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

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Wed May 11 13:42:14 PDT 2011

>>> 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.

RFC 5620 says:

  Implementation of the RFC Publisher function can be pursued in two
  different ways.  The choice between these alternatives will be based
  on an RFI issued by the IAOC in January 2009.

  The first alternative is to modify the IETF Secretariat contract to
  include these services.  Expenses to support these services would be
  part of the revised contract.

  The second alternative is a separate vendor selected by the IAOC
  through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the
  RFC Series Editor.  Expenses to support these services would be part
  of the awarded contract.

The IAOC selected the first alternative, although as separate contract was used because the Secretariat contract was already in place.

The RFC Editor Model version 2 continue to allow these IETF Secretariat to provide the RFC Publisher function.

I believe there is a lot of sense in combining IT for the public face of the IETF with the RFC Publisher.  I believe that it has reduced the costs.  In the long run, I also believe it will improve the user experience.

Of course, if the RSE is unsatisfied with the work product, that must be addressed.  The IAOC might have to consider the second alternative at that point in time.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list