[rfc-i] Draft Secretariat SOW for Community Comment: Deadline 20 May

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue May 10 20:59:27 PDT 2011


On 2011-05-09 21:49, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> [CC-list trimmed to relevant lists]
> 
> 
> On May 6, 2011, at 10:23 PM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
>>
>> Changes in this proposed SOW from the current Secretariat SOW include,
>> but aren't limited to:
> [...]
> 
> Zooming into two specifics.
> 
> 
>> 	3.  Provision of RFC Publisher Services, which will replace the current
>> separate contract,
> 
> This should remain a separate contract. It should be the case that the incoming RSE has the possibility to review the Publisher function according to its authority and responsibility. That is not possible if the publisher service is embedded in the contract. I believe that to be contrary to the spirit of the consensus that underlies RFC Editor Model version 2.

I believe there is a lot of common sense in combining IT for the public face of the
IETF with IT for the RFC Publisher. Logically, it should reduce costs and improve
the user experience. But Olaf has a point - ideally the RSE should be in the loop.

Could the IAOC explain the timing constraints, so that we can see if this is
possible somehow?

(I am confused whether this discussion really belongs here or
on secretariat-2012 at ietf.org).

   Brian

> 
>> 	4.  Adding the RFC Series Editor (RSE), Independent Submissions Editor
>> (ISE) and Nominating Committee (NomCom) to the list of Supported
>> Organizations for which services may be provided in the future.
> 
> I think that the situation here is a bit different (Mainly because of the "may" in may be provided). I think this is a reasonable clause.
> 
> - --Olaf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________ 
> 
> Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
> http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list