serious objections to it. Some people were more interested
in the Tao being published as a wiki, but most preferred having a single
editor. No one spoke up for the central control mechanism listed in this
document (IESG approval of all changes to the Tao), but no one objected to it
either.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

There was strong support for the Tao being a living web page. There
was no significant discussion on ietf@ietf.org about the IESG being
the final deciders on the content.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes, the latter.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the interested community considers it unnecessary.

Yes, this obsoletes the current Tao, RFC 4677. The reference to RFC 4677
is in the Introduction.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

None.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None.