Re: [arch-d] [IAB] [rfc-i] Fwd: Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc-preservation-03> (Digital Preservation Considerations for the RFC Series)

["Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[e-mail]>]

On 1/26/17 8:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> Abstract
>>
>>   The RFC Editor is both the publisher and the archivist for the RFC
>>   Series.  This document applies specifically to the archivist role of
>>   the RFC Editor.  It provides guidance on when and how to preserve
>>   RFCs, and the tools required to view or re-create RFCs as necessary.
>>   This document also highlights where gaps are in the current process,
>>   and where compromises are suggested to balance cost with ideal best
>>   practice.
> I'm generally in agreement with the advice in this draft, except for
> the parts about paper.
>
> We know that good quality paper with black ink is stable for
> centuries, because we have books from the 1700s and earlier in
> libraries that we can still read.  I also know a surprising number of
> people doing retrocomputing who retype source code from old printouts
> from the 1960s.  After 50 years, the electronic media are missing or
> unreadable, but the printouts are still OK.
>
> So I would suggest printing out the XML and perhaps one of the
> formatted versions (so they can see what the XML is supposed to say)
> of RFCs on good paper and filing them away.  I think we can assume
> that OCR in the future will be at least as good as it is now, so as
> long as the printouts use a reasonable typeface, it'll be possible to
> scan them in if need be.  It doesn't have to be in real time; a
> printathon once or twice a year should be plenty.
>

Thank you for the feedback, John. Paper can indeed be a very stable
material for archival purposes. For digital-born documents, I think it's
insufficient for the purpose of archiving all the information intended
to be captured with a digital document and leaving it readable for the
future. Yes, information can be printed out that describes the metadata
for the document. The XML is human readable, in that it is not encrypted
or compiled in any way that a standard text reader and printer couldn't
handle. However, all that readable-but-not-user-friendly paper takes up
space and requires its own expertise to store and maintain in a properly
archival fashion. The RFC Editor does not have that experience, nor the
proper space, to store an ever growing body of work. We could of course
work on that, buying the correct paper and ink, reprinting all the RFCs,
and finding suitable climate (both humidity and temperature, with
appropriate fire suppression) controlled storage to house the material.
But that seems like a waste of resources when there are actual
archivists who can and will handle our material properly, in its digital
form.

That said, of the archivists I've approached about the Series, the only
paper of interest is the original set that has unique, hand-written
annotations in the margins. All the newer documents are only interesting
in their digital form. The content is still interesting, but it takes up
much less physical space, and they have the processes in house for
handling the issues of bit rot. They also expect to support the
readability of the material (since we are using common publication
formats) far into the future.


Thanks,
Heather