I also agree - just some editorial suggestions. As the reader may not be completely familiar with the RFC series or RFC Editor role, an early reference to rfc-editor.org would be helpful. In addition, all document references, especially RFC references, should be hyperlinks.
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 9:47 AM Lucy Lynch <llynch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 9, 2019, at 7:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> With that fix, Mike's draft looks pretty good to me.
>
I agree - this is much closer to what I’d expect to see if I was looking at this job as a potential candidate
> Regards
> Brian
>
>> On 09-Sep-19 06:57, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> On 9/8/2019 2:25 PM, RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> With my ISE hat on...
>>>
>>>> I also added an "optional deliverable" to cover April fool's RFCs.
>>> While the ISE in some sense sits under the RSE, I believe that the 4/1
>>> RFCs are the responsibility of the ISE, not the RSE.
>>>
>>> Operationally, the ISE has always asked the for an opinion on candidate
>>> documents, but the final decision has been with the ISE.
>>>
>>> I don't think you need to include this in the SoW.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Adrian
>>
>> OOPS! Noted and easy enough to remove.
>>
>> Let's see where/if this goes first...
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
