Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] rfclint-01

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 08:33:19 -0700

On 5/30/14, 1:44 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Here is an update with the comments received so far.
> While this feels light, I'm not seeing an obvious next level of detail
to add.
> What questions would you have if you were handed this as an SoW to bid
on that this doesn't answer yet?

Does this assume too much RFC- and I-D-tool related knowledge?  Could
someone with little or no knowledge of the IETF understand what they are
bidding on?  Please note that I don't intend those as leading questions;
I am just not sure where the line is between expecting a certain level
of knowledge and encouraging a wider variety of bidders.  I have erred
on the side of expecting too much knowledge in the past.

Thanks,
Heather

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 22:16:51 -0400

> on that this doesn't answer yet?

This tool does not need to run AS a web service -- it is sufficient for 
it to be able to be run behind a web service.

I think this document should be rewritten to be of more use to IETF 
authors and the ADs and the IESG, and not just the RFC Editor. All of 
those checks for non-ascii characters, spelling, abnf, etc, are just as 
useful for the rest of us.

Right now all of the stuff related to internet drafts is in the "it'd be 
nice to also support this" category. If we're going to put this out for 
bid, let's make certain that it provides support for the wider 
community. For example, make certain that the source is accessible to 
authors, and that it can run behind a web service.

     Tony Hansen

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:30:30 -0500

I think this addresses the comments so far.
What else needs to change?

RjS

On 6/1/14, 9:16 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
>> While this feels light, I'm not seeing an obvious next level of 
>> detail to add.
>> What questions would you have if you were handed this as an SoW to 
>> bid on that this doesn't answer yet?
>
> This tool does not need to run AS a web service -- it is sufficient 
> for it to be able to be run behind a web service.
>
> those checks for non-ascii characters, spelling, abnf, etc, are just 
> as useful for the rest of us.
>
> Right now all of the stuff related to internet drafts is in the "it'd 
> be nice to also support this" category. If we're going to put this out 
> for bid, let's make certain that it provides support for the wider 
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:10:24 -0400

On 6/19/14, 2:30 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> be nice to also support this" category. If we're going to put this 
>> out for bid, let's make certain that it provides support for the 
>> wider community. For example, make certain that the source is 
>> accessible to authors, and that it can run behind a web service.

Looks good to me.

     Tony Hansen

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:31:12 -0500

All -

I should have changed the subject earlier to catch other folks eyes.

If you didn't spot it already, there's a new version attached a couple 
messages in the thread back.

Thanks for the quick feedback Tony.

RjS

On 6/19/14, 2:10 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
>>> authors and the ADs and the IESG, and not just the RFC Editor. All 
>>> of those checks for non-ascii characters, spelling, abnf, etc, are 
>>> just as useful for the rest of us.
>>>
>>> Right now all of the stuff related to internet drafts is in the 
>>> "it'd be nice to also support this" category. If we're going to put 
>>> this out for bid, let's make certain that it provides support for 
>>> the wider community. For example, make certain that the source is

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:37:45 -0400

I wonder if we need to require that the tool run on Windows.  I know this is not a requirement for the RFC Editor, but the SOW talks about being useful to authors too.

Russ

On Jun 19, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

>>> While this feels light, I'm not seeing an obvious next level of detail to add.
>>> What questions would you have if you were handed this as an SoW to bid on that this doesn't answer yet?
>> 
>> This tool does not need to run AS a web service -- it is sufficient for it to be able to be run behind a web service.
>> 
>> I think this document should be rewritten to be of more use to IETF authors and the ADs and the IESG, and not just the RFC Editor. All of those checks for non-ascii characters, spelling, abnf, etc, are just as useful for the rest of us.
>> 
>> Right now all of the stuff related to internet drafts is in the "it'd be nice to also support this" category. If we're going to put this out for bid, let's make certain that it provides support for the wider community. For example, make certain that the source is accessible to authors, and that it can run behind a web service.
>> 
>>    Tony Hansen