[Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

I apologize for the delay in providing the following.  This is the 
aftermath of Stephen's question/comment about heritage and it morphed 
into a document that attempts to describe current RFC series 
principles.  I've passed this by 1/2dz or so folk and this incorporates 
their comments.




# Principles for the RFC Editor Series

The following principles provide some guidance as to the scope of
documents that the RSWG may propose and the RSAB may approve.
Documents or proposals which suggest modifications of any of the
principles shall require additional approvals past that of the
RSWG/RSAB, specifically consent from the IAB, IESG and the LLC and
such approvals shall be granted only after gaining strong community
consensus for such a change.


## Availability

The RFC series documents have been freely available digitally for more
than 35 years.  No change shall be made to the model which would
introduce fees for access to any or all of the RFC series documents.
Distribution of RFCs shall continue to be subject to the Trust
license<<REF:
https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/>>.

## Accessibility

There is a general goal to make the RFC series documents as accessible
as possible to communities that have special needs - e.g. seeing
impaired. Proposals that might negatively impact accessibility shall
require the approvals of the IESG, IAB and LLC in addition to that of
the RSAB.

## Publication Language

The publication language of the series is, and shall remain, English.
No action shall be taken which will prohibit the publication of
translations of the RFC series in other languages, but the normative
content language of an RFC shall remain English.


## Commonality of Purpose

The RFC series is the general publication system for information
related to the Internet, networking technology, and community
discussions on those topics.  Neither an expansion nor contraction of
that scope is desired.


## Diversity of Interests

The RFC series has published thought experiments, speculative ideas,
research papers, histories, humor [RFC1149, RFC2549], and even
eulogies [RFC2468].  And, more recently, Internet standards.  Each of
these RFCs and their communities have contributed to the rich history
of the RFC series, and to its somewhat human-centric take on networking.
If we did not acknowledge this and attempt to conserve the means of
such expression we would probably be poorer for it.

As the Independent Stream and IRTF Stream are the primary places that
non-standards related conversations take place, and with a desire to
maintain diversity of interests in the system, neither of these
streams may be disestablished except by the approval of the IESG, IAB,
LLC Board, and with strong community consensus.

The RFC brand shall not be reserved at any time now or in the future
solely to apply to a single community of interest i.e., IETF
publications.


## Breadth of Expression

While the RFC series has its own brand and style, the series is
expected to account for individual expression where possible.

## Archival Quality

Paraphrasing from the introduction to [RFC8153]:

The RFC Editor System provides both publication and archival services
for the RFC Series, although there is nothing prohibiting those roles
being split apart. In the archival role the main goal is to preserve
both the information described and the documents themselves for the
indefinite future.  To meet both publication and archival needs, the
RFC Editor System must find the necessary balance between the
publication needs of today and the archival needs of tomorrow, while
acknowledging a finite set of resources to complete both aspects of
the RFC Editor System functions.

As there may be legal implications related to changes in archive
policy, changes in the applicability of RFC8153 to the RFC Series, and/or
changes to RFC8153 shall require the approvals of the IAB, IESG and
LLC in addition to RSAB approval.


## World-class Publication

As a world-class publication, quality, readability and accuracy are
key to the success of the RFC Series. The publication process is
designed in part to enhance those characteristics.  Unfortunately,
those ideals are sometimes at odds with a desire for an increase in
speed of publication.  Any RSWG proposals that promote speed at the
expense of quality, readability or accuracy shall require the
approvals of the IESG, IAB and LLC in addition to that of the RSAB.