RFC Format Framework
draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Heather Flanagan | ||
| Last updated | 2014-08-21 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-iab-rfc-framework, RFC 7990 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-00
Network Working Group H. Flanagan
Internet-Draft RFC Editor
Intended status: Informational August 21, 2014
Expires: February 22, 2015
RFC Format Framework
draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-00
Abstract
The canonical format for the RFC Series has been plain-text, ASCII-
encoded for several decades. After extensive community discussion
and debate, the RFC Editor will be transitioning to XML as the
canonical format, with different publication formats rendered from
that base document. These changes are intended to increase the
usability of the RFC Series by offering documents that match the
needs of a wider variety of stakeholders. With these changes,
however, comes an increase in complexity for authors, consumers, and
the publisher of RFCs. This document serves as the framework that
describes the problems being solved and summarizes the many documents
that capture the specific requirements for each aspect of the change
in format.
Discussion of this draft takes place on the rfc-interest mailing list
(rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org), which has its home page at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest.
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 February 22, 2015.
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Overview of the Decision Making Process . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Key Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Document Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Canonical Format Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1.1. XML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Publication Format Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.1. HTML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.2. PDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.3. Plain Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.4. Potential Future Publication Formats . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Figures and Artwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3.1. SVG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4. Content and Page Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4.1. Non-ASCII Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4.2. Style Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4.3. CSS Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Transition Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Testing Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Transition Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
1. Introduction
In [RFC6949], "RFC Series Format Requirements and Future
Development," the need for additional features within RFCs such as
non-ASCII characters to respect author names, more advanced artwork
than ASCII art, and documents that could display properly on a wide
variety of devices was discussed. Based on the discussions with the
IETF community as well as other communities of interest, the decision
was made by the RFC Series Editor to explore a change to the format
of the Series [XML-ANNOUNCE]. This document serves as the framework
that describes the problems being solved and summarizes the documents
created to-date that capture the specific requirements for each
aspect of the change in format.
Key changes to the publication of RFCs are highlighted, and a
description of the transition plan that will take the Series from a
plain-text, ASCII-only format to the new formats are described
[RFC-INTEREST].
This document is concerned with the production of RFCs, focusing on
the published formats. It does not address any changes to the
processes each stream uses to develop and review their submissions
(specifically, how Internet-Drafts will be developed). While I-Ds
have a similar set of issues and concerns, directly addressing those
issues for I-Ds will be discussed within each document stream.
2. Problem Statement
When the first RFCs were published 45 years ago, the tools to create
and read RFCs were limited. Distribution was in effect restricted to
individuals who had access to the network that became the Internet.
Today, there are nearly three billion people connected to the
Internet, and individuals from 45 countries or more regularly
attending IETF meetings over the last 5 years [ISTATS] [IETF numbers
are unpublished figures from the Secretariat; one could dig them out
from the plenary proceedings--how to reference?]. The Internet is
now global, and while the world has changed from when the first RFCs
were published, the Series remains critical to defining protocols,
standards, best practices, and more for this global network that
continues to grow. In order to make RFCs easily viewable to the
largest number of people possible, across a wide array of devices,
and to respect the diversity of authors and reference materials, it
is time to change from the tightly prescribed format of the RFC
Series.
All changes to the format of the RFC Series must consider the
requirements of a wide set of communities, over an extended length of
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
time. Existing authors and implementors, lawyers that argue
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and policy-makers that need to
know what to list in potential RFPs for their organizations, all have
preferences and requirements for their specific needs. The immediate
needs of today's communities must balance with the needs for long-
term archival storage.
3. Terminology
RFC 2119 keywords are not used in this document.
Terminology as described in RFC 6949:
ASCII: Coded Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for
Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986
Canonical format: the authorized, recognized, accepted, and
archived version of the document
Metadata: information associated with a document so as to provide,
for example, definitions of its structure, or of elements within
the document such as its topic or author
Publication format: display and distribution format as it may be
read or printed after the publication process has completed
Reflowable text: text that automatically wraps to the next line in
a document as the user moves the margins of the text, either by
resizing the window or changing the font size
Revisable format: the format that will provide the information for
conversion into a Publication format; it is used or created by the
RFC Editor (see Section 2.3 for an explanation of current
practice)
Submission format: the format submitted to the RFC Editor for
editorial revision and publication
4. Overview of the Decision Making Process
Requirements, use cases, concerns, and suggestions were collected
from the communities of interest at every stage of the RFC format
update project. Input was received through the rfc-interest mailing
list, as well as in several face-to-face sessions at IETF meetings.
Updates regarding the status of the project were offered to the IETF
community during the IETF Technical Plenary as well as Format BoFs or
IAB sessions at IETF 84, IETF 85, IETF 88, IETF 89, and IETF 90
[IETF84] [IETF85] [IETF88] [IETF89] [IETF90].
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
The first document published, RFC 6949, provided the first solid
documentation on what the requirements were for the Series and in
effect was the output from the first year of discussion on the topic
of RFC format. That RFC was published as an IAB stream document,
thus following the process described in RFC 4845, "Process for
Publication of IAB RFCs" [RFC4845].
After the high-level requirements were published, an RFC Format
Design Team was brought together to start working out the necessary
details to develop the code needed to create new and changed formats.
While the bi-weekly calls for this team were limited to Design Team
members, review of the drafts produced by this team were done
publicly through requests for feedback on the rfc-interest mailing
list. Several of the drafts produced by the Design Team, including
the XML v2 and v3 drafts and the SVG profile drafts, were sent
through an early GenART review before starting the process to be
accepted as an IAB stream draft [GEN-ART].
While the IETF community provided the majority of input on the
process, additional outreach opportunities were sought to gain input
from an even broader audience. Informal discussions were held with
participants at several International Association of Scientific,
Technical, and Medical Publisher events, and presentations made at
technical conferences such as the TERENA Networking Conference 2014
and NORDUnet 2014 [TNC2014] [NORDUnet link TBD].
In order to respond to concerns regarding responses to subpoenas and
to understand the requirements for lawyers, advice was requested from
the IETF Trust legal team regarding what format or formats would be
considered reasonable when responding to a subpoena request for an
RFC.
Given that several other standards development organizations (SDOs)
do not offer plain-text documents, and in fact may offer more than
one format for their standards, informal input was sought from them
regarding their experience with supporting one or more non-plain-text
formats for their standards.
Finally, the entire process was reviewed regularly with the RFC
Series Oversight Committee and regular updates provided to the IAB
and IESG [RSOC].
Where consensus was not reached during the process, the RSE made any
necessary final decisions, as per the guidance in RFC 6635, "RFC
Editor Model (Version 2)" [RFC6635].
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
5. Key Changes
At the highest level, the changes being made to the RFC Format
involve breaking away from a pure-ASCII mode and moving to canonical
format that includes all the information required for rendering a
document into a wide variety of publication formats. The RFC Editor
will become responsible for more than just the canonical plain-text
file and the PDF-from-text format created at time of publication;
they will be creating several different formats in order to meet the
diverse requirements of the community.
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. PDF/A-3 will the the
publication format offered in response to subpoenas for RFCs
published through this new process, and will be developed with an eye
towards long-term archival storage. HTML will be the focus of
providing the most flexible set of features for an RFC, including
JavaScript to provide pointers to errata and other metadata. Plain-
text will continue to be offered in order to support existing tool
chains where practicable and the individuals who prefer to read RFCs
in this format.
A short summary of changes for each document format is listed below.
For more detail, please see the sections later in this document and
review the drafts.
XML:
o this is the canonical version that contains all information
necessary to render a variety of formats; any question about what
was intended in the publication will be answered from this format
o the canonical XML vocabulary will be the v3 vocabulary; authors
may submit drafts in v2 vocabulary, but the final publication will
convert that to v3
o any SVG information will be included inline in the final XML file
o automatically generated identifiers for sections, paragraphs,
figures, and tables in the final XML file
HTML:
o no longer derived from the plain-text document
o semantic HTML + override-able CSS
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
o line art, if available, will be included
o text will be reflowable
o JavaScript will be supported only as a publication option to
provide up-to-date links to errata and obsoleted or obsoleting
RFCs; documents must be readable when JavaScript is disabled
PDF:
o no longer derived from the plain-text document
o will look more like the HTML publication format than the plain-
text publication format
o will include a rich set of tags and metadata within the document
o will conform to the PDF/A-3 standard
o line art, if available, will be included
o will contain the source XML
Plain text:
o no longer the canonical version
o non-ASCII characters will be allowed in .txt files
o A Byte Order Mark (BOM) will be added at the start of each file
o widow and orphan control will not have priority
o authors may choose to have pointers to line art in other
publication formats in place of ASCII art in the .txt file
o both a paginated and unpaginated plain-text file will be created
o page headers and footers will not be used
6. Document Summary
6.1. Canonical Format Documents
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
6.1.1. XML
[draft-reschke-xml2rfc] - Describes the xml2rfc v2 vocabulary. While
in wide use today, this vocabulary had not been formally documented.
In order to understand what needed to change in the vocabulary to
allow for a more simple experience and additional features for
authors, the current vocabulary needed to be fully described. This
document, when published, will be obsoleted by the RFC published from
draft-hoffman-xml2rfc.
[draft-hoffman-xml2rfc] - Describes the xml2rfc v3 vocabulary. The
design goals in this vocabulary were to make the vocabulary more
intuitive for authors, and to expand the features to support the
changes being made in the publication process. This draft, when
published, will obsolete the RFC published from draft-reschke-
xml2rfc.
6.2. Publication Format Documents
6.2.1. HTML
[draft-hildebrand-html-rfc] - Describes the semantic HTML that will
be produced by the RFC Editor from the xml2rfc v3 files.
6.2.2. PDF
[draft-hansen-rfc-use-of-pdf] - Describes the tags and profiles that
will be used to create the new PDF format, including both the
internal structure and the visible layout of the file. A review of
the different versions of PDF is offered, with a recommendation of
what PDF standard should apply to RFCs.
6.2.3. Plain Text
[draft-flanagan-plaintext] - Describes the details of the plain text
format, focusing in particular on what is changing from the existing
plain-text output.
6.2.4. Potential Future Publication Formats
6.2.4.1. EPUB
This format is intended for use by ebook readers and will be
available for RFCs after the requirements have been defined. No
draft is currently available.
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
6.3. Figures and Artwork
6.3.1. SVG
[draft-brownlee-svg-rfc] - describes the profile for SVG line art.
SVG is an XML-based vocabulary for creating line drawings; SVG
information will be embedded within the canonical XML at time of
publication.
6.4. Content and Page Layout
6.4.1. Non-ASCII Characters
[draft-flanagan-nonascii] - There are security and readability
implications to moving outside the ASCII range of characters. This
draft focuses on exactly where and how non-ASCII characters may be
used in an RFC, with an eye towards keeping the documents as secure
and readable as possible given the information that needs to be
expressed.
6.4.2. Style Guide
[draft-iab-styleguide] - The RFC Style Guide was revised to remove as
much page formatting information as possible, focusing instead on
grammar, structure, and content of RFCs. Some of the changes
recommended, however, informed the XML v3 vocabulary.
6.4.3. CSS Requirements
Requirements under development; a draft will be posted and described
here in a later revision of this framework.
7. Transition Plan
7.1. Testing Phase
During document review and approved for submission phase, authors and
stream-approving body will select drafts to run through the new
process, noting that final publication will continue to be in plain
text only. In order to limit the amount of time the RFC Production
Center (RPC) spends on testing and QA, note that their priority is to
edit and publish documents, community assistance will be necessary to
help move this stage along.
Purpose of testing phase: to work with the community to identify and
fix bugs in the process and the code, before producing canonical,
immutable XML, and to collect additional feedback on the usability of
the new publication formats.
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
Criteria to indicate success: RPC and Tools Development team to
review bugs and decide when all show-stoppers have been dealt with.
7.2. Transition Phase
Documents submitted with an XML file will go through the new process
to produce a canonical XML document and the available publication
formats. Documents submitted as plain text will be published as
plain text only; they will not be converted to XML by the RPC.
Purpose of transition phase: to introduce the new publication process
to the community at large, and to identify and fix any additional
bugs in the code and the workflow.
Known risks: More work on the part of the RPC to support both old and
new publication processes for some unknown period of time. There is
potential for confusion as consumers of RFCs find some documents
published at this time with a full set of outputs, while other
documents only have plain text. There may be a delay in publication
as new bugs are found that must be fixed before the files can be
converted into the canonical format and associated publication
formats.
Criteria to indicate success: All major and critical bugs are
resolved. Rough consensus from the community regarding the utility
of the new formats.
7.3. Completion
All drafts submitted for publication, including text, will be
converted to XML and published as a Canonical XML file with available
publication formats.
Known risks: Higher work load for the RPC as, in addition to the
grammar and style editing, they also create and/or encourage best
practice with the XML structure.
Criteria to indicate success: Costs and resources stabilize for the
new process.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
9. Security Considerations
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.
10. Acknowledgements
With many thanks to the RFC Format Design Team for their efforts in
making this transition successful: Nevil Brownlee (ISE), Tony Hansen,
Joe Hildebrand, Paul Hoffman, Ted Lemon, Julian Reschke, Adam Roach,
Alice Russo, Robert Sparks (Tools Team liaison), and Dave Thaler
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC6949] Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949, May 2013.
[draft-reschke-xml2rfc]
Reschke, J., "The 'XML2RFC' version 2 Vocabulary", draft-
reschke-xml2rfc-10 , July 2014.
[draft-hoffman-xml2rfc]
Hoffman, P., "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary", draft-
hoffman-xml2rfc-09 , July 2014.
[draft-brownlee-svg-rfc]
Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC", draft-
brownlee-svg-rfc-07 , July 2014.
[draft-hildebrand-html-rfc]
Hildebrand, J. and H. Flanagan, ed, "HyperText Markup
Language Request For Comments Format", draft-hildebrand-
html-rfc-03 , June 2014.
[draft-hansen-rfc-use-of-pdf]
Hansen, T., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF for an RFC
Series Output Document Format", draft-hansen-rfc-use-of-
pdf-02 , July 2014.
[draft-flanagan-plaintext]
Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain Text RFCs", draft-
flanagan-plaintext-01 , July 2014.
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
[draft-flanagan-nonascii]
Flanagan, H., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs",
draft-flanagan-nonascii-03 , July 2014.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4845] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "Process for
Publication of IAB RFCs", RFC 4845, July 2007.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Halpern, J., and IAB, "RFC Editor Model
(Version 2)", RFC 6635, June 2012.
[draft-iab-styleguide]
Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "The RFC Style Guide", draft-
iab-styleguide-02 , April 2014.
[GEN-ART] IETF, "General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)", n.d.,
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/gen-art.html>.
[IETF84] Flanagan, H., "IETF 84 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
n.d., <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/rfcform.html>.
[IETF85] Flanagan, H., "IETF 85 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
n.d., <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/rfcform.html>.
[IETF88] Flanagan, H., "IETF 88 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
n.d., <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/rfcform.html>.
[IETF89] Flanagan, H., "IETF 89 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
n.d., <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/rfcform.html>.
[IETF90] Flanagan, H., "IETF 90 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
n.d., <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/rfcform.html>.
[ISTATS] "Internet Live Stats", n.d.,
<http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/>.
[RFC-INTEREST]
RFC Editor, "rfc-interest -- A list for discussion of the
RFC series and RFC Editor functions.", n.d.,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-
interest>.
[RSOC] IAB, "RFC Editor Program: The RSOC", n.d.,
<http://www.iab.org/activities/programs/
rfc-editor-program/>.
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework August 2014
[TNC2014] Flanagan, H., "IETF Update - 'What's Hot?' - RFC Update",
n.d., <https://tnc2014.terena.org/core/presentation/84>.
[XML-ANNOUNCE]
"Subject: [rfc-i] Direction of the RFC Format Development
effort", n.d., <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/
rfc-interest/2013-May/005584.html>.
Author's Address
Heather Flanagan
RFC Editor
Email: rse@rfc-editor.org
Flanagan Expires February 22, 2015 [Page 13]