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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu May 12 13:36:02 PDT 2011


On 2011-05-13 03:29, Russ Housley wrote:
> Brian:
> 
>>>> 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.

However, terminology apart, savings in staff time and therefore cost, and
uniformity in the user experience, can only occur if the two sites are
technically integrated. There's a real cost in them having separate
look-and-feel. We might want to pay that cost, but we should be clear
that it exists.

   Brian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list