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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

I like what Mike St.Johns wrote and think it should be part of the document.

As Adrian said, if there is disagreement on this text, then there is a bigger problem at hand.  I don’t see how it could harmful if it helps to build a consensus.

Bob


> On Nov 11, 2021, at 9:49 AM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Mike,
> 
> I find these to useful foundations. On the whole I might take them as well-known, but I think that future-proofing the discussions by setting out this text is helpful.
> 
> It will, of course, disturb Brian and Eliot if we have to spend time on this discussion now, but it seems to me that if we don't have agreement on these points (the major points, not the wordsmithing) then we have an elephant in the room with us. Failing to address that elephant now would be gross neglect.
> 
> Since I agree with this text, I find it hard to understand which points someone might disagree with. It would be helpful that if someone is made uncomfortable by this text, they could at least flag the high level what their concerns are so I can see the scale of the disagreement.
> 
> I do understand that some might say, "There is no need to include this material," but this comes back to my first point, and putting in writing something you don't consider necessary is not immediately harmful.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rfced-future <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Michael StJohns
> Sent: 11 November 2021 17:21
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Rfced-future] RFC Principles - long delayed
> 
> 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