Subject: Re: [tao-discuss] [rfc-i] Tao [3rd party SDO cross-referencing of IETF work (was: Re: Chair/datatracker tracking expired WG documents ?)]

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:11:03 +0000

Wgchairs and rfc-interest to bcc; please use tao-discuss.

On 3/30/22, 5:05 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    And that's fine. All I'm saying is that for what looks like a fairly large
    update of something we suggest that all newcomers read, a community review
    is normal IETF practice.

Is that really the case?  We generally don't get community feedback on
	- all other www.ietf.org content
	- sponsorship logo's
	- newcomer's slides
	- newcomer's emails that go out
Have we ever?  Those things are just as likely to be seen by newcomers, arguably more so. Seems to me that the Tao is an outliner, and a 6722-bis saying that it should be treated like all other www.ietf.org content is worth doing.

>    As for the diffs, this is actually quite hard as a direct result of moving
    the Tao from RFC to web-content format. Is the current posted version
    available in Markdown somewhere?

I don't know; I just wrote the editors and asked where I could suggest changes. But maybe some on tao-discuss does. If you pull down the git repo and use the commandline, commit dae5894fb8b5bcc848fe0c3493bd732c8bd9a033 seems to be the last one before I started making suggestions (er, pull requests [PRs]).  I did mine a section at a time, and almost always stayed within the section, so looking for my commits might be good enough.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2022 08:50:29 +1300

Rich,

Preamble: Thanks to you and others who are working on all this. I didn't
intend to sound churlish in my previous messages, and I'm sorry if I did.
> 	- all other www.ietf.org content

And I think that's a bug. Having contributed to some of that material some
years ago, I believe it could benefit from more review than it gets. Not
death from a thousand cuts like I-Ds get, but some level of review.
(When the website was updated from its old style to the current style,
there was considerable review. I think we went from that to no ongoing
review at all, and that was probably a mistake.)

> Have we ever?  Those things are just as likely to be seen by newcomers, 
arguably more so. 

No, we shouldn't be reviewing ephemera (although I do recall being asked to
comment on the newcomer's slides, but possibly when I had a fancy I* hat
of some kind).

> Seems to me that the Tao is an outliner, and a 6722-bis saying that it should be treated like all other www.ietf.org content is worth doing.
> 

Ack

    Brian