Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Sat, 31 August 2019 01:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834681200B2 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 18:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hfDANQcvZBAO for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 18:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 722B2120044 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 18:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3DDB80D38; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 18:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF390B80D37 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 18:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ys-3WFCalf9N for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 18:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9374BB80D35 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 18:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 18:53:49 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Sarah Banks' <sbanks@encrypted.net>, 'RFC Interest' <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
References: <4675DA5C-0CFE-4E02-980D-770B17907D35@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <4675DA5C-0CFE-4E02-980D-770B17907D35@encrypted.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 18:53:47 -0700
Message-ID: <02d501d55f9e$ef73e8c0$ce5bba40$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJ6Oda1o3S6w/V8lfTgFFu5lhF1h6XKxRrw
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0978311450640912148=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

I am having a problem trying to figure out what you mean when you say
tactical vs strategic in your mail.   There are a number of items which I
think of as strategic that you are placed in this SOW.  I would consider any
left over issues, and I expect there to be many, issues around the move to
the v3 xml2rfc vocabulary to be strategic.  Anything which deals with what
the long term format and display of RFCs is not something that is a short
term, let's get things done, type of problem to be solved, but is something
that needs to be examined as a long term issue.

 

It is not clear from the SOW if you believe that the Temp Series Manager is
supposed to be providing input into both the long term strategic re-write of
the RFC Editor model and to help in doing preparation of bid documents and
selection.  Given that this person is going to be the only one round with a
solid knowledge of how things work that would seem to me to be implied.
Again however, this is a strategic function.  

 

I have absolutely no idea of what is meant by the requirement "Familiarity
with a wide range of Internet technologies."  Does this mean that if I use a
web browser, an email client as well as an IM client and do web conferencing
that I meet this requirement?  I am using and thus am familiar with some of
the major technologies on the internet today.  Or instead to you mean that
there should be some type of familiarity with the workings of the technology
instead?  At least a part of me is just unsure how useful this requirement
is, after all the stream managers are the ones who are supposed to be
approving the technical content.  At most the RFC Editor needs is the
ability to say - but can the tools team, the RFC Publisher or a contractor
do something like the following to make the user experience better when
looking at the RFC Editor website.   If you mean the first then "Familiarity
with using a wide range of internet technologies." seems to be much clearer.

 

Jim

 

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest