[Internal-cg] Reminder: RFP comments due Aug 1
housley at vigilsec.com
Fri Aug 1 22:02:08 UTC 2014
The proposed RFP as drafted is rigid in its format, nearly tabular, suggesting a response in tabular format. The table format encourages terse response. I suspect that the responses to some answers will be substantial, not terse.
The format hides the meat of what is needed, which is to show what will change when NTIA steps back. That is perhaps what "transitional implications" means, but it should be extremely clear.
Many of the questions asked are a bit opaque. To me, "Name/Identifier" is itself very unclear, and I am sure it will confuse a casual reader. "Customer" is either unclear or uncomfortable. I think this is leaning toward “Who uses this registry and how?” If that is correct, then I think there is a significant overlap with the expected response in “Detailed Description”. I suggest that we need all of the proposals to be geared to a wide readership, so we need to be as helpful as possible in that direction as possible.
To this objective, I think that we need to encourage plain language responses. I think we want a narrative proposal, but we should tell the authors which elements that the ICG is expecting to be covered.
More information about the Internal-cg