Re: [Rfced-future] Historical Properties

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

FWIW, I like Brian's text. Were that added I'd be fine with
supporting the draft.

As a nice to have, I'd maybe also like something about our
processes being as open as possible, but that is one that
may well be better as a topic for the RSWG as, a) it'd be
a new thing if does series-wide and b) it might take a good
bit of work to figure some of that out as processes vary
from stream to stream.

Cheers,
S.

On 24/11/2021 03:43, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> At the risk of finding a lot of messages in my inbox tomorrow,
> here's a proposed shorter alternative to Mike's "RFC Principles".
> Obviously a different slant, and I'm sure Peter will spot
> some overlaps with existing text:
> 
> # Historical Properties of the RFC Editor Series
> 
> The following describes some historical properties of
> the RFC Series. Proposals to modify any of these properties
> should not be taken forward without a strong community consensus
> including not only active RSWG/RSAB members but also the user
> community of each RFC stream.
> 
> ## Availability
> 
> The RFC series documents have been freely available digitally for more
> than 35 years, with no fee for access. The IETF Trust [legal provisions]
> (https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/) apply.
> 
> ## Accessibility
> 
> There is a general goal to make the RFC series documents as accessible
> as possible to communities that have special needs, e.g., for those
> with impaired sight.
> 
> ## Publication Language
> 
> The publication language of the series is English. Although
> translations of RFCs into other languages are welcomed, the
> English version is normative.
> 
> ## Diversity of Interests
> 
> In addition to Internet standards, the RFC series has published
> procedural and informational documents, thought experiments, speculative
> ideas, research papers, histories, humor [RFC1149, RFC2549], and even
> eulogies [RFC2468].  Various communities have contributed to the rich 
> history
> of the RFC series, and to its somewhat human-centric take on networking.
> This why several streams of RFCs exist in addition to the IETF stream,
> and why the RFC "brand" is wider than the IETF. This is also why the
> series does not have a "house style" and allows for individual expression.
> 
> ## Document Quality
> 
> Nevertheless, since RFCs need to be archived indefinitely and must
> be of use to a widespread international community, quality, readability
> and accuracy are key to the success of the RFC Series. It is
> understood that sometimes this stands in the way of rapid publication.
> 
>     Brian C
>