Subject: Re: RFC Editor and 2006 timeline

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:29:11 -0400

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-masked]> 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:33:12 +0200

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:44:51 -0400

--On Friday, 14 April, 2006 13:33 +0200 Eliot Lear
<[email-masked]> 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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:44:24 +0200

> one, if we get what we ask for and then discover that we don't

By specifying flexible terms in the initial contract.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 15:51:37 +0200

> 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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:02:46 +0200

> and relatively low cost RFI, followed by a targetted and relatively

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