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

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

I agree with John Levine.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]


On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest