[rfc-i] RSOC recommendation for the ongoing maintenance of the new canonical RFC format grammar

Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net> Wed, 01 May 2019 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC9A120019 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2019 15:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Pg9o7uqpNWcm for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2019 15:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FE6A120086 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2019 15:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EEBB80380; Wed, 1 May 2019 15:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F27B80336 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 1 May 2019 15:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MaTAYlqQBIm7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 1 May 2019 15:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aws.hosed.org (aws.hosed.org [50.16.104.137]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 740CCB802C0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 1 May 2019 15:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6EA80631; Wed, 1 May 2019 18:52:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aws.hosed.org
Received: from aws.hosed.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aws.hosed.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9fmhv1L5SHAk; Wed, 1 May 2019 18:52:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.20.10.3] (mobile-166-171-250-9.mycingular.net [166.171.250.9]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A696F8007A; Wed, 1 May 2019 18:52:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Message-Id: <4BAE5CD5-B498-4B91-AD50-5C1085AA8A66@encrypted.net>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2019 15:51:57 -0700
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Subject: [rfc-i] RSOC recommendation for the ongoing maintenance of the new canonical RFC format grammar
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: RSOC <rsoc@iab.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hello,
	As part of the RFC Format transition project, the RFC Series Editor oversaw a significant consensus-based process to develop a target for the grammar used in new canonical RFCs. This effort resulted in RFC 7991. Using a consensus-based project for that stage of development of the new RFC format worked well. However, using a consensus process for managing the tradeoffs in implementation and deployment reality as they are discovered has worked less well.

	The RSOC believes using a consensus process whenever reasonable is the right thing to do. But ultimately, the RFC Series Editor, with oversight from the IAB via the RSOC, is responsible for the canonical format, and how it should evolve.  The RSOC recommends that the RFC Series Editor use whatever process for maintaining this format she sees fit for that purpose.

Thanks,
Sarah Banks
on behalf of RSOC
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest