Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

[Andy Bierman <ietf at andybierman.com>]

todd glassey wrote:
> So let me ask the obvious thing... why is the RFP content being voted on?
> This is a business decision in regard to services and process. Why is any of
> it open to review inside the IETF?


Because the lunatics want to run the asylum?  ;-)

Seriously though, it seems to me that most people agree
with us, and want to let the IAD and IESG do their jobs,
and stop all this obsessing over every detail of our "Process".

How about if we get that "quality" and "timeliness" thing
under control before spending a lot of time agreeing on
the 427 most important factors in selecting IETF meeting locations?

(Just my $0.02.  OK, maybe it's the whole dollar :-)


> Todd

Andy


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf at jck.com>
> To: "Ted Hardie" <hardie at qualcomm.com>; "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz at cmu.edu>;
> "Allison Mankin" <mankin at psg.com>; "IETF Administrative Director"
> <iad at ietf.org>
> Cc: <iaoc at ietf.org>; <ietf at ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:56 PM
> Subject: Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
>
>
> > --On Wednesday, 26 July, 2006 13:58 -0700 Ted Hardie
> > <hardie at qualcomm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > At 3:28 PM -0400 7/26/06, John C Klensin wrote:
> > > > The other is that, to some readers, it appears to impose
> > > > binding requirements on how the RFC Editor deals with input
> > > > from the IESG, either directly (as in "if we recommend that
> > > > this text be inserted, you must insert it or not publish") or
> > > > indirectly (as in "if you don't follow our recommendations,
> > > > we will see to it that your funding is cut off").  For those
> > > > of us who believe that it is important to the Internet that
> > > > the RFC Editor function as an independent, cooperating,
> > > > entity rather than as a subsidiary of the IETF, that level of
> > > > requirement is not acceptable (that consideration is the
> > > > source of this discussion about aspects of the RFP and what
> > > > should, or should not, be in it).  While the IETF can attempt
> > > > to establish links to particular funding sources and apply
> > > > leverage that way (which some of us are trying to
> > > > discourage), it is also beyond the ability of the IETF to
> > > > give itself the authority to impose such requirements
> > > > directly, any more than approval of a document as an IETF
> > > > Standard can force someone to conform to it.
> > > I don't agree with this understanding, but I appreciate your
> > > taking the time to clarify it.  The "imposition of binding
> > > requirements" you cite above is, from my way of looking at it,
> > > instead a description of how the two cooperating entities
> > > cooperate.  Putting descriptions of that kind into the RFP
> > > (or, rather, references to them) is useful for a potential
> > > respondent so that know what timelines and level of external,
> > > unpaid effort to expect from the IETF.  Other ways around this
> > > seem to have their own headaches. For example, requiring  the
> > > publisher of the independent stream to establish that a
> > > document  does not inappropriately usurp an unregistered
> > > standards-dependent  IANA  namespace or  reserved protocol
> > > bits would otherwise take the time and talents of the
> > > publisher's review teams.  That slows the stream or increases
> > > costs in a different way.
> > Then I think we are more or less on the same page.  The
> > challenge now is to get the RFP to appropriately reflect that
> > shared understanding.
> >
> >     john
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf