...
My main object is for the RFP to say to a prospective RFC
Editor that the delineation of the independent submission
series will be under the contract holder's management in some
way, allowing input from the editor. I want to urge this
just because the RFC series is shared by four streams. In
justifying this before, I've talked mainly about the IETF
stream because it is the one I know the best, but I could also
detail taking this care for the others. Anyway, here's a
revised proposal for the text:
NEW NEW:
1) Edit and publish with the same steps as IETF
community documents but with clear indications that
these belong to an independent series. Specifics of
these indications will be developed and authorized
by an appropriate party to be determined, with input
from the RFC Editor.
Since I have found myself in the uncomfortable position of being
temporary spokesperson for those whose views are somewhat more
conservative than mine, let me suggest, as a clarification what
this would look like if done from a more traditional view
(please see many earlier comments to clarify the use of
"conservative" and "traditional"):
... When documents are published at the request of the
IETF community, including for this purpose the IAB and
IRTF, include clear indications about the status and
origin of these documents. Develop appropriate
indications in conjunction with the requesting bodies...
It's my opinion that we should stay silent on this matter in the
RFP. It really won't be a crucial issue in analyzing the bids,
and we have time to work out the words before negotiating the final
SOW.
I think I would argue for symmetry (i.e. John's words are fine for
the I* streams but I'd like to see something equivalent for the
Independent stream).
Explanation:
I agree with all these points. I believe the RFP text is compatible
with them.
Brian
(1) The steps are actually not the same although many of them
are parallel.
(2) It is reasonable, natural, and appropriate for the IETF
community to put whatever language it thinks appropriate into
documents in its stream(s), subject only to constraints about
truth in advertising.
(3) It is appropriate for IETF bodies to provide advice to the
RFC Editor about text to be placed in non-IETF documents. It is
not reasonable, either historically or going forward, for the
IETF to determine or dictate such text.
john
_______________________________________________
IAOC mailing list
IAOC(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf