[rfc-i] Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Tue Aug 13 15:22:59 PDT 2013


On 8/13/13 1:14 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Heather,
> At 11:54 13-08-2013, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> It's not just the Style Guide, though that is the biggest part of it.
>> There are also the handouts and FAQs on the RFC Editor website to help
>> authors.
>
> Ok.
>
>> There is a snapshot of current tools in use in the Publisher SoW.
>
> Thanks.  I missed the rest of the pages in that document.
>
>   "RFCs are published on the Publisher's website."
>
> I suggest "RFC Editor website".
>
>   "1.2.1. providing at least two (2) independent, geographically
> separate sites,
>    with a response time in line with current network standards,"
>
> What network standards are applicable?

This should more reasonably say current network best practices - it's
not a standards-based question. 

>
>   "1.5. IP Support.
>    The Publisher shall provide world-class IP support, IPv4 and IPv6. 
> All
>    services should be accessible from IPv4 and IPv6, with no
> difference in
>    performance, quality, delay, and support."
>
> What's "world-class IP support"? :-)

The implication here is that the vendor continue to provide a high level
of service, which given the evolution of technology is something of a
moving target.

>
>   "1.7.  Services Security.  Services are to be protected by best
> commercial
>          practice industry standard security mechanisms, such as DNSSEC"
>
> The above does not offer any security as "best commercial practice
> industry standard" is subjective.
>
> Is there a reason why the vendor business hours are in PDT/PST or is
> this for historical reasons?
Because that is where the vendor is based.

>
>   "Vendor reserves the right to execute emergency maintenance at any time
>    without notice, but will notify the Customer, IAD and the Community
> as soon as
>    possible (targeting notification at least 120 minutes prior to
> event)."
>
> This is unusual.  I gather that RSOC has given some serious thought to
> this as it is only when things go wrong that people read the fine print.

I think this is actually fairly sane and has proved to be a reasonable
provision in the past.  I would point to the incident on April 5 2012
referred to below.

>
>> In what time frame?
>
> I suggest as from 2012.

There was  one incident on April 5 2012 for 90 minutes starting at 8:54
a.m.  A message was posted to rfc-interest with a summary
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2012-April/003218.html)

-Heather Flanagan


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list