Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 13 September 2004 01:29 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26320; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:29:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6fj1-0003iM-SW; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:33:48 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6fYv-00018I-BY; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:23:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6fUp-0000q8-18 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:19:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25483 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6fZP-0003W1-10 for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:23:52 -0400
Received: from [209.187.148.215] (helo=scan.jck.com) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C6fUk-0007ze-HM; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:19:02 -0400
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:19:01 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Carl Malamud <carl@media.org>
Message-ID: <1916099779AD156E220D23AD@scan.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <200409121859.i8CIxF3A001194@bulk.resource.org>
References: <200409121859.i8CIxF3A001194@bulk.resource.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, scott bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--On Sunday, 12 September, 2004 11:59 -0700 Carl Malamud <carl@media.org> wrote: > Hi John - > >> At the risk of being too specific about this, the "meeting >> planning" function(s) and the "[standards] secretariat" one(s) >> have almost nothing to do with each other --other than, in our >> case, some rather important history. > > Agreed, with the addition of Steve Crocker's point about the > meeting agenda being part of what you call the "[standards] > secretariat" and what I termed the "Clerk's Office". Absolutely. I thought that too obvious to mention, but the clarification is obviously useful. >> To further complicate things, I personally don't think the >> IETF has yet figured out enough about what it really wants >> from the secretariat part of the function and reached enough >> consensus on that to justify any RFP-writing. > > I agree with you. My personal view is that a better strategy > for that piece is to attempt to negotiate a sole source > contract with CNRI. I don't think we understand the process > (indeed we probably haven't defined the process enough) to do > an RFP. Just my view, and there are reasonable opinions to the > contrary. See my response to Harald's note (which may take a while -- still organizing my thoughts about how to explain the comment in a little more depth). There is a difficulty, of course, with negotiating a sole source deal with CNRI. If I listen to the tales of woe from various IESG members and, to a lesser extent, the IESG and IAB as a whole, difficulties getting CNRI/Foretec to perform that standards-secretariat function adequately to meet their needs is one of only two big-time, serious, critical-path problems in this whole "administrative restructuring" area. Of those two, it is also the more important/critical in the sense of immediate and obvious short-term negative impact on the ability of the IESG, document authors, etc., to get their jobs done, i.e., on the standards process itself. If we can afford to put those issues aside by going to a sole source arrangement instead, then I don't think there is a strong case for urgency in _any_ of your recommendations (or the alternatives to them). At least as important, I could easily be wrong here, but I don't see "attempt to negotiate a sole source with CRNI" to be a particular easy choice. Remember that, without getting into the additional complexities of contractual arrangements, the IETF has been attempting to negotiate an MOU with CRNI, and then Foretec, on and off for eight, maybe ten, years. Having been part of that process for a while, I'm pretty confident that there are real differences in assumptions and perceptions that have been important to both sides... not the sort of thing that is easily negotiated away. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- first steps (was The other parts of the report...) scott bradner
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… scott bradner
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… John C Klensin
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Steve Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Carl Malamud
- What we need done (Re: first steps (was The other… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… John C Klensin
- Re: What we need done (Re: first steps (was The o… avri
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Dave Crocker
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Dave Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… graham.travers
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… graham.travers
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Steve Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Joel Jaeggli
- IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) shogunx
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Tim Chown
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) william(at)elan.net
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Hadmut Danisch
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Dick St.Peters
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 Sam Hartman
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 John C Klensin
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Mark Allman
- RE: Meeting locations (was IETF 62) Robin Uyeshiro
- Re: IETF 62 Scott Michel
- Re: IETF 62 Michael D Frisch
- Re: IETF 62 Ted Faber