ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

2006-07-18 20:15:40
Hi Bill

on 2006-07-19 04:26 Bill Fenner said the following:
Ok.  So I'm not sure what you propose here - should we not require
rsync and ftp mirroring capability, or should we ask for it, and not
specify chapter and verse regarding version etc.?  I'd certainly be
very unhappy completely abandoning the rsync capability.

I think that RFCs should be available via [at least] rsync, ftp and www.
I think that a provider who provided less than what we have now [hint:
we currently have more than that] would be exercising bad judgement
and would probably lose the contract at renegotiation time - so are
we trying to protect against someone getting the contract who doesn't
actually want to provide services, or doesn't actually want the long-term
business, or is actively malicious to the IETF, or what?

My thinking has been to protect against a temporary break of services
because "it's not in the contract" -- whether that break is months,
because of a failing of a possibly new provider to realize what we
currently have, or years, because we'll have to wait out a contract
period.

I don't think the availability of mirrorable content is less important
than the services which are currently specified in the Statement Of Work.

It may be that the level of detail specification should be less than
what it is now, overall; but with the current specification level I
felt it is a clear omission to not specify *any* access to the documents
except through a search facility.  I feel that direct ftp/http/rsync
access is actually more important than the search facility specified
in the proposed SOW, which is why I commented on this.


        Henrik

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf