Bob, On 2011-02-22 08:23, Bob Hinden wrote: > John, > > Support for the xml2rfc tool was discussed on the IETF mail > list when Marshall Rose indicated he could no longer support > the tool. Several people volunteered to maintain the tool, > and they recommended the it be rewritten. That > recommendation plus the realization that this tool had become > critical to IETF operations resulted in the IAOC deciding to > issue a public RFP for a rewrite. > > The Statement of Work in the xml2rfc RFP was reviewed and > modified by the people on the tool-development list. You can > read the discussion at: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-development/current/maillist.html > > There was an active discussion that resulted in many changes > from what was first proposed. While this wasn't the whole > community I think it a good representation of the people who > are interested in the xml2rfc tool. I will send you the list > members off line. Also, we will use a subset of this group > to review the bids. I think the tools development list was a good venue for the detailed discussion. Was the process mentioned on tools-discuss too? (I dropped off that one a while back, due to lack of cycles, but it does seems the obvious place, not to mention the xml2rfc list, where I don't recall it being mentioned). > > The legal services RFP was developed inside the IAOC/Trust. > To be honest, I didn't see very much value in doing a > community review for this. We will consider it in the > future. I do note that this work was previously done without > a public RFP (dating back to when Wilmer-Hale was providing > the service) so I think this is a better process than what > was used earlier. > > In the future, we will strive to give more notice to the > community on planned RFPs. I think that is appropriate, given the comments in BCP 101 about transparency. But I agree that for legal services, our community doesn't particularly have the skills to wordsmith an RFP. Brian > > Bob > > p.s. I will forward your specific comments to tools-discuss. > > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:49 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> This is not an attempt to derail either of these RFPs, nor >> is it a formal appeal (request for review). However, these >> two RFPs raise an issue that may be worth some >> consideration. >> >> The clear intent of the discussions leading up to RFC 4071/ >> BCP 101, and some of text in that document, was that the >> IASA was to act with maximum transparency to the community >> and openness to community comment. It is especially >> important that substantive decisions be open for community >> review and discussion before they are made because, >> especially for those that are eventually represented by >> contracts, there is no mechanism for review later. >> >> IASA has recently issued two RFPs -- for legal services and >> for a reprogrammed version of xml2rfc -- with no advance >> indication to the community (at least that I can find) that >> they were coming or opportunity for the community to review >> draft provisions. The clear expectation is that proposals >> will be submitted (on a fairly short timeframe) and that >> the IAD and IAOC will do whatever they do to evaluate the >> proposals and establish contracts. I don't know whether >> that is harmful in these particular cases, but I don't >> believe it is how the community had intended that things be >> done. >> >> FWIW, community discussion might have improved at least the >> XML2RFC one -- either the details of the RFP or community >> confidence that it addresses/includes the right >> specifications. For example, of the very large number of >> extensions or additions that have bee requested over the >> years, the RFP selects two (explicit line breaks in titles) >> and alternate anchors for citations/references) but ignores >> the others. I know that the ability to easily index and >> cross-reference items in bulleted lists, to easily generate >> numbers for ABNF productions (rules) and build an index of >> productions, to have indexing reflect section (and other >> subdivision) numbers rather than page numbers (as various >> RFC style guides have required for years and that becomes >> particularly important as people contemplate non-paginated >> output formats), the ability to properly reference books >> and journal articles without resorting to odd tricks >> involving seriesInfo, and better handling of widows and >> orphans (especially with regard to section title-text and >> lists with undented headings top my personal list, but >> there are certainly others. >> >> In addition, one of the two extensions that was specified >> involves the addition of a new format-specific directive >> that is exclusive to xml2rfc, not the DTD/Schema, thereby >> making equivalent processing by other, XML-standard, >> processors problematic and violating the fundamental >> principle that generic markup does not specify formatting. >> Perhaps community members might have been able to propose >> design models that are more friendly to XML principles and >> other tools (even I can think of one or two). >> >> The two extensions that were chosen may be the most >> important ones, and there may be a reason why two >> extensions were chosen rather than one or five. But it >> seems to me that the community, and perhaps even the text >> of the RFP and the proposals that will arrive in response, >> would have benefited from some opportunity for review and >> discussion. >> >> Can we at least agree to more openness about draft RFP >> contents in the future? Or get an explanation from the >> IAOC as to why the procedural model now seems to include >> issuance of RFPs without any opportunity for community >> review of their substantive provisions? >> >> thanks, john >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ IAOC >> mailing list IAOC@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing > list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf