Internet DRAFT - draft-hoffman-rfc7990-updates
draft-hoffman-rfc7990-updates
Network Working Group P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft ICANN
Updates: 7990 (if approved) 17 May 2023
Intended status: Informational
Expires: 18 November 2023
RFC Format Framework
draft-hoffman-rfc7990-updates-03
Abstract
This document updates RFC 7990 by changing the definition of the
"canonical format" for RFCs and describing the archival versions of
RFCs in more depth.
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 18 November 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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.
Hoffman Expires 18 November 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Format Framework May 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Updated Definition of "Canonical Format" and "Archive" . . . 2
2.1. Reasons for Updating the Canonical XML Files . . . . . . 3
3. Updating Publication Format Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Archived Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. An Initial Proposal for File Naming . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Explaining Reasons for Updating Files . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
[RFC7990] defines a framework for how RFCs would be published after
that document was published, including new formats and a new
canonical format for archiving RFCs. It talks about "the XML file"
as if there will only be one XML file for an RFC because this was the
expectation at the time [RFC7990] was published.
The first RFC to be published using the group of RFCs described in
[RFC7990] was [RFC8651], published in October 2019. In the time
since then, all published RFCs have followed the general plan from
[RFC7990].
After extensive experience with publishing RFCs in the XML format, it
has been decided that an RFC's XML file can be updated for narrowly
limited purposes. This document updates [RFC7990] in that it changes
the definition of the canonical format for RFCs and lists the
purposes which can cause the RFC Editor to change the contents of the
XML file. This document also specifies how older versions of the XML
file for an RFC are archived and made available for historical
purposes.
This document explicitly does not update the other documents
referenced in [RFC7990].
2. Updated Definition of "Canonical Format" and "Archive"
Section 3 of [RFC7990] defines the canonical format as:
Canonical format: the authorized, recognized, accepted, and
archived version of the document
Hoffman Expires 18 November 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Format Framework May 2023
The definition of "canonical format" in Section 3 of [RFC7990] is
updated to be:
Canonical format: the authorized, recognized, accepted, and most
recent version of the document published by the RFC Editor
Section 5 of [RFC7990] says:
The final XML file produced by the RFC Editor will be considered
the canonical format for RFCs; it is the lowest common denominator
that holds all the information intended for an RFC.
This wording does not take into account the need to later change the
XML file to fix XML errors. XML format errors, and better design
choices, have been discovered by the community since the first RFCs
were published using the XML format. In order to allow the RFC
Editor to publish correct XML for all RFCs, Section 5 of [RFC7990] is
updated to say:
The XML file produced by the RFC Editor will be considered the
canonical format for RFCs; it is the lowest common denominator
that holds all the information intended for an RFC. The RFC
Editor may change the file over time to incorporate changes in the
XML format.
The RFC Editor must keep archived sets of all versions of the XML
file for an RFC and the published publication formats (HTML, PDF,
and plain text) that were published. These archived sets must be
available using the same access methods as for the canonical XML
and the published publication formats.
2.1. Reasons for Updating the Canonical XML Files
The canonical XML file can be updated for the following reasons:
* The XML vocabulary in [RFC7991] changes
* An error is discovered in the XML for an RFC
During the development of this document, many other reasons for
updating the canonical XML file were suggested. Those reasons are
not in scope for this document, and may be adopted later after the
community has experience with the updating mechanisms described in
this document.
Hoffman Expires 18 November 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Format Framework May 2023
3. Updating Publication Format Documents
Seciton 7 of [RFC7990] describes the HTML, PDF, and plain text
versions of an RFC that are published by the RFC Editor. The section
is titled "Publication Format Documents", so that term is used here
to refer to the documents that are derived from the XML for an RFC.
When the canonical XML changes, the RFC Editor will also regenerate
the publication format documents and publish those new versions.
The RFC Editor might also regenerate one or more of the publication
format documents for an RFC if it sees errors in the generated
output. This has already happened in cases where PDF files had
display errors in them.
Whenever the RFC Editor publishes regenerated publication format
documents, it must keep archived sets of all versions of the
publication format documents files. These archived sets must be
available using the same access methods as for the canonical XML and
the published publication formats.
4. Archived Documents
WHen the RFC Editor archives documents, it does so in a manner that
allows them to be found by people who want the historical (as
compared to current) versions of those files.
To make the files easier to find, they should be stored in the same
Internet-accessable locations as the current RFCs. They should be
stored in a directory under the directory where the current RFCs are
kept so that replication of the main directory using rsync or FTP
will replicate the archival files as well.
The naming of the archival files is a topic perfect for bike-shedding
by IETF participants. Before this document is finished, hundreds (or
thousands!) of messages, many with firm opinions of the best naming
method, will be published. Heck, even the name of the directory for
archival files is fodder for vigorous bike-shedding.
4.1. An Initial Proposal for File Naming
The file names for archived documents will be appended with a
datestamp indicating the last day that the file was published as the
canonical XML or publication format documents. For example, if the
XML for RFC 8888 is updated on March 4, 2024, the RFC Editor will
publish the updated files as rfc8888.xml, rfc8888.html, rfc8888.pdf,
and rfc8888.txt in the normal locations. It will also publish in the
archival directory the files rfc8888-2024-03-04.xml,
rfc8888-2024-03-04.html, rfc8888-2024-03-04.pdf, and
Hoffman Expires 18 November 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Format Framework May 2023
rfc8888-2024-03-04.txt.
The same naming scheme is used when just a publication format
document is published. For example, if the PDF of RFC 9432 had
rendering issues that the RFC Editor fixes on January 8, 2024, the
RFC Editor will publish tne updated file as rfc9432.pdf. It will
also publish in the archival directory the file
rfc9432-2023-01-08.pdf.
4.2. Explaining Reasons for Updating Files
During the development of this document, members of the community
said that the archived XML should contain an explanation for why the
document was updated. Some suggested methods include:
* An XML comment in the document; except for the fact that [RFC7990]
prohibits XML comments.
* A new element such as <comment> this would require an update to
[RFC7991]
* A <cref> element with a new attribute that would suppress
inclusion in the publication format documents; this would require
an update to [RFC7991]
* An additional file in the archival directory; this would require
the reader to find the file when looking at the XML
Because each of these has a downside, choosing between them is not
bike-shedding.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations.
6. Security Considerations
This document has the same security considerations as [RFC7990].
Those are:
Changing the format for RFCs involves modifying a great number of
components to publication. Understanding those changes and the
implications for the entire tool chain is critical so as to avoid
unintended bugs that would allow unintended changes to text.
Unintended changes to text could in turn corrupt a standard,
practice, or critical piece of information about a protocol.
7. References
Hoffman Expires 18 November 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Format Framework May 2023
7.1. Normative References
[RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7990>.
[RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7991>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC8651] Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link
Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Control-Plane-Based Pause
Extension", RFC 8651, DOI 10.17487/RFC8651, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8651>.
Author's Address
Paul Hoffman
ICANN
Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org
Hoffman Expires 18 November 2023 [Page 6]
