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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 11/11/2021 17:38, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> This seems to me to be a good list of points to include in the RFC so as 
> to capture our communal goals.

+1 - I think some of Mike's text needs work but I think the
draft needs this kind of text even more.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 11/11/2021 12:20 PM, Michael StJohns 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.
>>
>