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

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

I don’t have a view on whether or not these principles are incorporated, but if they are to be incorporated, then I do have some significant issues with the way they are drafted and two content issues.

My first content issue is that "Commonality of purpose" and "Diversity of interests" contradict each other.  The former restricts the scope, the latter addresses the extraordinary breadth of the scope.  My recommendation would be to delete "Commonality of purpose" because I can only see it stopping things from happening, not protecting the series in any way.

My second content issue is that "Breadth of expression" does not properly balance the stated aim "individual expression" with the need for consistency, clarity, readability, etc.  Rather than express this in favour of one or another, it is better put as statement of the various things that must be balanced.

My draft issues are that a number of these are not expressed as principles, they are expressed as policy and for me the whole point about principles is that they sit above policy, as analysed below:

> # 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.

This change mechanism is the one piece of policy that is required and doesn’t need repeating below.

> ## Availability
> 
> The RFC series documents have been freely available digitally for more than 35 years.

Principle but better stated as "The RFC series documents shall be freely available digitally".

>   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/>>.

Policy.

> ## 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. 

Principle.

> Proposals that might negatively impact accessibility shall
> require the approvals of the IESG, IAB and LLC in addition to that of
> the RSAB.

Policy.  Covered by the change mechanism above.

> ## 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.

Principles

> ## 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.

As noted above, I would strike this.

> ## 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.

Principle

> 
> 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.

Policy.

> 
> 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.

Principle.

> 
> ## Breadth of Expression
> 
> While the RFC series has its own brand and style, the series is
> expected to account for individual expression where possible.

Principle but my preference would be "The RFC Series should balance the need for a defined brand and style to ensure consistency, clarity and readability, with the freedom of authors to express themselves individually."

> ## 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.

Principle.

> 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.

Policy.

> ## 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.  

Principle, though better worded as a statement of balance.

> 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.

Policy.

I would simply strike all the policy parts except the change mechanism in the preamble.

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]