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

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

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