Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page
RFC 6722

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Summary: Has enough positions to pass.

Adrian Farrel

Comment (2012-07-19)

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"

Barry Leiba

Comment (2012-06-15)

Gotta love the Security Considerations section.  :-)

Benoit Claise

Comment (2012-07-13)

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 <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>" (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
   <http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive/tao-YYYYMMDD.html>.

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