Re: [IAOC] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

...
> > 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.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf