[rfc-i] RFC Editor Structure
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sun Jun 22 07:49:05 PDT 2008
The proposed RFC Editor structure looks fine. It's good to see the
IAB getting this straightened out so that future bidders on the RFC
Editor contracts can know what they are bidding on.
As many people know, Standcore (basically, John Levine and I) bid on
the RFC Editor RFP last year, so we have thought a great deal about
what kind of structure would make sense. We think the proposed
four-part model makes sense. A few notes on the specifics:
- Of the two proposals for selecting the RFC Editor role (RFP from
the IAOC, selected by the community), having the RFC Editor being
chosen by an RFP from the IAOC is probably best. It seems likely that
bidders would want to bid on the RFC Editor and Production House
tasks at the same time, and it would make sense to let the IAOC bid
the two of them simultaneously.
- The person in the ISS role preferably should *not* work in the same
organization as the RFC Production House role. Having the Independent
Stream queue being input to the same organization that is supposed be
managing the queue can lead to errors and misunderstandings. All four
queues should be on the same footing.
- The RFC Publisher is truly a minor amount of work. If it is not
just given to the Secretariat, it should probably be part of the RFC
Production House job and let as a variable price contract. It is hard
to see how this would cost more than $3000/year, and could easily be
less than that, meaning that it is less than 1% of the RFC Editor
- The structure document did not lay out who would be responsible for
creating the new tools that many people have asked for, that would
make the process faster and more understandable. These include modern
tracking of author reviews, an updated xml2rfc system, better search
facilities, and integration of the RFC Editor queue and the I-D
Tracker. These tools could be developed by the RFC Production House
or the RFC Editor, but should be done with oversight of the IAOC and
with a specific budget for the tools.
Again, we feel that the structure proposed is a good one, and we look
forward to helping with the evolution of this important task.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest