Re: [rfc-i] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 20 February 2020 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99AB9120816 for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:34:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Id_OOdNICw5X for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB6F81202DD for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A673F4071E; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4F0F4071E for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:34:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3PLMrs6HlBAa for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:34:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61794F4071A for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:34:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v23so39470pgk.2 for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:34:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=r7eCw6kCzAwv9+KpqaWHsZPqI5nPcojdV4owmRbZSgU=; b=QXXaopak655unpvSgdYYpWHSAGFmAPtCIugbpZWk5cQuw9DdiGhVU/kg7OETrNuH4A znOEOl/O/t4i48fzXNgEGVA6avMe14kBrZ95MWAjn2ura2u/cEGu2enHgu/QETF3J93I UDf4LAjLpnsPh+3R8yva5AmsYhV8VCrP2dB7o68QSWB1CM68U0C7yFBwDYmRfvtLAjmv 1hRzNvlIRgEGvVMnIYF7UGcfL6qd0AIBLCycErxzwtgk1nQvy/XlphVswLCzADDmmfSl tg23RaiE+XuKzeOnKsNPVMUf5kJg9Sqn677vVBrum4Ny0RL2s/2hwnOJHUjVIhXv26BU Gfjg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=r7eCw6kCzAwv9+KpqaWHsZPqI5nPcojdV4owmRbZSgU=; b=bqQnHA0EmvOKssHFXfqCS/tp0/8inQnt981wttrlXo1q0XgalK7XJYcq6/rgPvScFP xn2KZnc1dNAgzLDuVA4P53dfDsIXOeK4KtvLJu/kEiCsMQPUIFor0X8BP0iJ5FjbS/KR +BiuvhPYt3J5RVr3Wp7MirICqf/BtXUyMKQjh9pmZgnvAyb/bShjbi+bfcYDJAx2hBzm la6WmauyCb4i/CqcXZ7WAZZSe2SJnGQAjD2vhbLHFhAAPgU3D6d8GMj2IkMCf/120HOO nuWTE0gUygylaDyjgSsU/Q8WQnuHIE40vx+O77n6nQCf5vsqqSWhMJ6xh5BjQ6bVJgqs ofsg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVfBybETLQGGvy3EZK7ZQ7gQeJq0QNM5oX8RapbHv8aiOjldqiH MaTYMOsMYfYPoSyThlxsQJM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLkd8JS+ZV2Mz6LnnIwjilwr18my8t6fn9ApBzl7U3BQ54oQ4+d0yfCz9YzPp5oLN5yqobGA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:120f:: with SMTP id h15mr36771792pgl.235.1582241651822; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id p18sm4346674pjo.3.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:34:11 -0800 (PST)
To: Sarah Banks <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:34:08 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Cc: RSOC <>, RFC Interest <>, Internet Architecture Board <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

I'm sorry, Sarah, I am simply incapable of understanding where this fits into "oversight". If it's anybody's problem operationally, it's John Levine's; and if there is a strategic concern it presumably belongs to the IETF Trust, which owns the IPR and therefore needs to be concerned about the long-term integrity of documents.

   Brian Carpenter

On 20-Feb-20 12:58, Sarah Banks wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>    It’s coming from the RSOC because we do not currently have an RSE. We currently do not have an acting RSE. We have a person in situ doing his finest to hold down tactical items while the community figures out the RSE business. Because this item felt like it couldn’t be simply shelved until there is an RSE the RSOC, including the temp PM, decided to share this note in the spirit of transparency. It’s not a new discussion in the RSOC, simply a byproduct of the desire to share info. 
> Thanks
> Sarah
>> On Feb 13, 2020, at 12:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>> Sarah,
>> This is not about the technical aspect of your message.
>> Can you clarify why this is RSOC business? I don't understand where it fits in I would have expected any proposals to come from the (acting) RSE.
>> Regards
>>   Brian Carpenter
>>> On 14-Feb-20 08:10, Sarah Banks wrote:
>>> Hello IAB and RFC-interest community,
>>>    The RSOC has been following discussion of the issues encountered in deploying the v3 RFC format. These issues have necessitated several changes to the format as bugs and ambiguities are found. While we believe that this is necessary, we have a concern that the incremental nature of these changes will result in will result in RFCs published in more than one XML format over time, as the adjustments are made.
>>>    The Temporary RFC Series Project Manager is currently investigating how many of the already-executed as well as anticipated changes might result in backwards-incompatible changes to the format, to get a better sense of scale. 
>>>    It could be that having multiple such formats in the corpus of RFCs will be an acceptable outcome; or, a decision could be made to re-publish the affected "interim format" RFCs in the final v3 format. We don't believe it's necessary to make that decision now, but we're sharing this information with the broader community for discussion.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sarah
>>> For the RSOC
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rfc-interest mailing list

rfc-interest mailing list