Internet DRAFT - draft-brownlee-rfc-series-and-rse-changes
draft-brownlee-rfc-series-and-rse-changes
Network Working Group J. N. Brownlee
Internet-Draft U Auckland
Intended status: Informational 26 June 2020
Expires: 28 December 2020
Changes to the RFC Series and RSE
draft-brownlee-rfc-series-and-rse-changes-01
Abstract
This document discusses the impact of changes to the RFC Series on
the RFC Production Centre, the need for the RFC Series Editor to be
independent of the Series Input Streams (the I* groups), and a
suggested Editorial Board for the Series Editor.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 December 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Brownlee Expires 28 December 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Changes June 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. RSE Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Changes to the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Support for the RSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Independence of the RSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove.] . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
Over the last few weeks the rfced-future mailing list has discussed
topics such as:
* What are the responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor?
* How should changes to the RFC Series be handled?
* Where does the RFC Series Editor (RSE) fit, relative to the RFC
input Streams, i.e. the IAB, IESG, IRTF and Independent
Submissions Editor (ISE)?
* What does _independent_ mean for the RSE?
* How could the RSE be effectively supported?
This draft addresses those topics in a little more detail.
The history of our "new formats" in Section 3 of this draft comes
from my own experiences on their Design Team. I present them here
because I feel that many IETF participants have not considered just
how much work is required to make changes to the RFC Series.
Otherwise, opinions expressed in this draft are purely my own.
2. RSE Responsibilities
RFC Series Editor Responsibilities are clearly set out in [RFC8729],
"The RFC Series and RFC Editor", February 2020.
These responsibilities have been discussed extensively on the *rfced-
future@iab.org* mailing list. I believe that they do not need to be
further discussed at this time.
Brownlee Expires 28 December 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Changes June 2020
3. Changes to the RFC Series
Our last RSE was appointed (and contracted directly by ISOC) in 2011.
Her first few years were busy:
* About one year to get up to speed with the RFC Production Centre
(RPC).
* Two years and three BOFs to come up with [RFC6949], "RFC Series
Format Requirements," May _2013_.
* Another three years for a large design team (at least 8 members)
to produce [RFC7990], "RFC Format Framework", December _2016_,
[RFC7991], "The _'xml2rfc'_ Version 3 Vocabulary", and RFCs 7992
to 7998, which covered other details of the "new" formats.
* Implementation of xml2rfc v3 tools by the IETF Tools Team, mostly
as contracted work.
RFC 7990 recognised that it would take time to implement these
changes; its' section 10.2, "Testing and Transition" said:
Feedback will result in regular iteration of the basic code and XML
vocabulary. In order to limit the amount of time the RFC Production
Center (RPC) spends on testing and quality assurance (QA), their
priority will be to edit and publish documents; therefore, community
assistance will be necessary to help move this stage along.
The critical points here are:
1. Changes must not impact productivity of the RPC.
2. Development and testing of _any_ changes will take significant
time.
3. Development will need regular iterations.
4. Support for the RSE
Because changes to the RFC Series take months or years, the RSE's
term needs to be for a minimum term of - say - five years. The RSE
needs a Support Group, similar to an IETF WG, that the RSE can use to
discuss issues arising, and to determine community support for any
new change proposals. That Support Group must be independent of any
of our I* groups, e.g. of the IAB, IETF, IRTF and ISE.
Brownlee Expires 28 December 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Changes June 2020
The RSE has such a group already, that's the RFC Series Advisory
Group (RSAG), its members all have extensive knowledge of publishing
in general and the RFC Series in particular. However, its members
have all been recruited over the years by successive RFC Editors, and
they provide _advice_, not _oversight_. Right now the RFC Editor
Future Development Program seems to be an effective oversight group
for the RSE, however it's an IAB Program, which implies that the IAB
has oversight of it.
I suggest that:
* The RFC Editor Future Development Program should be separated from
the IAB, to become a free-standing 'RFC Series Editorial Board'
(RSEB).
The RSEB is not an oversight or management committee. It is
constituted as follows:
1. Each of the Series Input Streams appoints an ex officio
representative (non-voting).
2. The RSEB has 5 voting members, with staggered 3-year terms.
3. The voting members are selected by a NomCom, preferably an
ISOC NomCom, and approved by the IAB. (The term "voting" is
used here only as a way to minimise demands from any of the
Streams - we don't believe in voting!)
4. The RSAB is responsible for approving the RSE's general
policy; RPC contracts and performance are handled by the IETF
Administration LLC.
* When suggestions for changes to the RFC Series arise, the RSE and
RSEB will discuss them so as to achieve rough consensus within the
RSEB. Any such consensus will be further discussed on the rfc-
interest list, so as to reach a wider consensus within the IETF
participants, as well as the IRTF and the RFC-using community, as
far as practicable.
* If consensus-agreed changes require new tools:
1. If suitable (open-source) tools exist, we should use them.
2. Otherwise, a (part-time) Project Manager should be employed to
oversee their implementation.
Brownlee Expires 28 December 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Changes June 2020
5. Independence of the RSE
[I-D.carpenter-rfc-principles], section 3.2 "The RFC Series Editor,"
describes the RSE as "an _independent_ professional editor, serving a
much wider community than just the IETF."
_Independence,_ in this context, has been extensively discussed on
the rfced-future mailing list. To summarise:
* The RSE cannot refuse to publish a submission from any of the four
Input Streams for _technical_ reasons. Technical consensus will
already have been reached within the submitting Stream.
* The RSE, however, may send back a submission because it would
require an unreasonable amount of editing to conform to a proper
RFC Style. In such a case the submitting Stream should help the
submission's authors to improve it before resubmitting it to the
RSE.
6. Conclusion
This draft recounts the history of the RFC's "new formats" work from
about 2012 to 2018, making the point that such changes can be large-
scale projects that take several years to complete. Any further
changes to the Series must therefore be carefully considered, with
the RSE overseeing a clear consensus process before any
implementation work is begun.
Other issues such as where the RSE belongs relative to our I* groups,
and what degree of independence the RSE should have, are discussed.
As well, some suggestions are made as to how they could be addressed.
Feedback for improvements on those suggestions, or any other aspects
of this draft, will help it's author to improve it; please send
comments to me at the "Author's Address" below.
7. Security Considerations
This draft concerns organisational matters rather than networking
matters. It therefore does not have any network security concerns.
8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of the IANA.
Brownlee Expires 28 December 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Changes June 2020
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to all those contributing to discussions on the rfced-future
mailing list. Those discussions have been wide-ranging, informative
and useful.
Thanks especially to Brian Carpenter. His draft
[I-D.carpenter-rfc-principles] motivated me to produce this one.
10. References
[I-D.carpenter-rfc-principles]
Carpenter, B., "Principles of the Request for Comments
Series", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
carpenter-rfc-principles-01, 17 May 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-rfc-
principles-01>.
[RFC6949] Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6949, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6949>.
[RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7990>.
[RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.
[RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.
Appendix A. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove.]
1. draft-brownlee-rfc-changes-and-the-RSE-00
* Initial version, 25 May 2020
2. draft-brownlee-rfc-changes-and-the-RSE-01
* Revision 1, 26 June 2020. Removed 'Oversight' section,
replaced it with 'RSEB' section.
Author's Address
Brownlee Expires 28 December 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Changes June 2020
Nevil Brownlee
School of Computer Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland 1142
New Zealand
Email: nevil.brownlee@gmail.com
Brownlee Expires 28 December 2020 [Page 7]
