Policy Considerations for Changes to RFCs
draft-carpenter-rswg-format-details-00

RSWG                                                     B. E. Carpenter
Internet-Draft                                         Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational                          26 February 2024
Expires: 29 August 2024

               Policy Considerations for Changes to RFCs
                 draft-carpenter-rswg-format-details-00

Abstract

   This document clarifies the policy framework for changes to RFC
   formats and associated tool chains.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-rswg-format-
   details/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the RSWG Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:rswg@rfc-editor.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rswg/.

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 29 August 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Carpenter                Expires 29 August 2024                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              RFC Change Policy              February 2024

   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   6.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Appendix A.  Change Log [RFC Editor: please remove] . . . . . . .   3
     A.1.  Draft-00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3

1.  Introduction

   The scope of work of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is set by
   [RFC9280].  In particular, Section 3 states that policies drafted by
   the RSWG "might include, but are not limited to, document formats,
   processes for publication and dissemination of RFCs, and overall
   management of the RFC Series."

   This definition is not explicit about the level of detail in document
   formats.  Specifically, do technical details of the markup language,
   graphics formats, and internationalized character sets lie within the
   policy remit of RSWG, or are they the responsibility of the RFC
   Production Center and the IETF LLC tool support team?

   The purpose of the present document is to resolve this question.

2.  Policy Considerations

   High level issues, such as what markup is used for documents
   (currently XML2RFCv3), what graphics format (current a subset of
   SVG), and what publication formats are used (currently plain UTF-8
   text, HTML, and PDF/A) are policy matters in the purview of the RSWG,
   with approval by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).  Similarly,
   how to manage changes in these formats is clearly a policy matter.

   Technical details, for example of the XML2RFC vocabulary and of the
   SVG subset, need to be agreed as the result of a consensus process
   that includes the tools team, the RPC, and the wider community.  The
   best existing venue for forming such a consensus is the RSWG, with
   approval by the RSAB.  Since the RSWG was formed and announced as a

Carpenter                Expires 29 August 2024                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              RFC Change Policy              February 2024

   policy working group, it is strongly recommended that such technical
   details should be developed by one or more designated RSWG design
   teams, as foreseen in Section 3.1.1.4 of [RFC9280].  The resulting
   technical documents will be remitted to the RSWG and processed as if
   they were policy documents.

   Practical issues about the range of tools provided for authors, for
   readers and for the RPC's own use, and when and how such tools are
   implemented and updated, are operational matters in the purview of
   the RPC and of IETF LLC.

3.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA actions are needed.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.

5.  Acknowledgements

   Useful comments were received from ...

6.  Informative References

   [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>.

Appendix A.  Change Log [RFC Editor: please remove]

A.1.  Draft-00

   *  Original version

Author's Address

   Brian E. Carpenter
   The University of Auckland
   School of Computer Science
   The University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland 1142
   New Zealand
   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com

Carpenter                Expires 29 August 2024                 [Page 3]