IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 19 June 2019 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD35C12097B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sejXv5U_hnnA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA663120979 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id u19so870955ior.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BoFIcvKLQm+8O54h9qapzHT0QWZG4d06BccpW0bJz8E=; b=tG/y21Fy8wxOVKMODLD4Hyd9m4EHD2nnTpvIESnWFCd5sO7NkooMWcTHuAwlevHDEq mzlyamVn4E7UgjEmEcz0Yw9y6wnh12UGkZ4bfLiR9SnZTzy+t77VPobOoVfjfqicT20T TrUdS8mDLQLy6jQqV2v739rLYLxXcNoCYreBERf+rK3YbXTAdO0dhHxrQWIVqeoO/n4a LfIXC0kneHOZhchLkuZHsiTOqDOBm4qzrJCLO/3kceAuHLta5v+QdIjtKaImeHVp0iuH 9YsKmnFOIM9jyZqZYHz/4jxJJsnxc+z7JvFg2I7hkcub/jF0LJU6HI8DPa6f8uWKBpBV 7a2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BoFIcvKLQm+8O54h9qapzHT0QWZG4d06BccpW0bJz8E=; b=JT1nppNt6fbLZ39ljIaEver/OHqOCULy33sFFmOqpL0Q4A3sHfYQEnpHmcIwZcXwoS CH0hxewwnRCytfw7efAIF3HFhp6WDEunE058JSe3wrHDwYZpoSushSKQHtrPQkiG3WdY buCGjUspJKfUJ6ZFnBXY8eCX6hJrszxpNTCSfujiz9jPZoJHZwk9FXHVo9Af9eECJHwN 2sHscqERSUAZ6f2WECApFy8gkD+65Jj5GzfnsGtrfDrEggQNcyvp8A1+wclwG0ngFnZe l8g4VqcXVO16OcgiOy1jj8CXAXcMZCyBnXy+er5hZQTQ2aL7gfOK8fwXb1SQUOLYclR/ K8RQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWzc8gaMy/tWMJn1u2FXtnQjrp1h7o/T9ylOUENlrn+7DmnMphP J/P1DjGpTIVULOBYvLd19Pf9Bl7WLF8yTMijeP8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwLEE4AGFcW1frBr8vd06PdiN0KmGEcMGCUxMdmj7Yc2qpyPkD9gdsxgs61Eqi+7Zs5gMrh5pLNeVyJ4T6h1Q0=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9e49:: with SMTP id i9mr9082528ioi.290.1560970318898; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <685B34F6-E0E2-4050-B9DD-615F475F62B7@encrypted.net> <e9d747d0-a708-7bfa-f090-d0454344e782@levkowetz.com> <cc4c0ed5-dd1b-9eda-a294-e8e7c53ccb09@gmail.com> <AF9E74FB410E2F020188A5B9@PSB> <851A68D3-1C1B-494E-BFE4-41A036171976@fugue.com> <1715AC0F-F3D9-4FFA-A0A0-BFDF54EA8EB2@comcast.net> <CAL02cgSbFO29vdGsmPJguM5gboFTvZycKKF+YvOweKHTFmP3Vw@mail.gmail.com> <b2108726-83f9-0ae6-3058-b03c85d1b30c@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <b2108726-83f9-0ae6-3058-b03c85d1b30c@comcast.net>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:51:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCsdJL6VaQWqU1SMG4ZV-29zhUzY1CJ6d09Pa-ZtNBHjA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005ce9a7058bb1b925"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ODouV7Cq3zdHNV_4VVkF8XAlgFQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:52:02 -0000

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:35 AM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
wrote:

> suggests to me that the exercise of the second extension would only happen
> if the re-bid didn't result in viable offers - including any other offers
> from the incumbent possibly bidding against themselves.
>
>
As a process clarification, it is my understanding that either the
extension occurs or a re-bid occurs, and that the recommendations on that
point come early in order to allow for either one to occur.  Extending the
existing contract after bids have been received is not one of the described
possibilities, so any bid by the incumbent would be based on a new RFP.
As a former contracting officer, I am sure you understand that an incumbent
bidding for a contract after a new RFP is extremely common.

regards,

Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email