Re: RFC Editor and 2006 timeline
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Initial contract with who? The only fair bidding process I know is one in which potential bidders are sought via a very widespread and relatively low cost RFI, followed by a targetted and relatively high cost RFP. IMHO the risk of not having an RFI is that the bids will be out of whack. If informal conversations or experience have led to a conclusion as to what range of bids would be expected then an RFI seems unnecessary. We know the current cost structure, because we're footing the bill. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RFC Editor and 2006 timeline
Eliot Lear wrote: John C Klensin wrote: How does one fix later a contract, presumably a multi-year one, if we get what we ask for and then discover that we don't like it? By specifying flexible terms in the initial contract. Initial contract with who? The only fair bidding process I know is one in which potential bidders are sought via a very widespread and relatively low cost RFI, followed by a targetted and relatively high cost RFP. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RFC Editor and 2006 timeline
IMHO IASA issung an RFI strikes me as dallying. Let's not. If we get it wrong we fix it later. Same with process changes as a result of further action on the part of this organization. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RFC Editor and 2006 timeline
--On Friday, 14 April, 2006 13:33 +0200 Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO IASA issung an RFI strikes me as dallying. Let's not. If we get it wrong we fix it later. Same with process changes as a result of further action on the part of this organization. How does one fix later a contract, presumably a multi-year one, if we get what we ask for and then discover that we don't like it? john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RFC Editor and 2006 timeline
John C Klensin wrote: How does one fix later a contract, presumably a multi-year one, if we get what we ask for and then discover that we don't like it? By specifying flexible terms in the initial contract. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RFC Editor and 2006 timeline
Leslie, IAB, and others, Three observations on the schedule (included below for convenience), based on the events of the last month... (1) The initial STRAW PROPOSAL draft of the new RFC Editor charter, in your email of 16 March, says, in part,... The purpose of this straw proposal is to inform discussions scheduled for the GENAREA meeting at IETF65 in Dallas. After the Dallas meeting, the IAB will provide a more formal charter proposal. I, and I assume others, had assumed that this meant that, after the Dallas discussion, the IAB would post an Internet-Draft with the expected more formal text so as to permit community comment before the presumably-final version was posted, not later than Saturday. I do not believe that has occurred, so what is the plan for posting of a Revised Charter for comment? (2) As your 16 March posting noted, moving forward with an actual RFP process -- presumably starting with whatever requirements are stated in the request for expressions of interest to be issued on May 7 -- requires that there be documents analogous to the TechSpec one for non-IETF documents. With the assistance of a few colleagues, I have put together and submitted draft-klensin-rfc-independent-00.txt, which is a first cut at the independent submission model. I assume it will be posted today but, of course, there has not yet been any opportunity for community discussion on it. How would you like to proceed on that front? (3) While I didn't realize it last month, there are at least a few tasks traditionally associated with the RFC Editor function that do not seem to be covered by the outline and schedule below at all. For example, we still have 50-odd older RFCs that are not online. As far as I know, few, if any, of the IENs are online and readily accessible either. I don't know that getting these online is necessarily an appropriate RFC Editor (or RFC-Editor-bis) activity, although it has been considered to fall within that scope in the past. But those documents are important enough historically --occasionally even to the work of the IETF-- that they should all be online and accessible... and making that happen should be someone's responsibility.There may be other areas like this; we should somehow be sure that they are all covered somehow. Because of things like this, I'm sort of hoping that the IASA will decide to issue an RFI, not merely a call for expressions of interest, so as to get as much information on these subjects and understanding of roles from potential vendors as possible. regards, john --On Thursday, 16 March, 2006 18:04 -0500 Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The IAB and IAOC have put together the following proposed plan for clarifying the RFC Editor function and running through a contract review process this year. The key pieces of this proposed process are: . getting agreement on a basic RFC Editor charter . completing TechSpec to describe requirements for IETF technical specification publication . developing analogous components for independent submissions, IRTF documents, etc. (Not all yet on the timeline). Comments welcome. Draft timeline/division of labour = Responsible parties in [], where IASA is IAD or IAOC as appropriate. Mar 14 2006 [IAB] Draft RFC Editor charter out for public comment. Mar 20 2006 [TechSpec/IETF] TechSpec meeting Mar 20 2006 [IAB/IETF] Discuss RFC Editor charter Apr 15 2006 [TechSpec] Target reasonable consensus document. Apr 15 2006 [IETF] Start of 4 week last call of TechSpec document Apr 15 2006 [IAB] Revised RFC Editor charter. May 7 2006[IASA] Request for Vendor Expressions of Interest May 15 2006 Close of last call of TechSpec document Jun 1 2006[IASA] Vendor Expressions of Interest Due Jul 15 2006[IASA] RFP(s) Issued Sep 1 2006[IASA] Bids Due Sep 2006[IASA] Contract Negotiation Sep 25 2006[IAB] IAB review Oct 1 2006[IASA] Contract(s) Awarded Oct – Dec[IASA] Transition Period Jan 1 2007 Contract term begins Leslie Daigle. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RFC Editor and 2006 timeline
Hi Leslie, and thanks for working on this. I also believe that this process is important and beneficial for everyone who either uses or produces (IETF, IAB, IRTF, individuals) RFCs. Overall, the timeline looks fine. I have a few comments and questions on it, however: . developing analogous components for independent submissions, IRTF documents, etc. (Not all yet on the timeline). Do we know exactly what the missing components are? And for those components, what is the delta that is really needed beyond techspec, charter, and existing RFCs? For instance, the techspec draft talks about indexing and search services which would presumably apply to all RFCs, including individual submissions and April 1 RFCs. And we already have some material on individual RFC submission in RFC 2026 and RFC 3932. We also have some work-in-progress, such as draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt that may help for the IRTF document parts. May 15 2006 Close of last call of TechSpec document Close of last call isn't necessarily the same as having a final document ready. Should the latter also be placed in the timeline? --Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RFC Editor and 2006 timeline
The IAB and IAOC have put together the following proposed plan for clarifying the RFC Editor function and running through a contract review process this year. The key pieces of this proposed process are: . getting agreement on a basic RFC Editor charter . completing TechSpec to describe requirements for IETF technical specification publication . developing analogous components for independent submissions, IRTF documents, etc. (Not all yet on the timeline). Comments welcome. Draft timeline/division of labour = Responsible parties in [], where IASA is IAD or IAOC as appropriate. Mar 14 2006 [IAB] Draft RFC Editor charter out for public comment. Mar 20 2006 [TechSpec/IETF] TechSpec meeting Mar 20 2006 [IAB/IETF] Discuss RFC Editor charter Apr 15 2006 [TechSpec] Target reasonable consensus document. Apr 15 2006 [IETF] Start of 4 week last call of TechSpec document Apr 15 2006 [IAB] Revised RFC Editor charter. May 7 2006[IASA] Request for Vendor Expressions of Interest May 15 2006 Close of last call of TechSpec document Jun 1 2006[IASA] Vendor Expressions of Interest Due Jul 15 2006[IASA] RFP(s) Issued Sep 1 2006[IASA] Bids Due Sep 2006[IASA] Contract Negotiation Sep 25 2006[IAB] IAB review Oct 1 2006[IASA] Contract(s) Awarded Oct – Dec[IASA] Transition Period Jan 1 2007 Contract term begins Leslie Daigle. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
