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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed May 11 14:06:47 PDT 2011

On 2011-05-12 08:50, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:42:14PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
>> 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.
> Even if it makes a lot of sense for most operations, perhaps with the
> current unsettled situation for the RSE it is not the time to change
> the way things already are?


"No change" is the practical result of bundling the contracts, since they are
both with the same provider today. However, so far, the RFC Editor web site
hasn't been refurbished significantly. I would assume that once they are
fully bundled, there would be practical reasons why the RFC Editor site
should be refurbished to align it more closely with the IETF site. That's
why I wanted to see the timeline, to figure out where in that process there
might be a permanent RSE.

Maybe the answer is to bundle the contracts as proposed by the IAOC, but
insist that no major refurbishment of the RFC Editor site takes place until
the RSE is hired.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list