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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu May 12 17:02:42 PDT 2011

On 2011-05-13 08:36, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

Just to be clear - I do agree that in any case, a single IT services
provider is better than two, regardless of how the contracts are
structured, and I think that should be the end point. But we need
to ensure that the future RSE has a strong say in *what the RFC-Editor
site looks like*, which is distinct from the IAOC's responsibility
for selecting contractors.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list