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 ==================================================