ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

2006-07-26 12:46:59
In making it easier to follow this obtuse and convoluted solicitation
document, the other thing is that the HISTORY section needs to go - go
elsewhere - and I personally don't ever need to see it again in the RFP
itself.

The RFP is a formal solicitation for participation or services - it is step
one of a contract and needs to be clean, terse, and to the point -
concise... which means that this group is probably lost this one already...
but hey - bad attitude on my part eh?

So the Solicitation Document should have the specific requirements of the
Solicitation and nothing more. It is not a literary work or a work-of-art
much to many of your chagrin I bet. This is not about publishing for fame
and fortune - its a solicitation for a specific contract and those that are
not aware of the nightmare they are bidding into are never going to survive
the vetting process so ... I suggest a quick edit and we can the History and
the graphs.

Also the terms that are show-stoppers must be enumerated as such and there
are a couple that are unclear.

Todd


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
To: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>; "Allison Mankin" 
<mankin(_at_)psg(_dot_)com>;
"IETF Administrative Director" <iad(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: <iaoc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request




--On Tuesday, 25 July, 2006 20:09 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu> wrote:

...
But at least
some of us believe that making the approval process or content
of RFCs that do not arise from IETF processes subsidiary to
the IESG would not be in the best interests of the Internet
community.

I'm not sure yet what my position is on that question; there
are valid arguments on both sides.  However, I don't think
this question needs to be resolved in order to put out an RFP,
because I don't think the RFP should have that level of
detail.  I believe that was one of Leslie's original points -
there is no need to name a particular entity, especially when
it might be changing.

Then the RFP should be for "publications services for the IETF"
or "publications services for IASA" or "publications services
for ISOC". If the RFP is for "the RFC Editor" or "managing and
developing the RFC series", then either the document text has to
be much more neutral than it is now or we need to be reasonably
assured that the entity issuing the RFC has or can acquire the
standing to do so.

    john


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


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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>