[rfc-i] RSOC name

S Moonesamy sm+ietf at elandsys.com
Sun Aug 18 19:47:15 PDT 2019


Hi Stephen,
At 05:02 PM 18-08-2019, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>Apologies, but that has too much embedded context for me (even
>after I've checked the my local copies of iab and rfc-interest
>lists for this subject). I did see you and Sarah go back and
>forth, but I didn't quite manage to figure out the precise
>question you'd like answered, sorry.

The initial question was raised on the IETF mailing list.  It may be 
difficult to locate given that it was part of a long thread.

>Could you elaborate on the question you'd like answered and the
>various responses you've gotten so far? (And heh - feel free to
>propose your fav. answer too, if we all agree with you that'd
>maybe short-circuit a pile of discussion:-)

The answer is that there isn't any report related to the last 
paragraph of Section 3.1 of RFC 6635.  The bidding process is based 
on a statement of work which is not related to the current RSE 
selection.  There are issues in the current structure which surfaced 
during previous discussions and the plenary.  It is unlikely that the 
next RSE will be able to fix all that.

>If doing that off-list is better, I'd be happy to try agree a
>synopsis that we could send to the list. But on-list is likely
>better.

Agreed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list