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

Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> Thu, 13 February 2020 19:10 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EA41201EF for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:10:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.951
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vnZMvYo7Na22 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:10:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F3B71201AA for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:10:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B6FF406F2; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:10:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FF5F406F2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:10:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6bUy86d6bxes for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aws.hosed.org (aws.hosed.org []) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E745F406F0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:09:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBA2E042B; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:10:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from aws.hosed.org ([]) by localhost (aws.hosed.org []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lFlyWZSyf2wS; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:10:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [] (mobile-166-137-179-102.mycingular.net []) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9632BE0428; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:10:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:10:21 -0800
References: <4D336E41-401D-487D-A931-CD57477D20BE@mnot.net>
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
Message-Id: <FC7C2C96-001A-4DF8-8E3F-A3CC4E96F0EF@encrypted.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Subject: [rfc-i] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB
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 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.

For the RSOC

rfc-interest mailing list