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
- [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Jim Schaad
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adrian Farrel
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Salz, Rich
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… Jim Schaad
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Eliot Lear
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… Jim Schaad
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adrian Farrel
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Brian E Carpenter
- [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series (was: Re: … Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series (was: … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Leif Johansson
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Randy Bush
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] "community" for the RFC series Colin Perkins