Subject: RFC Editor SOW Review

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:35:09 -0400

All;

The IAOC intends to promulgate an RFP for the RFC Editor function not 
later than 31 July 2006.  To that end we seek comments on the Statement 
of Work located at:
http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/

This Statement of Work is a draft and will be updated to conform to the 
final form of draft-mankin-pub-req for the Request for Proposal.  
Comments on this Statement of Work should be submitted by 17 July to 
ensure consideration before promulgation.

Thanks for your assistance.

Regards
Ray Pelletier
IETF Administrative Director

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

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:25:08 +0100

The SOW says:

g. Document Format Conversions
1) Accept as input ascii text files and publish documents as ascii text
files,postscript files, and pdf files

2) Accept supplemental source files that may contain information such
as: code, formal descriptions (XML, ASN.1, etc.) graphics, data files, etc.

3) Publish documents as ascii text, postscript, and pdf files

It is possible that the IETF will at some time in the future migrate
to an input format other than ASCII text. Please can we
amend the SOW to:

a) Allow the IETF to experiment with the production of RFCs
based on text formats other than ASCII text.

b) Allow the IETF the ability to introduce at some time in the
future an alternative input format to ASCII text if it so chooses.

- Stewart

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:56:08 +0100

> future an alternative input format to ASCII text if it so chooses.

Looking at the SOW again, it seems to completely ignore RFC2223.txt
section 1 that says:

"While the primary RFCs is always an ASCII text file, secondary or
alternative versions of RFC may be provided in PostScript.  This
decision is motivated by the desire to include diagrams, drawings,
and such in RFCs.  PostScript documents (on paper only, so far) are
visually more appealing and have better readability."

and also

Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts section 2 that says:

"PostScript and/or PDF are acceptable....."

- Stewart

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:08:59 -0400

I do not support Stewart's comment.

However I will note that our current process requires the rfc-editor
to accept ASCII input along with non-normative PDF or PostScript
input.  The SOW should reflect this current practice.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:13:29 +0200

The SOW will be aligned with the final version
of draft-mankin-pub-req, whose text has been adjusted
for this point in version 10.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:06:37 +0200

Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I just greped v10 and there is no reference to pdf, nor to ps,
> nor to RFC2223.

Your grep missed "text, portable document format (pdf), etc.)"
> 
> The text in section 3.9 in V10 seems ambiguous and should
> align with RFC2223 - Instructions to RFC Authors

It's meant to be wide enough to contain current practice but
not limit us to current practice.

Since RFC 2223 is very old and there are two drafts
proposing to update it, we can't use it as a stable reference
for generic requirements.

     Brian

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:46:37 +0100

- Stewart

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:46:37 +0100

- Stewart