Re: [rsab] [IAB] Heads-up: errata processing for RFC related documents

["Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

One more comment on the stream question regarding RFC8700.

RFC9280 says:

"This document creates the Editorial Stream as a separate space for publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related information regarding the RFC Series as a whole.”

Further is actually says: 

"The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that govern the RFC Series."

So while RSWG only covers “policy” (and there has already been a huge amount of discussion what a policy is), the editorial stream can cover more, which I would think could include documents like RFC8700. If I saw this correctly now, RFC9208 does not specify how anything else could be published on the editorial stream thought expect thought the RSWG. However, If I remember correctly we did discuss at some point the idea of having some AD-sponsored-like track for the RSAB to publish things but I don’t think that made it into the draft. However, I guess one could have that in future…

So having that said, I think just based one the scope of the editorial stream as defined in RFC9280, RFC8700 would fit there as well. That means I have no problems to give errata processing for RFC8700 to RSAB, however, I also don’t have a strong opinion.

Mirja





> On 13. Mar 2024, at 18:33, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Yes, you are right. RFC8700 might not fit here. I just thought it might be easier for the RSAB to verify any error on this doc. That’s one of the things I'm still discussion with the RPC. For me both is fine.
> 
> Also it would be good for the RPC to work more freely on RFC7322 and RFC7841, which actually raises the question if those doc should have been RFCs in the first place. However, that would be a question for RSWG to discussion. For now, given we have these RFCs, I recommend to not treat them special.
> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> 
>> On 13. Mar 2024, at 17:17, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> All the RFCs below (except rfc8700) concern RFC production: requirements, format, etc.  I agree with the proposal.
>> 
>> rfc8700 is not about producing RFCs or related policies; it is a retrospective that includes personal points of view.  Will a future version (even if 20 years away — for the 75th anniversary) be published in the editorial stream?  Would it be developed/approved by the RSWG or the RSAB?  It seems any of that would be out of scope.  I realize this discussion is only about errata handling, but it seems to me that it would be better to leave it with the IAB.
>> 
>> My 1c,
>> 
>> Alvaro.
>> 
>> On March 13, 2024 at 11:41:24 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I’m discussing with the RPC the best process to handle future errata for RFC Editor related documents. These documents have been published on the IAB stream, and therefore the IAB (chair) is currently responsible for the errata processing. However, future versions of these RFCs would/will be published in the editorial stream and the RSAB (chair) will then be responsible for errata process for these.
>>> 
>>> I suggest and still discussing some details with the RPC (Sandy in cc) that the IAB makes an official decision to hand the errata processing for these current IAB documents to the RSAB and note that officially down in the minutes of the next formal business meeting (on Sunday).
>>> 
>>> In preparation for this, here is the current list of RFCs that are under consideration:
>>> 
>>> RFC 5620 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620> RFC Editor Model (Version 1)
>>> RFC 7669 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7669> Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to RFCs
>>> RFC 8728 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728> RFC Editor Model (Version 2)
>>> RFC 9280 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9280> RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
>>> RFC 8729 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729> The RFC Series and RFC Editor
>>> RFC 6949 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6949> RFC Series Format Requirements and Future Development
>>> RFC 7749 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7749> The "xml2rfc" Version 2 Vocabulary
>>> RFC 7990 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7990> RFC Format Framework
>>> RFC 7991 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991> The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary
>>> RFC 7992 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7992> HTML Format for RFCs
>>> RFC 7993 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7993> Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Requirements for RFCs
>>> RFC 7994 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7994> Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs
>>> RFC 7995 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7995> PDF Format for RFCs 
>>> RFC 7996 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7996> SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC
>>> RFC 7997 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7997> The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs
>>> RFC 7998 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7998> "xml2rfc" Version 3 Preparation Tool Description
>>> RFC 8153 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8153> Digital Preservation Considerations for the RFC Series
>>> RFC 7322 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322> RFC Style Guide
>>> RFC 5741 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5741> RFC 7841 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7841> RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
>>> RFC 8700 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8700> Fifty Years of RFCs
>>> 
>>> Mirja
>>> 
>>> 
>> -- 
>> RSAB mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab
> 
> -- 
> RSAB mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab