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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

As I said at the meeting, I believe the current text is sufficient and that
attempting to converge on these principles will be very expensive

-Ekr


On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:40 AM Brian Rosen <[e-mail]> 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.
>
> 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
>
> What do you think?
>
> Brian
>
> > On Nov 11, 2021, at 12:20 PM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
> 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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>