Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 11 November 2021 20:54 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 5B7DF3A0DEB for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:54:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.428
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.428 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 He03Nc9YPjV7 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:53:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8408E3A0C9D for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:53:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id y7so6828126plp.0 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:53:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sPRhspbSGGEjwU4JpYfSlP3J5dLkM4ZTcmEXyRUwOSU=; b=TVpWv91bpCqrRZo971idH+gvKLwuQcceKmFL+pi89i4PASC6W71EoIg6xMB4YxuyKX UeXADqXDCtg9eTUD26Lkeh+Cx5ki4EHM2m5k/XZBHoylNlBci7xAbnyAQ5XTyg9mVQZF z76jKBHJD5wif6/f0J3eBxMMfKNuXea4fCHMdii3X8usixJoDCSpNUbNSOupfMbNS371 whs/uS/1nBk/4lqDS4ln5dSbtvVRJQNGk0botJxRn2jhjKSiVWUfsgDdaSZdjMlCTwRQ vRfDqXPGsBCyf78qhpKfKgGGPrTWcnQ2gGdw4zfQAr9NyWN1CI76L/N4K/Y0FwLeHwvx 02sA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sPRhspbSGGEjwU4JpYfSlP3J5dLkM4ZTcmEXyRUwOSU=; b=ZZZTQKicTLph3Nw/heCJyMtoP+LSGdifaS8M/S9y7i92cfq/Hi4IXUMwMpGOfQpceW skXLAfsPFJJtqLOoTV4LXMyGssT6aRNEExqneXFZHG9DBYMOmMep0ZESJv8WPnNwfOsb 10vnKZbg3TJzjwxwqj03lkoyWNhRgI3L3q7Fj0lnBKFwdeFKnVjHeMKB1HGyh/wQcmWL +OM6z/iO6Ij5nPSss/WKofrwJSMhoSQaclNfRhICSb2g7JOGCesJO2NM8dec1aDHH8lO bFY0fUs6XI7qMqYgDRCWQa4a3pRpPe/4QR+AHk9QNn3qbdsIByVM4Q1GR0zETEN2x605 bXEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532yi3ByLEdWid+kDzfmFe8FwMc6/T1nKwLjgt/PeQ2YaX3o0IuP NFBMA0UeoM5mKbv1Jfn476M5lfqCgkOzcg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyMeL91aKzbA+CP81iyyb2ThJHIH1mGBdAjOXMj7oYVB7KR7A45RKC2VecPHTQB0mTd1u2SgQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7b8d:b0:143:95e3:7dc0 with SMTP id w13-20020a1709027b8d00b0014395e37dc0mr2035004pll.21.1636664035970; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:53:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:102d:e801:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:102d:e801:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bf19sm9178231pjb.6.2021.11.11.12.53.54 for <rfced-future@iab.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:53:55 -0800 (PST)
To: rfced-future@iab.org
References: <79d32c80-dd1d-daf4-ae8e-5064a7d41dba@nthpermutation.com> <9525E25C-FD32-4897-8701-F1FB59F4991A@brianrosen.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8baf1fdd-3e45-ec7a-525f-0c6c64bde73b@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 09:53:51 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9525E25C-FD32-4897-8701-F1FB59F4991A@brianrosen.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/bzexjHmi4uptV1dnM-f0-E-yCJQ>
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 20:54:01 -0000
On 12-Nov-21 06:40, Brian Rosen wrote: > Mike > > Thanks for this. > > Prior to working on specific wording, I would like to understand how many of us think we need something a lot like this in our document. We need something a lot like this. Whether it's in *this* document or a companion document (#2 in the Editorial Stream) seems less important to me. > Alternatives to working on this proposed text might include: > 1. Nothing, we agree mostly, but don’t think we should be so proscriptive in this document > 2. Something a whole lot smaller that gets at the idea but without the detail Before we get to that, I think we need to know what disagreements *in principle* might exist. I was not one of the people who saw this in advance, but I support all of it. I would also add a commitment to a robust and open peer review process. Regards Brian C > > What do you think? > > Brian > >> On Nov 11, 2021, at 12:20 PM, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> 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. >> >> -- >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >
- [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Michael StJohns
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed John C Klensin
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Salz, Rich
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed John C Klensin
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Tommy Pauly
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed John C Klensin
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Bob Hinden
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Scott Bradner
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Salz, Rich
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Tommy Pauly
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Jay Daley
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Christian Huitema
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed John Levine
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed John C Klensin
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed John C Klensin
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Tommy Pauly
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Christian Huitema
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed John C Klensin
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Michael StJohns
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Christian Huitema
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Tommy Pauly
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed John C Klensin
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Jay Daley
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Jay Daley
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed John C Klensin