This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Last revision Both sides next revision | ||
streamquery [2012/08/27 11:26] rsewikiadmin |
streamquery [2013/04/03 16:58] rsewikiadmin |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== | + | ====== |
+ | For: | ||
+ | - The RFC Editor recognizes that the needs of the technical research and engineering community and the associated documentation that describes the Internet are growing and changing. | ||
+ | - The RFC Editor recognizes that other organizations offer value and may have different IPR such that working through a separate stream will allow those organizations to more effectively contribute to the workings on the Internet in a stream-lined process. | ||
+ | - As the Internet evolves and changes, there is more information that should be discussed and disseminated to encourage secure, open practices, which fits in the overall mission of the RFC Editor as described in RFC 4844. | ||
- | 1 - Why the RFC Series and not Kantara or OASIS or another umbrella | + | Against: |
+ | - There is already significant confusion regarding the categories of RFCs and how the existing streams relate to the Series. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Questions for an organization requesting to be considered as a new Stream in to the RFC Series ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1 - Why the RFC Series and not a different | ||
2 - Do you anticipate your organization being a persistent entity for the next 5-10 years? | 2 - Do you anticipate your organization being a persistent entity for the next 5-10 years? | ||
Line 8: | Line 18: | ||
3 - The RFC Series has some particular points of style and format that must be consistent across the streams. | 3 - The RFC Series has some particular points of style and format that must be consistent across the streams. | ||
+ | 4 - How many documents do you expect to request to publish a year? | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Requirements for any group or organization to be considered as a new stream ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Organization and documents must focus on improving technology or best practices for the Internet | ||
+ | * Open process for creation of documents | ||
+ | * Free | ||
+ | * Accept the RFC Series format and style guide | ||
+ | * Organization and documentation must be Community supported, not vendor driven | ||
+ | * Documents need to be of a quality such that the RFC Editor can edit them in a reasonable fashion (If there are enough documents that would require weeks of editing, beyond what is in our current SLA with the IETF, then that's a problem) | ||
====== Questions for the RSE, IAB, and whoever else needs to be involved in determining whether a new Stream should be created (TBD) ====== | ====== Questions for the RSE, IAB, and whoever else needs to be involved in determining whether a new Stream should be created (TBD) ====== | ||
- | 1 - What type of documents are allowed? | + | 1. What type of documents are allowed? |
+ | |||
+ | ====== Suggested Action Items for New Stream Creation ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. Establish a list of questions to determine suitability (see above). | ||
+ | 2. Require a new I-D from the supplicant describing their process, IPR policy, etc., for RSE and RSOC review. | ||
+ | 3. Create a contract & SLA based on expected number of documents (example: will require funding for at least 15 documents a year, no refund if not that many, will require additional funds if more). | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Suggestion Action Items for closing a stream ====== | ||
+ | 1. Either side may conclude the stream if funding or quality of documents run dry | ||
====== Other actions to consider ====== | ====== Other actions to consider ====== |