Internet DRAFT - draft-iab-rfc-preservation
draft-iab-rfc-preservation
Network Working Group H. Flanagan
Internet-Draft RFC Editor
Intended status: Informational February 28, 2017
Expires: September 1, 2017
Digital Preservation Considerations for the RFC Series
draft-iab-rfc-preservation-04
Abstract
The RFC Editor is both the publisher and the archivist for the RFC
Series. This document applies specifically to the archivist role of
the RFC Editor. It provides guidance on when and how to preserve
RFCs, and the tools required to view or re-create RFCs as necessary.
This document also highlights where gaps are in the current process,
and where compromises are suggested to balance cost with ideal best
practice.
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 http://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 September 1, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Life Cycle of Digital Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Updating Policy and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Acquisition of Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Ingestion of Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Metadata and document registration . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Normalization and standardization of canonical file
structure and format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.1. 'Best Effort' data retention . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.2. Single format for archival purposes . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3. Holistic archiving of the computing environment . . . 11
2.5. Transformation/migration to current publication formats . 12
2.6. System Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.7. Financial Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The RFC Editor is both the publisher and the archivist for the RFC
Series, a series of technical specifications and policy documents
that includes foundational Internet standards [RFC6635] [RFCSERIES].
As the publisher of these documents, the goal is to produce clear,
consistent, and readable documents for the community using as many
modern features, such as hyperlinks and content markup, within the
document as necessary to convey the information the authors intended
for their audience. As the archivist, however, the main goal is to
preserve both the information described and the documents themselves
for the indefinite future. To meet both of these goals, the RFC
Editor 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
function.
While many files are created during the publication process, this
document focuses on the archival needs of RFCs and the Internet-
Drafts (I-Ds) that are approved for publication; I-Ds before they are
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
approved for publication by the appropriate stream-approving body are
out of scope.
To summarize, the key areas of tension between the roles of publisher
and archivist are:
o the desire of the publisher to meet the needs expressed by the
authors who want to use the latest technology within their
documents, such as vector graphics, live links, and a rich set of
metadata;
o the desire of the archivist to support only the simplest format
for documents possible--currently held by the Series to be ASCII-
only plain-text--so that the tools needed to view the documents
are equally simple and resistant to changes in technology,
resulting in a set of documents that will be easier to archive for
at least the next several decades if not centuries.
Through most of the history of the RFC Series, the file format for
RFCs has been plain text with an ASCII-only character set. This
choice offered the simplest format likely to remain available to the
largest number of consumers, and the one most likely to be resistant
to changes in technology over time. Increasingly, however, consumers
and authors are requesting additional features that would allow for
easy reading on a wider array of devices and retain all the metadata
an author intended in their document. In 2013, RFC 6949, "RFC Series
Format Requirements and Future Development," captured the high level
requirements for the Series; the fundamental issue being that the
plain-text, ASCII-only documents no longer met the needs of the
communities interested in using and producing RFCs [RFC6949].
The assertion that plain-text, ASCII-only documents no longer meet
the needs of the community in turn suggests that the simple archive
process maintained by the RFC Editor is also no longer sufficient.
More complex tools and file formats require a more complex process to
make sure that RFCs can still be read and rendered far into the
future. This document describes the considerations that must inform
any changes in policy and procedure, and describes a model for the
RFC Series to follow when additional formats beyond the ASCII-only,
plain-text RFCs are published. The functional model that provides
the framework for the archival process described in this document was
derived from the ISO Open Archival Information System (OAIS)
Reference Model, defined in "Space data and information transfer
systems - Open archival information system (OAIS) - Reference model"
[ISO14721].
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
1.1. Terminology
Acquisition: The point at which a document is accepted by the RFC
Editor for future inclusion into the archive.
Ingest: The point at which a digital object is assigned all necessary
metadata to describe the object and its contents, and added to the
archive.
Bit stream preservation: The process of storing and maintaining
digital objects over time, ensuring that there is no loss or
corruption of the bits making up those objects.
Content preservation: The retention of the ability to read, listen,
or watch a digital file in perpetuity. It is not about the bits
being stored; it is about being able to access and present those bits
to the user.
1.2. Life Cycle of Digital Preservation
The basic process for preserving digital information has been
described by a variety of organizations. From the Life cycle
Information For E-Literature (LIFE) project in the United Kingdom, to
the ongoing digital preservation work in the U.S. Library of
Congress, the basic digital preservation process is straightforward
[LIFE] [USLOC]. Documents are acquired and processed, metadata is
recorded, physical media is refreshed, and content is regularly
checked to see if it is still accessible by interested parties. The
complexities arise when one considers the need to preserve both the
bits of the digital objects themselves and the tools with which to
express those bits in an environment that experiences rapid changes
in technology.
For most of the existence of the RFC Series, the digital preservation
process has been fairly simple, focusing on bit stream preservation
and relying on paper copies of digital files.
The archival process for the RFC Series is as follows:
1. Acquisition: The RFC Editor database is updated to indicate an
Internet-Draft (I-D) has been approved for publication. At this
point, the document is taken through the editorial process on the
way to publication [RFC-PUB].
2. Ingest: The RFC is added to the archive at the time of
publication.
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
3. Metadata creation: The details regarding an RFC, including RFC
number, author, title, abstract, etc., are created at time of
publication. Additional metadata in the form of status and
errata can be added or changed at any time, following the process
of the originating document stream.
4. Bit stream preservation: This part of the process is handled as
part of the IT system administration; all servers, disks, and
backup technology are refreshed on a regular cycle.
5. Content preservation: All RFCs since January 2010 are printed out
on standard office paper at time of publication, and the
electronic files preserved on disk and in backups with no
particular focus on preserving the entire computing environment
used to create the electronic documents. Most RFCs prior to
January 2010 are also available on paper, but there are gaps in
the record and issues of ownership around the paper copies before
that date.
When the format for RFCs transitions from plain-text, ASCII-only
files to an XML format with multiple outputs, the archival process
overall will become more complex. Additional metadata and some or
possibly all of the computing environment may need to be added to the
archive.
2. Updating Policy and Procedure
RFCs are created and published as digital objects. Unlike paper-
based publications, a digital collection requires a focus on
retaining the details of the technology as well as retaining the
object itself. Specifically, a digital archive needs to:
o consider the inherent instability of digital media;
o plan for a relatively short path to technological obsolescence;
o schedule regular media updates;
o apply predefined criteria for technology evaluation; and,
o ensure the continued authenticity and integrity of RFCs through
any changes in technology.
As the custodian and canonical source of RFCs and associated errata,
the RFC Editor must consider how to ensure the availability and
integrity of this document series far into the future and determine
whether the focus must be on bit stream preservation, content
preservation, or both.
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
The RFC Editor has several advantages in acting as the digital
archivist for the Series. Since the RFC Editor is the publisher as
well as the archivist, the RFC Editor controls the format of the
material, the process for adding those materials to an archive, and
can add any additional metadata considered necessary. External
materials, while a major consideration for more general archives, are
no longer accepted by the RFC Editor. (See "Internet Archaeology:
Documents from Early History" for the list of non-RFC digital objects
held by the RFC Editor [RFC-HISTORY].)
This document describes several different preservation models that
may fit the needs of the Series, and raises several points for
community consideration. Specifically, it covers information on:
o Acquisition of documents
o Ingestion of documents
o Metadata and document registration
o Normalization and standardization of canonical file structure and
format
o Transformation/migration to current publication formats
o Content and computing environment preservation
o System parameters
o Financial impact
2.1. Acquisition of Documents
The acquisition process for documents intended for the archive starts
with the submission of an approved I-D for publication. During the
editorial process, information such as the document metadata is
finalized prior to publication. The initial I-D as submitted and the
RFC produced from it do not formally enter the archive, however,
until the time of publication, which is considered the point of
ingestion from an archival perspective.
2.2. Ingestion of Documents
Once an RFC is published, the canonical format is considered
immutable. At this point, the RFC Production Center, one of the
internal roles within the RFC Editor, assigns the document metadata
an archivist needs to identify the unique object.
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
In the case of RFCs, the metadata assigned to a document at the time
of publication includes:
o the RFC number
o ISSN
o publication date
o Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Additional metadata, such as author name, is assigned earlier in the
document creation process, but it is subject to change up to the
point of publication. More information on metadata is available in
section "Metadata and document registration."
In terms of deciding what to accept in the archive--a major question
for most archives, and yet simple for the RFC Series--the RFC Editor
accepts documents that are approved for publication by the stream
approving body of one of the document streams: the IETF, IAB, IRTF,
or Independent Submission streams [RFC5741]. Each document stream
has defined processes on when and how I-Ds are approved and submitted
to the RFC Editor for publication. The RFC Editor does not select
documents for publication and archiving; the RFC Editor edits and
publishes documents as directed by the document streams.
The RFC Editor holds no copyright on I-Ds or RFCs. As per the IETF
Trust Legal Provisions, the copyright for RFCs is held by the authors
and the IETF Trust [TLP]. At any point in time, the current entities
providing RFC Editor services must be able to release the archive of
RFCs to the IETF Trust.
Note: The RFC Editor is currently only responsible for RFCs; any
associated data sets or other research data is not considered within
the RFC Editor's mandate at this time and therefore no consideration
to the archival requirements of such datasets is covered in this
document.
2.3. Metadata and document registration
Metadata is data about data. In the field of digital archiving, this
is the data that clearly identifies every aspect of a document, from
its identifier (i.e., the RFC number, the I-D draft string) to the
size and file format of the document and more. Metadata is stored in
a central registry that stores information on what exactly is being
preserved, where it is located, information on authenticity and
provenance, and details on the hardware and/or software needed to
view or create the documents.
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
The RFC Editor maintains this registry in the form of a database that
includes all metadata available for documents engaged in the final
editing and publication process. This database feeds the search
engine on the RFC Editor website and the Info Pages available for
every RFC (e.g., http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc####).
Current list of metadata presented in the RFC Info pages
o RFC number
o Canonical URI
o Title
o Status
o Updates
o Authors
o Stream
o Abstract
o Content-Type
o Character Set
o ISSN
o Publication date
o Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Metadata to be added in the future
o Publication format URIs
Info pages also include links to: errata, IPR searches, plain text
and XML citation files.
In terms of best practice, all documents used as normative references
within an RFC would also be stored in the archive. While this is
done automatically when the normative reference is another RFC (the
usual case), retaining a copy of third-party documents is considered
out of scope for the RFC Editor. As the digital archive industry
stabilizes, services such as Perma.CC may be a reasonable compromise
[PERMACC]. Those services provide a permanent URI and image capture
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
of online documents, with a goal of buffering against URI and online
availability changes.
2.4. Normalization and standardization of canonical file structure and
format
The normalization process is perhaps the most technically critical
parts of digital archiving. The purpose here is content
preservation--making sure the data accepted for archiving are in the
most stable and easily accessed formats possible for the long-term
future, requiring the least amount of re-engineering and emulation of
environments in order to view the document in the future.
Normalization is about enabling long-term access to the information
within a document.
Over the history of the RFC Series, documents have been submitted for
publication in a variety of formats, including paper in the earliest
RFCs. Today, the majority of RFCs are available in both a canonical
plain-text format and PDF format. For exceptions to this list, see
the RFC Online Project [RFC-ONLINE].
Currently, all RFCs are printed out to paper and stored at time of
publication. This has been a reasonable backup plan for several
decades. With few of the features one might expect from a digital
document format (including links, metadata within the document, or
line drawings), plain-text files do not lose much, if any,
information when printed out to paper. As the published formats
change (see RFC 6949), however, printing to paper provides less value
as much of the metadata that is an intrinsic yet invisible part of
the rendered document will be lost in such printing. With that in
mind, the focus needs to change on preserving the new file formats
electronically.
While each RFC today is printed to paper and all electronic versions
stored on multiple hard drives, no particular effort is made to
ensure copies of the software used to render or read the canonical
plain-text RFC are also archived. The RFC Editor has several choices
on how to adapt to a more complex set of data to archive and follow
best practice as defined by the digital archive community:
o a simplified bit stream preservation model that focuses on "best
effort" standard data retention practices, which rely on backups,
upgrades, and regular equipment change to preserve the data, and
assuming that emulators may be built when needed if the formats
used go out of common use (a significant part of the existing
model);
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
o a content preservation model that focuses on one publication
format as a version most likely to be viewable and provide all
necessary metadata in the future (a viable option considering the
fact that PDF/A-3--one of the intended publication formats--was
designed for this type of archiving) [PDF];
o a complex bit stream and content preservation model that focuses
on archiving the canonical XML and the entire computing
environment required to create, view and render all outputs from
that file (the "best practice" when looking at this from an
archivist's perspective).
Those options are listed in order of least to greatest complexity and
expense. More detail on each option is described below.
2.4.1. 'Best Effort' data retention
When dealing with very simple data structures such as plain-text,
ASCII-only files, the experience of the RFC Series suggests that for
the last few decades, hardware and operating system changes have had
minimal impact on the document files being stored. While a complete
failure of an operating system migration in the past had corrupted
the data set, that situation represents a somewhat different problem
than the tools themselves changing such that plain-text files are not
easily read with existing technology. Given that the basic plain-
text format and ASCII encoding remain in common use, the standard
protections against file corruption and data loss, such as disk
mirroring, off-site backups, and periodic restoration testing will
continue to provide access to the entirety of the RFC Series for the
foreseeable future. As has been pointed out, both in this document
and in broader community discussion, that is not sufficient when one
moves into more complex formats such as XML, HTML, PDF, or other
proprietary formats offered by today's large IT companies. The risk
of technological change resulting in the file formats mentioned being
deprecated or changed without backwards compatibility is fairly high
when looking at a future of decades or centuries.
It is recommended that this model of archiving the RFC Series cease
to be the primary model after the plain-text, ASCII-only format is no
longer the canonical format. Best effort data retention is a
necessary but not sufficient level of effort for preserving a digital
archive. For more guidance on how to define best effort data
retention, the section on "Media and Formats, Summary
Recommendations" in the latest version of the Digital Preservation
Handbook provides useful and concrete information [DPC].
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
2.4.2. Single format for archival purposes
If one ascribes to the idea that preserving the information described
by a document, rather than the document itself, is the primary
purpose of an archive, then focusing efforts on a single file format
is a reasonable option. Some well-supported archival tooling
projects follow this route, such as Archivematica
<https://www.archivematica.org/wiki/Main_Page >. By selecting a
feature-rich yet fundamentally stable file format for documents, an
organization may avoid expensive whole-environment reconstruction in
order to view the document. The PDF/A formats were designed to be an
archival format for electronic documents, and PDF/A-3 is one of the
options intended for publication as the RFC Series moves from a
plain-text canonical format to an XML canonical format with multiple
publication formats. A PDF/A-3 file can be produced that embeds the
XML from which the PDF/A-3 file was created, which in turn allows for
both original and rendered document validation--if one has the
correct tools available to see the source of the PDF/A-3 file
[I-D.iab-rfc-use-of-pdf]. The XML is not otherwise visible when
viewing the PDF/A-3 file through typical PDF reader software.
When looking at the need to archive RFCs in a resource-limited
environment, a content preservation-only model has merit, but it is
not without risks. First, PDF/A-3 will not be the canonical format,
but is intended to be one of the rendered outputs. It may contain
rendering bugs that were not intended to be in the document. Second,
while the various PDF/A formats were designed to be archival, it has
not been put to the test of time to determine if will actual live up
to its design goals.
It is a valid option to consider, but the risks, priorities, and
costs must be discussed by the community before a decision is made to
follow this path. The best option may be to combine this with one of
the other methods of archiving described in this document to help
minimize both risk and cost.
2.4.3. Holistic archiving of the computing environment
Preserving everything published through the RFC Editor in order to
have a permanent record of information, standards, and best practice,
is arguably the whole point of being an archival series. One can
argue that it is not only about the information described in an RFC,
it is also about supporting Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and
retaining the history of the Internet. In following this model,
however, one must consider the complexity of the archival environment
as matching, and possibly exceeding, the complexity of the file
formats being preserved.
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
Consider a future where XML has been obsoleted for half a century,
HTML5 was a format used three to four human generations ago, and PDF/
A-3 no longer supported by any existing company's reading software.
In order for RFCs that were produced with XML as their canonical
format, an archive must not only hold the data, it must also hold the
entire computing environment that allows the data to be rendered and
viewed. Operating systems and hardware on which those OSs can run,
each major version of each piece of software used or relied upon
during the publication of an RFC, browsers and readers for HTML, PDF,
and any other publication format, must be preserved in some fashion.
This is considered best practice when archiving digital documents.
It is also the most expensive, and the cost only increases over time
as more and more instances of the computing environment must be
preserved over the lifetime of the Series.
This is a valid option to consider, but the sheer scope of resources
required suggests that this must be discussed by the community before
a decision is made. Pursuing this may require an entirely different
paradigm for the RFC Editor than what has been considered in the
past; expanding the scope and resources for the RFC Editor, finding a
third-party to take over the responsibilities of archiving, or some
other option may be necessary.
2.5. Transformation/migration to current publication formats
Noting that normalization is a complex subject, it is important to
consider what to do to mitigate the risk of failure of the
normalization process.
The RFC Editor is responsible for making RFCs available to the
Internet community. The canonical version of an RFC does not change
once published; any formats officially rendered from the canonical
version, however, may change. One way to mitigate the need to
preserve the entire computing environment for an RFC, including web
browsers and PDF readers, would be to take advantage of the non-
canonical nature of the publication formats and re-render them from
the canonical source at the point that browser or reader technology
has changed sufficiently to make RFCs largely unavailable to 'modern'
tools.
For example, the RFC Editor may develop a practice of starting an
annual review of the tools needed to view the publication formats
created by the RFC Editor, and determine whether or not the current
common and popular reader technologies (i.e., web browsers, PDF
viewers, e-readers) can view the existing publication formats.
During that review, the RFC Editor would work with the community to
determine if the current publication formats meet the needs of the
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
community, and whether any should be retired or added to improve the
availability of information to the community at that time.
2.6. System Parameters
While the industry best practice on the backup and restoration of
data is not sufficient as a long-term archival solution, it is still
a necessary part of keeping the Series available now and into the
future. In the past, nearly 800 RFCs had to be manually transcribed
from paper back to electronic format due to a failed server migration
and insufficient backups.
The underlying servers hosting the tools, database, RFCs, and errata
are the physical link in the archive environment. While such systems
cannot and should not remain static and unchanging, there must be
clear documentation regarding the environment, in particular the
storage, backups, and recovery processes for all RFC-related
material. The documentation must include information on the refresh
cycle for the physical storage and backup media and describe a
regular cycle of data restoration and/or migration testing.
2.7. Financial Planning
Having a digital archive policy provides input into the budget
process. The main costs associated with digital archives come from
the complexity and quantity of the material being archived, as
described in the section on Normalization. To quote the Digital
Protection Conservancy Handbook:
The complexity of the material submitted and number of objects
acquired generally has more impact on costs than the total storage
size. The type and variety of formats accepted into the
repository will also affect cost, because for example proprietary
formats are likely to be more difficult and expensive to manage in
the long term. It may be possible to reduce costs by limiting the
formats the repository will accept, or transforming material into
a standard common format. This can be done to reduce the number
of file types and possibly reducing the storage size. However, it
is also necessary to realise that due to storage redundancies
required for back up each gigabyte of deposited data requires more
than one gigabyte of disk space in repository storage. --
http://www.dpconline.org/advice/preservationhandbook/
institutional-strategies/costs-and-business-modelling
Estimating potential costs and providing figures is outside of the
scope of this document, but it should be noted that costs are a major
factor when determining what level of archival practice an
organization will follow.
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
3. Recommendations
Given the need to balance cost and complexity with retention of
information for historic, legal, and informational purposes,
preservation efforts should focus on the XML canonical format files,
the PDF/A-3 format files, the xml2rfc tool and its documentation, and
at least two PDF reader applications capable of extracting the
embedded XML. Care should be taken that the software being included
in this archive has a provision for free copies for backup or archive
purposes. All other formats and the overall computing environment
should be stored as described in "best effort" data retention, which
should in turn be described in the appropriate vendor contract for
the RFC Publisher.
Particular preservation efforts should be made by:
o choosing a format designed for archiving RFCs (PDF/A-3)
o embedding the canonical XML format within the PDF/A-3 file for
RFCs
o retaining a copy of the plain-text or XML file submitted for
approved I-Ds
o retaining all major versions of the tools and their associated
documentation used to acquire and ingest an RFC
o retaining the final XML file as well as the PDF/A-3 file with the
embedded XML
o retaining at least two software reader applications to ensure the
PDF/A-3 and XML files can be viewed in the future
o partnering with other digital archives around the world to mirror
copies of the target data
In order to control costs and focus the archiving effort on the
entire content of an RFC, including the metadata and other features
embedded within each RFC published in more than just plain text,
printing each RFC upon publication to paper is no longer reasonable.
Proper data storage and mirrored copies of RFCs provides more
efficient and effective copies in case of catastrophic failure of the
existing archive of material.
Particular focus should be given to finding partners that specialize
in digital preservation to ingest RFCs. Ideally, they will ingest
all material associated with an RFC, including all metadata, digital
signatures, and the approved Internet-Draft that was submitted to the
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
RFC Editor. The possibilities and options should be discussed with
each archival partner; at minimum, they must ingest copies of RFCs as
they are published, with the basic metadata associated with each
document.
Preservation efforts should be reviewed and validated through a bi-
annual audit that will verify that the targeted content and all its
associated metadata can be read with existing tools. The full
process from acquisition to ingest should be reviewed to ensure that
best current practice is being followed from a digital archive
community perspective. Since the overall model for the RFC Editor-
maintained digital archive follows the OAIS Reference model, the
associated audit guidelines should be followed. While the RFC Editor
does not seek to be recognized as 'OAIS-compliant' at this time, use
of the ISO standard, "Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital
Repositories," would provide a solid, accepted method for structuring
an audit for this digital archive [ISO16363].
4. Summary
The RFC Series is worth archiving. It contains the history of the
early Internet, as well as some of the key standards for Internet
technology and best practice today. Who knows what the community
will create in the future? There are many ways to preserve the
Series, from relying on preservation of the bits, to focusing on a
single file format, to preserving the entire computing environment.
Each possibility, or the permutations from them, involves risks and
varying levels of resources. The goal of this document is to
describe the possibilities and associated risks so that the community
can come to an informed decision regarding what they are willing to
see supported far into the future.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations
This document assumes that the origination of RFCs via the RFC Editor
is secure and trusted. With that assumption, the activities
discussed in this document do not affect the security of the
Internet.
7. Informative References
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
[I-D.iab-rfc-use-of-pdf]
Hansen, T., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF for an RFC
Series Output Document Format", draft-iab-rfc-use-of-
pdf-02 (work in progress), May 2016.
[DPC] DigitalPreservationCoalition, "Digital Preservation
Handbook", 2012,
<http://www.dpconline.org/advice/preservationhandbook>.
[ISO14721]
International Organization for Standardization, ""Space
data and information transfer systems -- Open archival
information system (OAIS) -- Reference model"", ISO
14721:2012 , 2012.
[ISO16363]
International Organization for Standardization, ""Space
data and information transfer systems -- Audit and
Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories"", ISO
16363:2011 , 2011.
[LIFE] Hole, B., "LIFE^3: Predictive Costing of Digital
Preservation", July 2010,
<http://www.life.ac.uk/3/docs/Hole_pasig_v1.pdf>.
[PDF] International Organization for Standardization,
""Electronic document file format for long-term
preservation -- Part 3: Use of ISO 32000-1 with support
for embedded files (PDF/A-3)"", ISO 19005-3 , 2012.
[PERMACC] "Perma.CC", n.d., <http://perma.cc/>.
[RFC-HISTORY]
RFC Editor, "Internet Archaeology: Documents from Early
History", n.d., <http://www.rfc-editor.org/history.html>.
[RFC-ONLINE]
RFC Editor, "History of RFC Online Project", n.d.,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-online-2000.html>.
[RFC-PUB] RFC Editor, "RFC Editor Publication Process", n.d.,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess.html>.
[RFCSERIES]
RFC Editor, "Overview of RFC Document Series", n.d.,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/RFCoverview.html>.
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Digital Preservation February 2017
[TLP] IETF Trust, "IETF Trust Legal Provisions", n.d.,
<http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/
IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf>.
[USLOC] Library of Congress, "Life Cycle Models for Digital
Stewardship", n.d.,
<http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/02/
life-cycle-models-for-digital-stewardship/>.
[RFC5741] Daigle, L., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Streams,
Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5741, December 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5741>.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
[RFC6949] Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6949, May 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6949>.
Author's Address
Heather Flanagan
RFC Editor
Email: rse@rfc-editor.org
URI: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220
Flanagan Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 17]
