Subject: Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:42:19 -0700 (PDT)

*> > 
  *> >>And I'd be reasonably happy if we specified 'any version of rsync greater
  *> >>than X.Y.Z', or some such.  The current debian stable version (2.6.4-6)
  *> >>would work for me.
  *> > 
  *> > Saying "rsync version 2.6 or later" works for me, as long as we 
  *> > understand the "can't eat our own dogfood" aspect of this requirement.
  *> 

A contractual requirement at this level of detail seems totally
crazy.

Bob Braden

  *> Works for me.
  *> 
  *> 
  *> 	Henrik
  *> 
  *> _______________________________________________
  *> Ietf mailing list
  *> [email-masked]
  *> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
  *> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:42:24 +0200

Hi Bob,

> A contractual requirement at this level of detail seems totally

So how would you specify the requirement to provide rsync
functionality in the SOW?

	Henrik

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:03:52 -0700

We are missing two key pieces of the IETF's Governance Model.. The first is
a bi-lateral Hold-Harmless Agreement between the Participants and the IETF
and more importantly, between their Sponsers and the IETF, and they and all
other participants and their Sponsers. Otherwise my feeling is that there is
significant liability for each and every IETF participant.

Jorge? want to comment on this? and while you are at it, how about
commenting too as to what happens the first time someone figures out in an
HR department that there is a requirement for an Enduring Power of Attorney
for IP matters in the IETF.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:21:08 +0200

> functionality in the SOW?

I would think you would say something like, "The RFC Editor shall make
available an archive of RFCs in ways most convenient to both active
participants and casual observers" and leave it at that.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 05:55:37 -0700

Elliot -
Then you leave it up to the party providing the service and open the IETF to
all kinds of trouble... By the way Elliot do you think your sponsor, Cisco
and their Legal department would let Cisco negotiate a contract like that?
Just curious

But hey - Maybe - try something like this:

    1)    as part of the Document Publishing function, "RFC Editors"will
operate document distribution, access, and delivery services on the
Internet; these services to be provided in compliance with the agreed upon
terms and conditions as defined in this Service Level Agreement. These
services are to be available to any and all  and as a minimum the following
servers/protocol's are necessary:

    o- http for Web based Browsing and BOT based recovery
    o- ftp for ftp, wget, curl clients implementing a bare set of FTP
Services
    o- rsync or mirror protocols for site-mirroring and selective recovery
of changes to the portfolio offered in the Document Publication Server
site(s).
    o- Email based Document Notification and Recovery

[Comment: Protocols to be served, and their available bandwidth's and
availability/fail-over's would all have to be in compliance with an SLA to
be negotiated with the ISOC/Secretariat in the awarding of the service
agreement. This SLA should be disclosed as well to the Body of the
Membership of the IETF at the completion of the negotiations as well as part
of the Open and Fair part of the managing of the IETF.]

    2)    An official IETF RFC Editor Mirror Program is to be established
allowing Mirrors to formally register with the RFC Editors and to provide 'a
formalized agreement to mirror the IETF media suite in one or more of its
publication forms'. Officially sanctioned sites must agree to the IETF's SLA
for 'Operating an Official IETF Mirror Site' which gives the IETF tremendous
control on those sites formalized as official mirrors who mirror its
content. Official Mirrors of the Master Document Archive will be made over
secure channels and as such will require formal registration and management
of the accounts.

[Comment: Hey SOB - this is the document I was referring to  - the plan for
how an 'official mirror' is created and what its operating requirements are.
The magic here is that any number of the VENDORS may want to operate their
own commercial mirrors and that also could be a source of revenue for the
TRUST - either way some SLA is needed.]

T

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]>
To: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "Bob Braden" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:56:54 +0200

> and their Legal department would let Cisco negotiate a contract like that?

For an RFP, you bet.  Our vendors are out to compete with one another. 
Why would any sane buyer want to limit that?

Eliot

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:33:12 -0700

> and their Legal department would let Cisco negotiate a contract like that?

This may be where some of the confusion is arising. RFPs are not contracts.
For the most part, in an RFP you want to specify WHAT you want to
accomplish, not the details of HOW it should be done. While on the one hand
it may be reasonable to specify a certain minimal level of support (I think
that http and ftp fall into this category, for example), rather than
specifying an implementation detail like "must supply rsync" it might be
better to spec "some form of efficient distribution and/or mirroring
software." I for one have always thought that it would be nice to be able to
use cvsup to maintain a local mirror, which is oodles more efficient than
rsync. Meanwhile, there is a lot of good work going on with other VCS
platforms that might be even better. (And don't even get me started on how
useful it would be for at least some of the work of editing documents, at
all levels, to be in a good VCS.)

The hope (although sometimes pollyannish, hope none the less) is always that
by making your desired end result sufficiently clear, without specifying
implementation in nauseating detail, that you might be able to find a
contractor who has more creative ideas for solving these problems than you
do. I'd like to see the RFP language be open enough to allow for that.

hth,

Doug

-- 

	If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:55:59 -0700

Doug - you said something  really important here about advancing the IETF's
collaborative processes by inducting them atop a groupware solution.

>  Meanwhile, there is a lot of good work going on with other VCS

Seriously Doug This  commentary of yours on collaborative interfaces is very
important in evolving the IETF's document collaboration processes and
getting past this insane "text-only" mindset based on UNIX Terminal Session
type interfaces to the world.

> do. I'd like to see the RFP language be open enough to allow for that.

How about the IESG is presented an "WG Collaboration Option" to the WG EMail
Service Providers Agreement which is something like:

WG Email and Service Providers may also offer collaborative interfaces in
the form of Web Based access points to Groupware sites configured for those
efforts. A Working Group for instance could operate a Web-Based Groupeware
based Collaborative Environment for any and all projects within the Umbrella
of that WG's Operations.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:04:29 -0700

Eliot - BTW
What's the difference between an RFP and an RFC by the way? - don't both
require some review process for the "Request for" part of it?

Just asking as its a semantics issue .

T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request