Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 11 November 2021 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80EA63A0DC9 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:38:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 ZGbfsATOdyXs for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:38:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D31D43A0DC5 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:38:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Hqpq72x1nz1ntwj; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:38:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1636652323; bh=HvaXdY34C7ptAZoIT1BBGbOg3MQjONV+7ltqCohjWOw=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=SRKizK/yb0iVDPgMNnb2m6KLQ/hdcyAhV7+vf2Ph/HlMGstSf5iF2UkhZeYrD+9Do khG8+/WnSpl2NEtTmRdCsnk90o4rrdA+vWZiu4ClpjDf6suePcH2eIdinluaEY/KI8 dYSl/tHCwtNFBeAQ5w7xmdwRosjWmHGH8AAnKBCI=
X-Quarantine-ID: <fXZA5qiku_UL>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.22.111] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Hqpq605p3z1nsTj; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:38:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8e10f34c-9844-5d2d-5945-1c8339e150cb@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:38:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>, "rfced-future@iab.org" <rfced-future@iab.org>
References: <79d32c80-dd1d-daf4-ae8e-5064a7d41dba@nthpermutation.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <79d32c80-dd1d-daf4-ae8e-5064a7d41dba@nthpermutation.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/Wc86Des_8LpW255XBAq7vAYrnIc>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:38:49 -0000

This seems to me to be a good list of points to include in the RFC so as 
to capture our communal goals.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/11/2021 12:20 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> 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.
>