Authoritative, no. But definitely referenced by many, many people and
IMO worthy of a certain amount of care.
Tony Hansen
On 7/5/2012 11:57 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, July 05, 2012 23:22 -0400 Tony Hansen
<t...@att.com> wrote:
I think my point was missed. Section 2 says:
All published versions will be archived using URLs of the form
<http://www.ietf.org/tao-YYYYMMDD.html>.
My question is: Where is there a list of all of the tao
version files? How would one be able to find out the name of
the previous version so they could do a diff and see what has
changed? How can I see a history of the files?
...
Tony,
Mostly out of curiosity, why do you think it is important. If
the Tao were a reference document that was authoritative on IETF
procedures or the like, it would be a different matter: I can
think of many reasons why it might be important to establish
exactly what the rules and procedures were at any given time.
But, given that it is a non-authoritative tutorial summary
description of how we do things, I have a certain amount of
trouble understanding why going to extra effort to maintain a
long-term back trace is actually important.
What am I missing?
john
