--On Tuesday, 25 July, 2006 20:09 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<jhutz@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
>> But at least
>> some of us believe that making the approval process or content
>> of RFCs that do not arise from IETF processes subsidiary to
>> the IESG would not be in the best interests of the Internet
>> community.
>
> I'm not sure yet what my position is on that question; there
> are valid arguments on both sides. However, I don't think
> this question needs to be resolved in order to put out an RFP,
> because I don't think the RFP should have that level of
> detail. I believe that was one of Leslie's original points -
> there is no need to name a particular entity, especially when
> it might be changing.
Then the RFP should be for "publications services for the IETF"
or "publications services for IASA" or "publications services
for ISOC". If the RFP is for "the RFC Editor" or "managing and
developing the RFC series", then either the document text has to
be much more neutral than it is now or we need to be reasonably
assured that the entity issuing the RFC has or can acquire the
standing to do so.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf