[Internal-cg] Redraft of RFP
housley at vigilsec.com
Fri Jul 25 21:28:06 UTC 2014
I have several small concerns, but I am _very_ worried about one sentence. I want to raise that first. Maybe that resolution will sort my smaller concerns too.
I am troubled by the statement, “Where possible and appropriate,distinct alternative options should be identified”. I don't want the ICG discussing alternatives. I am certain that we do not want the ICG accepting or rejecting alternatives.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your intent.
On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:03 AM, Paul Wilson wrote:
> Thanks to comments from a few of you, here’s a further draft of the RFP.
> My feeling is that a very structured approach is needed, and I hope that we can gather all the needed information in this way. From the IP addressing community, I think we could provide a detailed and complete response in this format, but other will need to be able to do so too.
> I hope this is useful.
> <Proposal Requirements v5.docx>
More information about the Internal-cg