wdiff rfc9720.alt-original rfc9720.txt

Network Working Group

Editorial Stream P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9720 ICANN
Obsoletes: 7990 (if approved) H. Flanagan
Updates: 9280 (if approved) Spherical Cow Consulting
Intended status:
Category: Informational 6 August 2024
Expires: 7 February January 2025
ISSN: 2070-1721

RFC Formats and Versions
draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-12

Abstract

In order to improve the readability of RFCs while supporting their
archivability, the definitive version of the RFC Series transitioned
from plain-text ASCII to XML using the RFCXML vocabulary; different
publication versions are rendered from that base document. This
document describes how RFCs are published.

This document obsoletes RFC 7990. This document also updates the
stability policy in RFC 9280.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
Process. It represents the
provisions consensus of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working the RFC Series Working Group
approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents are not
candidates for any level of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
7841.

Information about the current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 7 February 2025.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9720.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Changes to RFC 7990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Changes to RFC 9280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Key Changes from the Earlier RFC Process . . . . . . . . 5
2. Definitive Version of an RFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Updating the Definitive Version of an RFC . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Expected Updates to RFCXML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Publication Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Archived Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1.
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2.
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Introduction

"RFC Series Format Requirements and Future Development" [RFC6949]
discussed the need to improve the display of items such as author
names and artwork in RFCs as well as the need to improve the ability
of RFCs to be displayed properly on various devices. Based on the
discussions with communities of interest, such as the IETF, the RFC
Series Editor decided to explore a change to the format of the
Series. [RFC7990] was the culmination of that exploration.

This document is concerned with the production of RFCs, focusing on
the published documents. It does not address any changes to the
processes each stream uses to develop and review their submissions
(specifically, how Internet-Drafts will be are developed). While I-Ds have a
similar set of issues and concerns, directly addressing those issues
for I-Ds should be discussed within each document stream.

The details described in this document are expected to continue to
change over time as the community and the RFC Production Center (RPC)
gains
gain further experience implementing the policies described here.

Implementors of those these components are advised to avoid assuming that
all such changes will be backwards-compatible. backwards compatible.

1.1. Changes to RFC 7990

[RFC7990] defined 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 talked about "the XML
file" as if there would only be one XML file for an RFC because that
was the expectation at the time [RFC7990] was published. It also
talked about "publication formats" as the versions of HTML, text, and
PDF derived from the "canonical format".

After extensive experience with publishing RFCs in the RFCXML format
[RFC7991], it has been decided that an RFC's XML file can be updated
for narrowly limited purposes. This document changes [RFC7990] in
significant ways:

* It defines four terms that replace the use of the term "canonical"
and clarifies "format":

- The "definitive format", which is RFCXML

- The "definitive version", which is a published RFC in the
definitive format

- A "publication format", which is currently one of PDF, plain
text, or HTML

- A "publication version", which is a published RFC in one of the
publication formats

* It defines a policy governing how the RFCXML format changes.

* It defines a policy for when the definitive version of an RFC can
be updated and older definitive versions archived.

* It defines a policy for when the publication versions of an RFC
can be updated and older publication versions archived.

When using the new terminology, it is important to note that
[RFC7990] used the term "canonical format" to mean two very different
things. Quoting from RFC 7990:

| Canonical format: the authorized, recognized, accepted, and
| archived version of the document

and

| At the highest level, the changes being made to the RFC format
| involve breaking away from solely ASCII plain text and moving to a
| canonical format that includes all the information required for
| rendering a document into a wide variety of publication formats.

This document uses two terms, "definitive version" and "definitive
format", for the earlier term "canonical format".

Other terminology changes made by this

This document are also makes the following: - following terminology changes:

* It changes the phrase "xml2rfc version 3" to "RFCXML". -

* It changes the name of the body that publishes RFCs from "RFC
Editor" to "RFC Production Center" (RPC).

Historical text from [RFC7990] [RFC7990], such as Section Sections 2 ("Problem
Statement"), Section 4 ("Overview of the Decision-Making Process"), and Section 10
("Transition Plan") were Plan"), was purposely omitted from this document. Text
from [RFC7990] that repeated what was in other RFCs, particularly Section
Sections 8 (Figures ("Figures and Artwork) Artwork") and Section 9 (Content ("Content and Page Layout) were Layout"),
was also removed.

1.2. Changes to RFC 9280

Section 7.6 of [RFC9280] currently says:

| Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.

This document replaces that sentence with:

| Once published, RFCs may be re-issued, reissued, but the semantic content of
| publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent
| possible.

This document also creates adds a new policy that would exist in to Section 7 of [RFC9280]:

| 7.8. Consistency
|
| RFCs are copyedited, formatted, published, and may be reissued
| to maintain a consistent presentation.

Section

Sections 2.1 and Section 3 in this document are based on this updated policy
in [RFC9280].

1.3. Key Changes from the Earlier RFC Process

The first RFC to be published following the guidance of 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].

At the highest level, the changes that [RFC7990] made to the RFC
format involved breaking away from solely ASCII [RFC20] plain text
and moving to a definitive format that includes all the information
required for rendering a document into a wide variety of publication
formats. The RPC became responsible for more than just the plain-
text file and a PDF rendering that was created from the plain text at
the time of publication; the RPC now creates the definitive version
and three publication versions of the RFC in order to meet the
diverse requirements of the community.

The final RFCXML file produced by the RPC is the definitive version
for RFCs; it holds all the information intended for an RFC.
Additional publication versions (HTML, PDF, and plain text) are also
published by the RPC. The publication formats are described in
Section 3 and fully specified in other RFCs.

2. Definitive Version of an RFC

The definitive version produced by the RPC is the publication version
that holds all the information intended for an RFC. The RPC may
change the definitive version of an RFC over time (that is, change
the XML file), as described in Section 2.1. See [RFC7991] for the
original complete description of RFCXML.

The XML may contain SVG line art, as originally described in
[RFC7996]. That SVG will also appear in the HTML publication
versions. The XML may contain non-ASCII characters, as originally
described in [RFC7997]. These characters will appear in all the
publication versions.

The definitive version must contain all information necessary to
render the specified publication versions; any question about what
was intended in the publication will be answered from this file. It
is self-contained with all the semantic content known at publication
time. For instance, all features that reference externally defined
input are expanded. It does not contain src attributes for <artwork>
or <sourcecode> elements. It does not contain comments or processing
instructions.

2.1. Updating the Definitive Version of an RFC

RFCs may be re-issued, reissued, as described in Section 1.2. Such changes must
preserve the semantics expressed in the original RFC. Reasons to
make such changes include updates to the RFCXML schema, errors
discovered in the XML, and changes to the tooling used to generate
the publication versions of the definitive version of the RFC. The
RPC will keep a public record of when it re-issues reissues any RFC, RFC and give a
short description of its reasoning for each change.

2.2. Expected Updates to RFCXML

It is anticipated that [RFC7991] will be updated. Updates to the
RFCXML specification that are applied to existing RFCs should
preserve to the greatest extent possible the semantics expressed in the original RFC. RFC to the greatest
extent possible. The goal of limiting changes only to syntax is to
preserve the semantic meaning encoded in the published document.

This policy does not require that updates to RFCXML avoid all risk of
introducing semantic changes to existing RFCs. Instead, it only
requires that such updates consider the potential for semantic
changes, take steps to understand the risk of a semantic change
(either deliberate or inadvertent), and to limit those risks.

3. Publication Versions

The RPC is permitted but not required to re-issue reissue publication versions
of an RFC, as described in Section 1.2. In deciding whether to
update the publication versions of an RFC, the RPC will take into
account both the risk of semantic changes and consistency of the
series.
Series.

XML format errors and better design choices have been discovered by
the community since the first RFCs were published using the RFCXML
format. When the XML in a definitive version changes, the
publication versions may change, even if this might not result in
observable differences. Similarly, as production tools change,
publication versions may be regenerated to ensure a consistent
presentation.

4. Archived Documents

The RPC will keep an archived set of all definitive versions of RFCs
as well as archived sets of the publication versions for an RFC that
were previously published. These archived sets must be available
using the same access methods as for current definitive and
publication versions. Every archived set shall record the date that
a definitive and/or publication version was created or reissued.

When the RPC archives definitive and publication versions, it does so
in a manner that allows them to be found by people who want the
historical (as compared to current) files.

This document does not specify how archives are maintained or how
archived documents might be located or identified. The methods for
storage and access will be determined by the RPC in consultation with
the technical community.

5. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA considerations. actions.

6. Security Considerations

Allowing changes to the definitive versions and publication versions
of RFCs introduces risks. A significant risk is that unintended
changes could occur in either the definitive version or publication
versions of an RFC as a result of an editing error, or may be
introduced into a publication version when it is regenerated from the
definitive version. This may result in the corruption of a standard,
practice, or critical piece of information about a protocol, and harm
to the reputation of the RFC series. Series.

The RPC is expected to identify, track, and actively mitigate risks
introduced by this new policy.

7. References

8.1.

7.1. Normative References

[RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7991>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.

[RFC7996] Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC",
RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7996>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7996>.

[RFC7997] Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in
RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7997>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7997>.

[RFC9280] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)",
RFC 9280, DOI 10.17487/RFC9280, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280>.

8.2.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9280>.

7.2. Informative References

[RFC20] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc20>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.

[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/rfc/rfc6949>.
<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/rfc/rfc7990>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7990>.

[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>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8651>.

Acknowledgments

Martin Thomson wrote a great deal of the significant text here as
part of draft-thomson-rswg-syntax-change. draft-thomson-rswg-syntax-change-01.

This document has greatly benefited from the input of the RSWG. In
particular, Alexis Rossi, Brian Carpenter, Eliot Lear, Jay Daley,
Jean Mahoney, John Levine, and Pete Resnick, gave Resnick provided significant
input on the early drafts draft versions of this document.

Authors' Addresses

Paul Hoffman
ICANN
Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org

Heather Flanagan
Spherical Cow Consulting
Email: hlf@sphericalcowconsulting.com