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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 27 January 2017 04:06 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F50129C92 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:06:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cdwNG4Aoh0-m for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44D08129453 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 14664 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2017 04:06:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 27 Jan 2017 04:06:29 -0000
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:06:07 -0000
Message-ID: <20170127040607.77613.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <97787578-d1ef-12d2-9faf-30da51e3b5c2@rfc-editor.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/xKnLBcLd5WhY6VMcg-iFGdUqefM>
Cc: iab@iab.org, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [arch-d] [rfc-i] Fwd: Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc-preservation-03> (Digital Preservation Considerations for the RFC Series)
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:06:32 -0000

>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.

R's,
John