Ticket #723 is a thread coming from the paragraph that says:
All outsourcing must be via well-defined contracts or equivalent instruments. If any functions are performed in-house, they must be clearly specified and documented with well-defined deliverables, service level agreements, and transparent accounting for the cost of such functions.
The two topics raised in that thread are whether the requirements need to be placed on both in-house and outsourced services, and whether the requirement for transparent accounting was overkill.
In the discussion that led to this paragraph, the point was made that a contract for a service usually documents deliverables, SLAs and so on, while it's been observed that if one does a function inhouse (whether it's telephone service, accounts-keeping or a full document publishing function), one may see that the function is either not accounted for at all or it is lumped into a general lump sum such as "overhead". Then it's hard to be transparent, since it's not documented what was done, whether it fulfilled requirements, or what it cost.
My worry is more in the direction of "state principles, not mechanisms" - that the requirement here is specifying too much about how to do these things, rather than why it should be a certain way.
So while my first instinct is to suggest that this is "no change needed", I'm instead sending this out with "discussion".....
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf