[rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 47, Issue 7

Tomasz Pelczar tomasz.pelczar at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 14 14:35:06 PDT 2008

--- On Thu, 8/14/08, rfc-interest-request at rfc-editor.org <rfc-interest-request at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
From: rfc-interest-request at rfc-editor.org <rfc-interest-request at rfc-editor.org>
Subject: rfc-interest Digest, Vol 47, Issue 7
To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Date: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 7:00 PM

Send rfc-interest mailing list submissions to
	rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	rfc-interest-request at rfc-editor.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	rfc-interest-owner at rfc-editor.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of rfc-interest digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Some questions about the RFC Editor restructuring plan
      (john+rfc at jck.com)


Message: 1
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:25:03 -0400
From: john+rfc at jck.com
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Some questions about the RFC Editor restructuring
To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Message-ID: <930733F737260F28266EB72A@[]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

--On Wednesday, 12 Aug 2008 20:24:46 -0700 Paul Hoffman 
<paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:

> That first sentence is hard to parse. How about "The RFC
> Editor has  the authority to direct the Production House to
> implement measures to  maintain the series consistency and
> quality."?

"authority" exists only if the RFC Editor can fire or penalize 
the Production House if they do not comply and comply in a 
satisfactory way.  If the contracts are separate, one either 
needs to give the RFC Editor the ability to direct the IAD to 
direct the Production House or the model needs to include some 
other mechanism to give "authority" and/or "direct" some
Which of the RFC "letters" to the human brains within the those, 
which are still functional, but also the background of the RFC 
nr.1, like mstr. T. Edison first "patent" was the best in case 
of the fundamental issues to implement the issues within the TCP,
OSI, IBM standards. If the first number(s) or the most important
description(s) (like Stevens, Wright or Dijkstra etc) cannot 
take the responsibility (etc) then the best authority must take 
the experimental "status quo" ...
Remember that, especially if the contracts are awarded 
separately, the Production House may be a for-profit (and 
potentially "low-bid" activity, with every incentive to control 
costs in ways that might be incompatible with the RFC Editor's 
norms for quality.
All the best from the sunny Kraków:



rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org

End of rfc-interest Digest, Vol 47, Issue 7

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20080814/15c7a75e/attachment.html

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list