In making it easier to follow this obtuse and convoluted solicitation document, the other thing is that the HISTORY section needs to go - go elsewhere - and I personally don't ever need to see it again in the RFP itself. The RFP is a formal solicitation for participation or services - it is step one of a contract and needs to be clean, terse, and to the point - concise... which means that this group is probably lost this one already... but hey - bad attitude on my part eh? So the Solicitation Document should have the specific requirements of the Solicitation and nothing more. It is not a literary work or a work-of-art much to many of your chagrin I bet. This is not about publishing for fame and fortune - its a solicitation for a specific contract and those that are not aware of the nightmare they are bidding into are never going to survive the vetting process so ... I suggest a quick edit and we can the History and the graphs. Also the terms that are show-stoppers must be enumerated as such and there are a couple that are unclear. Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> To: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz@xxxxxxx>; "Allison Mankin" <mankin@xxxxxxx>; "IETF Administrative Director" <iad@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <iaoc@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:23 AM Subject: Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request > > > --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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf