ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

2006-07-26 14:08:17
Just out of curiosity - does anyone anticipate adding RSS feeds?

T.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Hardie" <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>; "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 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request


At 3:28 PM -0400 7/26/06, John C Klensin wrote:
The other is that, to some readers, it appears to impose binding
requirements on how the RFC Editor deals with input from the
IESG, either directly (as in "if we recommend that this text be
inserted, you must insert it or not publish") or indirectly (as
in "if you don't follow our recommendations, we will see to it
that your funding is cut off").  For those of us who believe
that it is important to the Internet that the RFC Editor
function as an independent, cooperating, entity rather than as a
subsidiary of the IETF, that level of requirement is not
acceptable (that consideration is the source of this discussion
about aspects of the RFP and what should, or should not, be in
it).  While the IETF can attempt to establish links to
particular funding sources and apply leverage that way (which
some of us are trying to discourage), it is also beyond the
ability of the IETF to give itself the authority to impose such
requirements directly, any more than approval of a document as
an IETF Standard can force someone to conform to it.

I don't agree with this understanding, but I appreciate your
taking the time to clarify it.  The "imposition of binding requirements"
you cite above is, from my way of looking at it, instead a description of
how the two cooperating entities cooperate.  Putting descriptions of
that kind into the RFP (or, rather, references to them) is useful for a
potential respondent so that know what timelines and level of external,
unpaid effort to expect from the IETF.  Other ways around this seem to
have
their own headaches. For example, requiring  the publisher of the
independent
stream to establish that a document  does not inappropriately usurp an
unregistered standards-dependent  IANA  namespace or  reserved protocol
bits would otherwise take the time and talents of the publisher's review
teams.
That slows the stream or increases costs in a different way.

regards,
Ted Hardie




_______________________________________________
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