[rfc-i] Draft Secretariat SOW for Community Comment: Deadline 20 May
housley at vigilsec.com
Thu May 12 08:29:49 PDT 2011
>>> 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.
One vendor operating ietf.org and rfc-editor.org does not mean that the two will be "bundled". It does mean that one staff is providing support for them.
More information about the rfc-interest