Nice Andy... bravo! T
-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Jul 26, 2006 8:23 PM >To: todd glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Allison Mankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >IETF Administrative Director <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], >[email protected] >Subject: Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request > >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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Ted Hardie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL >> PROTECTED]>; >> "Allison Mankin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF Administrative Director" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> >> 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 >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
