Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] Fwd: Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc-preservation-03> (Digital Preservation Considerations for the RFC Series)
"Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 31 January 2017 23:02 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 DF27C129C05 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:02:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 8qMNWQ1H6sC0 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:02:11 -0800 (PST)
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 8CF47129644 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46062B80F28; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:02:11 -0800 (PST)
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 83CDCB80F28 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:02:10 -0800 (PST)
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 BOxfZWPeyRur for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:02:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B84EDB80F26 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:02:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676981E566B; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:00:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SlaGfmUwgFkG; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:00:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Heathers-MacBook-Pro.local (c-50-159-75-65.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [50.159.75.65]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EFD51E5669; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:00:56 -0800 (PST)
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <20170127040607.77613.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Message-ID: <2a89e3c6-730a-3d35-6cb9-2d9425e400c7@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:02:08 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170127040607.77613.qmail@ary.lan>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] Fwd: Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc-preservation-03> (Digital Preservation Considerations for the RFC Series)
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
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: iab@iab.org, architecture-discuss@ietf.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>
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 _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc-pre… Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: [rfc-i] Fwd: Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc… Ray Pelletier
- Re: [rfc-i] Fwd: Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc… John Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] Fwd: Call for Comment: <draft-i… Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] Fwd: Call for Comment: <draft-i… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rfc-i] [arch-d] [IAB] Fwd: Call for Comment:… David Barak
- Re: [rfc-i] [arch-d] [IAB] Fwd: Call for Comment:… Larry Masinter