Hi Bill on 2006-07-19 04:26 Bill Fenner said the following: >>Ok. So I'm not sure what you propose here - should we not require >>rsync and ftp mirroring capability, or should we ask for it, and not >>specify chapter and verse regarding version etc.? I'd certainly be >>very unhappy completely abandoning the rsync capability. > > I think that RFCs should be available via [at least] rsync, ftp and www. > I think that a provider who provided less than what we have now [hint: > we currently have more than that] would be exercising bad judgement > and would probably lose the contract at renegotiation time - so are > we trying to protect against someone getting the contract who doesn't > actually want to provide services, or doesn't actually want the long-term > business, or is actively malicious to the IETF, or what? My thinking has been to protect against a temporary break of services because "it's not in the contract" -- whether that break is months, because of a failing of a possibly new provider to realize what we currently have, or years, because we'll have to wait out a contract period. I don't think the availability of mirrorable content is less important than the services which are currently specified in the Statement Of Work. It may be that the level of detail specification should be less than what it is now, overall; but with the current specification level I felt it is a clear omission to not specify *any* access to the documents except through a search facility. I feel that direct ftp/http/rsync access is actually more important than the search facility specified in the proposed SOW, which is why I commented on this. Henrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf