[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
draft-iab-fiftyyears
Network Working Group H. Flanagan, Ed.
Internet-Draft RFC Editor
Updates: 2555, 5540 (if approved) October 20, 2018
Intended status: Informational
Expires: April 23, 2019
Fifty Years of RFCs
draft-flanagan-fiftyyears-00
Abstract
This RFC marks the fiftieth anniversary for the RFC Series. It
includes both retrospective material from individuals involved at key
inflection points, as well as a review of the current state of
affairs. It concludes with thoughts on possibilities for the next
fifty years for the Series.
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 April 23, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. The Origins of RFCs - by Stephen D. Crocker . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Formalizing the RFC Editor Model - Leslie Daigle . . . . 8
2.3. The Continuation, or Creation, of a Stream - Nevil
Brownlee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. A View from Inside the RFC Editor - Sandy Ginoza . . . . 13
3. The Next Fifty Years of RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. Evolution of the RFC Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. Stream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The RFC Series began in April 1969 with the publication of "Host
Software" by Steve Crocker. Since then, over 8000 RFCs have been
published, ranging from best practice information, experimental
protocols, informational material, and, of course, standards.
Material is accepted for publication through the IETF, the IAB, the
IRTF, and the Independent Submissions stream, each with clear
processes on how drafts are submitted and potentially approved for
publication as an RFC. Ultimately, the goal of the RFC Series is to
provide a canonical source for the material published by the RFC
Editor, and to support the preservation of that material in
perpetuity.
Since the very first RFC fifty years ago, the focus of the Series has
been on that stable record and dissemination of ideas to the world.
At times there have been conflicts over what is more important - a
stable, archival record, or making the latest ideas available as soon
as possible. As the Internet has evolved, so to have the
expectations of instant access, faster publication, and ubiquitous
availability. It seems that the need for a stable, archival record
is often deprioritized against those more immediate needs.
Change does come to the Series, albeit slowly. First, we saw the
distribution method change from postal mail to FTP and email. From
there, we saw increased guidance for authors on how to write an RFC.
The editorial staff went from one person, Jon Postel, to a team of
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
five to seven. The actual editing and publishing work split from the
protocol registration service. The whole RFC Editor structure was
reviewed and refined [RFC6635]. And, in the last few years, we have
started to the process to change the format of the RFC documents
themselves.
This is evolution, and the Series will continue to adapt in order to
meet the needs and expectations of the community of authors,
operators, historians, and the other entities that make up the
community that uses the RFC Series. These changes will be always be
balanced against the core mission of the Series: to maintain a
strong, stable, archival record of technical specifications,
protocols, and other information relevant to the Internet technical
community.
There is more to the history of the RFC Series than can be covered in
this document. Readers interested in earlier perspectives may find
the following RFCs of particular interest:
[RFC2441]"Working with Jon, Tribute delivered at UCLA"
[RFC2555]"30 Years of RFCs"
[RFC5540]"40 Years of RFCs"
In this document, several individuals who have been a part of shaping
the Series offer their observations of key moments in the series.
Steve Crocker, author of RFC 1, offers his thoughts on how and why
the Series began. Leslie Daigle, a major influence in the
development of the RFC Editor model, offers her thoughts on the
change of the RFC Editor to a stronger, contracted function. Nevil
Brownlee, Independent Submissions Editor from 20xx through February
2018, shares his view on the clarification of the IS and its
transition from Bob Braden. As the current RFC Series Editor, I will
put my thoughts in on the most recent changes in formalizing the
digital preservation of the Series, the process to modernize the
format while respecting the need for stability, and my thoughts on
the next fifty years of RFCs.
2. Perspectives
2.1. The Origins of RFCs - by Stephen D. Crocker
[This is a revision of material included in [RFC1000] August 1987,
more than thirty years ago.]
The Internet community now includes millions of nodes and billions of
users. It owes its beginning to the Arpanet, which was once but a
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
gleam in the eyes of Bob Taylor and Larry Roberts of ARPA. While
much of the development proceeded according to plan, the initial
design of the protocols and the creation of the RFCs was largely
accidental.
The procurement of the ARPANET was initiated in the summer of 1968
--remember Vietnam, flower children, etc.? There had been prior
experiments at various ARPA sites to link together computer systems,
but this was the first version to explore packet-switching as a core
part of the communication strategy. ("ARPA" didn't become "DARPA"
until 1972. It briefly changed back to ARPA in 1993 and then back
again to DARPA.) The government's Request for Quotations (RFQ)
called for four packet-switching devices, called Interface Message
Processors ("IMPs"), to be delivered to four sites in the western
part of the United States: UCLA in Los Angeles, CA; SRI International
in Menlo Park, CA; University of California, Santa Barbara; the
University of Utah in Salt Lake City. These sites, respectively,
were running a Scientific Data Systems (SDS) Sigma 7, an SDS 940, an
IBM 360/75, and a DEC PDP-10. These machines not only had different
operating systems, but even details like character sets and byte
sizes varied, and other sites would have further variations.
The focus was on the basic movement of data. The precise use of the
ARPANET was not spelled out in advance, thus requiring the research
community to take some initiative. To stimulate this process, a
meeting was called in August 1968 with representatives from the
selected sites, chaired by Elmer Shapiro from SRI. Based on
Shapiro's notes from that meeting, the attendees were Dave Hopper and
Jeff Rulifson from SRI, Glen Culler and Gordon Buck from Santa
Barbara, R. Stephenson, C. Stephen Carr and W. Boam from Utah,
Vint Cerf and me from UCLA, and a few others from potential future
sites.
That first meeting was seminal. We had lots of questions. How IMPs
and "hosts" (I think that was the first time I was first exposed to
that term) would be connected? What hosts would say to each other?
What applications would be supported? The only concrete answers were
remote login as a replacement for dial-up, telephone based
interactive terminal access, and file transfer, but we knew the
vision had to be larger. We found ourselves imagining all kinds of
possibilities -- interactive graphics, cooperating processes,
automatic data base query, electronic mail -- but no one knew where
to begin. We weren't sure whether there was really room to think
hard about these problems; surely someone senior and in charge,
likely from the East, would be along by and by to bring the word.
But we did come to one conclusion: we ought to meet again. Over the
next several months, we met at each of our sites, thereby setting the
precedent for regular face to face meetings. We also instantly felt
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
the irony. This new network was supposed to make it possible to work
together at a distance, and the first thing we did was schedule a
significant amount of travel.
Over the next several months, a small, fairly consistent set of
graduate students and staff members from the first four sites met.
We adopted the term Network Working Group (NWG) to designate
ourselves. This was the same term Elmer Shapiro had used when he
convened our first meeting, although it had been used until that
point to refer to the principal investigators and ARPA personnel --
senior people who had been planning the network. Our group was
junior and disjoint from the prior group, except, of course, that
each of us worked for one of the principal investigators.
The first few meetings were quite tenuous, primarily because we
weren't sure how narrow or expansive our goals should be. We had no
official charter or leadership, and it remained unclear, at least to
me, whether someone or some group would show up with the official
authority and responsibility to take over the problems we were
dealing with. Without clear definition of what the host-IMP
interface would look like, or even a precise definition of what
functions the IMP would provide, we focused on broader ideas. We
envisioned the possibility of application specific protocols, with
code downloaded to user sites, and we took a crack at designing a
language to support this. The first version was known as DEL, for
"Decode-Encode Language" and a later version was called NIL, for
"Network Interchange Language."
In late 1968 Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) in Cambridge, MA won the
contract for the IMPs and began work in January 1969. A few of us
flew to Boston in the middle of February to meet the BBN crew. The
BBN folks, led by Frank Heart, included Bob Kahn, Severo Ornstein,
Ben Barker, Will Crowther, Bernie Cosell and Dave Walden. They were
organized, professional and focused. Their first concern was how to
meet their contract schedule of delivering the first IMP to UCLA at
the beginning of September and how to get bits to flow quickly and
reliably. The details of the host-IMP interface were not yet firm;
the specification came a few months later as BBN Report 1822. In
particular, BBN didn't take over our own protocol design process, nor
did any other source of authority appear. Thus, we doggedly
continued debating and designing the protocols.
A month later our small NWG met in Utah. As the meeting came toward
an end, it became clear to us that we should start writing down our
discussions. We had accumulated a few notes on the design of DEL and
other matters, and we decided to put them together in a set of notes.
We assigned writing chores to each of us, and I took on the
additional task of organizing the notes. I suppose I was the first
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
RFC Editor, though I never use that term because we never reviewed or
changed the content of any of the RFCs. Each of the RFCs were
numbered in sequence. The only rule I imposed was the note had to be
complete before I assigned a number because I wanted to minimize the
number of holes in the sequence.
I tried a couple of times to write a note on how the notes would be
organized, but I found myself full of trepidation. Would these notes
look as if we were asserting authority we didn't have? Would we
unintentionally offend whomever the official protocol designers were?
Finally, unable to sleep, I wrote the a few humble words. The basic
ground rules were that anyone could say anything and that nothing was
official. And to emphasize the point, I used Bill Duvall's
suggestion and labeled the notes "Request for Comments." I never
dreamed these notes would eventually be distributed through the very
medium we were discussing in these notes. Talk about Sorcerer's
Apprentice!
After BBN distributed the specification for the hardware and software
interface to the IMPs to the initial ARPANET sites, our attention
shifted to low-level matters. The ambitious ideas for automatic
downloading of code evaporated. It would be several years before
ideas like mobile code, remote procedure calls, ActiveX, JAVA and
RESTful interfaces appeared.
Over the spring and summer of that year we grappled with the detailed
problems of protocol design. Although we had a vision of the vast
potential for intercomputer communication, designing usable protocols
was another matter. We knew a custom hardware interface and a custom
software addition in the operating system was going to be required
for anything we designed, and we anticipated these would pose some
difficulty at each of the sites. We looked for existing abstractions
to use. It would have been convenient if we could have made the
network simply look like regular device, e.g. a tape drive, but we
knew that wouldn't do. The essence of this network was peer-to-peer
cooperation among the machines and the processes running inside them,
not a central machine controlling dependent devices. We settled on a
virtual bit stream layer as the basic building block for the
protocols, but even back then we knew that some applications like
voice might need to avoid that layer of software. (Why a virtual bit
stream instead of a virtual byte stream? Because each computer had
its own notion of how many bits were in a byte. Eight-bit bytes
didn't become standard until a few years later.)
Over the next two years, we developed, exchanged, and implemented
ideas. I took a leave from UCLA in June 1971 to spend time working
at ARPA. Jon Postel took over the care and feeding of the RFCs,
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
evolving the process and adding collaborators over the next twenty-
seven years.
The rapid growth of the network and the working group also led to a
large pile of RFCs. When the 100th RFC was in sight, Peggy Karp at
MITRE took on the task of indexing them. That seemed like a large
task then, and we could have hardly anticipated seeing more than a
1000 RFCs several years later, and the evolution toward Internet
Drafts yet later.
When we first started working on the protocols, the network did not
exist. Except for our occasional face-to-face meetings, RFCs were
our only means of communication. In [RFC0003], I set the bar as low
as possible:
The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc.
related to the HOST software or other aspect of the network.
Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than polished.
Philosophical positions without examples or other specifics,
specific suggestions or implementation techniques without
introductory or background explication, and explicit questions
without any attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum
length for a NWG note is one sentence.
These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two
reasons. First, there is a tendency to view a written statement
as ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to promote the exchange
and discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas.
Second, there is a natural hesitancy to publish something
unpolished, and we hope to ease this inhibition.
Making the RFCs informal was not only a way of encouraging
participation; it was also important in making the communication
effective. One of the early participants said he was having trouble
writing and sending an RFC because his institution wanted to subject
them to publication review. These are not "publications," I
declared, and the problem went away. Another small detail, handled
instinctively and without debate, was the distribution model. Each
institution was required to send a copy directly to each of the other
handful of participating institutions. Each institution handled
internal copies and distribution itself. Submission to a central
point for redistribution was not required, so as to minimize delays.
SRI's Network Information Center, however, did maintain a central
repository of everything and provided an invaluable record.
We didn't intentionally set out to challenge the existing standards
organizations, but our natural mode of operation yielded some
striking results. The RFCs are open in two important respects:
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
anyone can write one for free and anyone get them for free. At the
time, virtually everyone in the ARPANET community was sponsored by
the government, so there was little competition and no need to use
documents as a way of raising money. Of course, as soon as we had
email working on the ARPANET, we distributed RFCs electronically.
When the ARPANET became just a portion of the Internet, this
distribution process became worldwide. The effect of this openness
is often overlooked. Students and young professionals all over the
world have been able to download the RFCs, learn about the many
pieces of technology, and then build the most amazing software. And
they still are. [They are also a fantastic resource of historians.]
Where will it end? The Arpanet begat the Internet and the underlying
technology transitioned from the original host-host protocol to TCP/
IP, but the superstructure of protocol layers, community driven
protocol design, and the RFCs continued. Through the many changes in
physical layer technology - analog copper circuits, digital circuits,
fiber and wireless -- resulting in speed increases from thousands to
billions of bits per second and a similar increase from thousands to
billions of users, this superstructure, including the RFCs has
continued to serve the community. All of the computers have changed,
as have all of the transmission lines. But the RFCs march on. Maybe
I'll write a few words for RFC 10,000.
Quite obviously the circumstances have changed. Email and other
media are ubiquitous for the immediate exchange of inchoate thoughts.
Internet Drafts are the means for exchanging substantial, albeit
sometimes speculative content. And RFCs are reserved for fully
polished, reviewed, edited and approved specifications. Comments to
RFCs are not requested, although usage-related discussions and other
commentary on mailing lists often takes place nonetheless. Rather
than bemoan the change, I take it as a remarkable example of
adaptation. RFCs continue to serve the protocol development
community. Indeed, they are the bedrock of a very vibrant,
productive and process that has fueled and guided the Internet
revolution.
2.2. Formalizing the RFC Editor Model - Leslie Daigle
I was the chair of the Internet Architecture Board, the board
responsible for the general oversight of the RFC Series, at a
particular inflection point in the evolution of all Internet
technology institutions. To understand what we did, and why we had
to, let me first paint a broader picture of the arc of these
institutions.
Like many others who were in decision-making roles in the mid -00's,
I wasn't present when the Internet was born. The lore passed down to
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
me was that, out of the group of talented researchers that developed
the core specifications and established the direction of the
Internet, different individuals stepped up to take on roles necessary
to keep the process of specification development organized and open.
As the work of specification expanded, those individuals were
generally supported by organizations that carried on in the same
spirit. This was mostly Jon Postel, doing the work of names and
numbers, as well as working as the editor of RFCs, but there were
also individuals and institutions supporting the IETF's Secretariat
function. By the late 20th century, even this model was wearing thin
- the support functions were growing, and organizations didn't have
the ability to donate even more resources to run them. In some cases
(IANA) there was significant industry and international dependence on
the function and its neutrality.
The IETF, too, had grown in size, stature, and commercial reliance.
This system of institutional pieces "flying in formation" was not
providing the kind of contractual regularity or integrated
development that the IETF needed. People who hadn't been there as
the institutions developed, including IETF decision-makers, didn't
innately understand why things "had to be the way they were", and
were frustrated when trying to get individual systems updated for new
requirements, and better integrated across the spectrum of
activities.
Internet engineering had expanded beyond the point of being
supportable by a loosely-coupled set of organizations of people who
had been there since the beginning and knew each other well. New
forms of governance and were needed, as well as rationalized funding
The IANA function was absorbed into a purpose-built international
not-for-profit organization. The IETF stepped up to manage its own
organizational destiny (IASA), and the Secretariat became one of its
contracted functions.
This left the RFC Editor function as an ISOC-supported, independent
effort.
That independence of nature was necessary for the historic role of
the RFC Series in considering all technical contributions. But, at
that inflection point in the Series' history, it needed a new
governance and funding model, just as the other Internet technical
specification supporting organizations had. Also, the IETF
leadership had some concerns it felt it needed to be addressed in its
own technical publication sream. While the RFC Series had been
established before there was an IETF, and had historically continued
to have documents in it that didn't originate from the IETF, the IETF
was its largest and most organized contributor. There was no
particular organization of independent contributors. Equally, the
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
funding for the RFC Editor was at that point coming from the Internet
Society in the guise of "support for the IETF". For people who
hadn't been involved with the institution from the outset, it was
pretty easy to perceive the RFC Series uniquely as the IETF's
publication series. So, the challenge was to identify and address
the IETF's issues, along with governance and funding, without
sacrificing the fundamental nature of the RFC Series as a broader-
than-IETF publication series.
To give a sense of the kinds of tensions that were prevalent, let me
share that the one phrase that sticks in my mind from those
discussions is: "push to publish". There were those in IETF
leadership who felt that it would significantly reduce costs and
improve timeliness if an RFC could be published by, literally,
pushing a button on a web interface the moment it was approved by the
IESG. It would also, they argued, remove the specification issues
being introduced by copy-editors that were hired as occasional
workers to help with improving publication rates, but who weren't
necessarily up to speed on terms of art in technical specifications.
(There were some pretty egregious examples that I forebear from
citing here; let's just say it wasn't strictly a problem of Internet
engineers getting uptight about their cheese being moved). While
"push to publish" would have addressed those issues, it would not
have addressed the loss of clarity from the many significant text
improvements copy editors successfully introduced, or the fact that
not all RFCs are approved by the IESG.
Institutionally, it was clear that the target was to have the RFC
Editor function governance within the reach of the Internet technical
community (as opposed to any particular private organization),
without tying it specifically to the IETF. That was reasonably
achievable by ensuring that the resultant pieces were established
under the oversight of the IAB (which is, itself, independent of the
IETF, even as it is supported by the IASA organization).
The IETF worked on a document outlining functional requirements for
its technical specification publication. This could have been useful
for establishing its own series, but it also was helpful in
establishing awareness of the challenges in document publishing (it
always looks easy when you haven�t thought about it), and also
to lay the ground work for dialogue with the RFC Editor. The
requirements document was published as [RFC4714], as an Informational
RFC that stands today to provide guidance in the editing processes
surrounding IETF publications.
There was still, however, a certain lack of clarity about
responsibilities for making decisions and changes in the RFC Series
itself. To that end, I and the IAB worked with the various involved
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
parties to produce [RFC4744]. That document captured the RFC Series
mission (for a purpose greater than IETF technical specification
publication), as well as the roles and responsibilities of the
parties involved. The RFC Editor has responsibility for ensuring the
implementation of the mission. The IAB continues to have oversight
responsibilities, including policy oversight, which it could act on
by changing the person (organization) in the role of RFC Editor. At
the same time, operational oversight was migrated to the IASA support
function of the IETF (and IAB).
The discussions, and the resulting publication of RFC 4744, allowed
greater visibility into and commitment to the RFC Series, as a
general Internet publication. It also meant that subsequent
adjustments could be made, as requirements evolved - the responsible
parties are clearly identified.
2.3. The Continuation, or Creation, of a Stream - Nevil Brownlee
Starting in 2006 with [RFC4714], the IAB began working towards a new
structure for publishing RFCs; in 2009 that emerged as the 'RFC
Editor (Version 1)' [RFC5629]. In this model the RFC Series Editor
(RSE) oversees RFC publishing and development, and four separate
'Streams' produce the documents to be published. The IETF Stream
produces standards-related material, all of its output has full IETF
consensus. The way each new Stream operates is specified in a
separate RFC, i.e.,
[RFC 4845] IAB: Architecture Reports and Procedures material
[RFC 5743] IRTF: Internet Research material
[RFC 4846] Independent: Other material
Before 2009 the RFC Editor could accept 'Independent' submissions
from individuals, and - if he judged they were significant - publish
them as RFCs; the Independent Stream was set up to continue that
function. From February 2010 through February 2018 I was the
Independent Stream Editor (ISE) - I began by reading [RFC4846], then
went on to develop the Independent Stream (IS).
First I spent several days at the RFC Production Centre at ISI in
Marina Del Ray with the RFC Editor (Bob Braden) and Sandy Ginoza and
Alice Hagens, so as to learn how RFCs were actually edited and
published. All RFCs reach the Production Centre as Internet Drafts;
they are copy-edited, until the edited version can be approved by
their authors (AUTH48). At any stage authors can check their draft's
status in the RFC Editor Database.
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
For the Independent Submissions, Bob kept a journal (a simple ASCII
file) of his interactions with authors for every draft, indexed by
the draft name. Bob also entered the Independent drafts into the RFC
Editor database, so that authors could track their draft's status.
After my few days with his team at ISI, he handed me that journal
(covering about 30 drafts) over to me and said "now it's over to
you!"
I began by following in Bob's footsteps, maintaining a journal and
tracking each draft's status in the RFC Editor database. My first
consideration was that every serious Internet draft submitted needs
several careful reviews. If the ISE knows suitable reviewers, he can
simply ask them. Otherwise, if the draft relates to an IETF or IRTF
Working Group, he can ask ask Working Group chairs or Area Directors
to suggest reviewers. As well, the ISE has an Independent
Submissions Editorial Board (Ed Board) that he can ask for reviewers.
My experience with reviewers was that most of those I approached were
happy to help.
Most drafts were straightforward, but there were some that needed
extra attention. Often a draft requests IANA code points, For that
IANA were always been quick to offer help and support. Code points
in some IANA Registries require Expert Review - sometimes the
interactions with Expert reviewers took quite a long time! Again,
sometimes a draft seemed to fit better in the IETF Stream; for these
I would suggest that the draft authors try to find an Area Director
to sponsor their work as in Individual submission to the IETF Stream.
After my first few years as ISE, the IETF Tools Team developed the
Data Tracker so that it could keep show draft status, and perform all
the 'housekeeping' tasks for all of the streams. At that stage I
switched to use the Data Tracker rather than the RFC Editor database.
Once a draft has been reviewed, and the authors have revised it in
dialogue with their reviewers, the ISE must submit that draft to the
IESG for their "Conflict Review" [RFC5742]. Overall, each IS draft
benefited from discussions (which were usually simple) with my Ed
Board and the IESG. A (very) few drafts were somewhat controversial
- for those I was able to work with the IESG to negotiate a suitable
'IESG Statement' and/or an 'ISE Statement' to make it clearer why the
ISE published the draft.
One rather special part of the Independent Stream is the April First
drafts. These don't really exist, so authors must send them directly
to the ISE or the RFC Editor. Only a few of them can be published
each year; they are reviewed by the ISE and The RSE; Bob Braden's
criteria for April First drafts were:
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
They must relate to the Internet (like all drafts)
Their readers should reach the end of page two before realising
this is an April First RFC
They must actually be funny!
April First RFCs have a large following, feedback (on the rfc-
interest list) on 1 April each year has been enthusiastic and quick!
I published 159 Independent Stream RFCs during my eight years as ISE.
Over those eight years I worked with, and often met with at IETF
meetings, most of their authors. For me that was a very rewarding
experience, so I thank all those contributors. Also, I've worked
with most of the IESG members during those eight years, that also
gave me a lot of helpful interaction. Last, I've always enjoyed
working with the RFC Editor, and all the staff of the RFC Production
Centre. The IETF (as a whole) is very fortunate to have such an
effective team of talented Professional Staff.
2.4. A View from Inside the RFC Editor - Sandy Ginoza
Content forthcoming
3. The Next Fifty Years of RFCs
As Steve Crocker mentioned, the Series began with a goal of
communication over formality, openness over structure. As the
Internet has grown and become a pervasive, global construct, we still
aim for openness and communication, but recognize that for protocols
and other information to support interoperability, there must be
points of stability to build from. Small-time app developers to
multi-billion dollar companies are on the same footing. And anyone
can look back at a point in time and understand what was done, and
why.
While the informality has given way to increased structure, the
openness and solid foundation that the Series provides must continue.
With that in mind, what is next for the next fifty years of RFCs?
3.1. Preservation
The RFC Editor exists to edit, publish, and maintain an archive of
documents published in the RFC Series. A proper digital archive,
however, is more than just saving RFCs to disk and making sure the
disks are backed up; the field of digital preservation has grown and
transformed into an industry in and of itself. "Digital Preservation
Considerations for the RFC Series" [RFC8153] reviews what a digital
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
archive means today and describes ways to support the archive into
the future, and recommends ways for the RFC Editor to take advantage
of those organizations that specialize in this field.
The future of digital preservation as far as the RFC Series is
concerned will mean both finding new partners that can absorb and
archive RFCs into a public, maintained digital archive, and reviewing
the RFC format to ensure that the published documents are archivable
according to whatever the industry best practice is over time.
3.2. Evolution of the RFC Format
RFCs have been digital documents since very early in the days of the
Series. While not always published in US-ASCII, that format has been
the canonical format for decades. The fact that this format has
lasted through so much evolution and change is remarkable.
Unfortunately, the old US-ASCII format does not extend enough to meet
the expectations and requirements of users today. The entire field
of online document presentation, consumption, and preservation, has
in some cases only been invented years after the first RFC was
published. While it can and has) been argued that those newer fields
and their tools have not had a chance to stand the test of time, the
RFC Series Editor, in consultation with the community, started a
concerted effort in 2012 to bring the RFC Series into alignment with
a new array of possibilities for preservation and display started.
Information about the current RFC format project, the reasoning and
requirements for the changes underway today, can be found in
[RFC7990]. With the advent of these changes, the door has been
opened to consider further changes in the future as the
specifications for archiving digital material evolves, and as the
expectation of web development advances.
3.3. Stream Structure
In the eyes of many [this content may be updated based on
conversations with third-party marketing research groups],
particularly within the IETF, the RFC Series is synonymous with the
IETF. While the Series itself predates the IETF by eighteen years,
over time the IETF has become the source of the majority of documents
submitted for publication to the RFC Editor. The policies developed
for IETF stream drafts tend to apply across all four document
streams, and publication-related tools tend to focus on the IETF as
the primary audience for their use. It is difficult for people to
see how, or even why, there is a distinction between the Series and
the IETF.
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
We are in the midst of that question now more than ever. What is the
future of the Series? If people cannot tell where the IETF ends and
the Series starts, should we consider this an artificial distinction
and declare them to be the same entity?
Ultimately, this will be something the community decides, and
conversations are underway to consider the ramifications of possible
changes.
4. Conclusion
As the Internet evolves, expectations and possibilities evolve, too.
Over the next fifty years, the Series will continue demonstrate a
balance between the need to stay true to the original mission of
publication and preservation, while also staying relevant to the
needs of the authors and consumers of RFCs. The tension in balancing
those needs rests on the RFC Editor and the community to resolve. We
will not run short of challenges.
5. Informative References
[RFC0003] Crocker, S., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0003, April 1969,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3>.
[RFC1000] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Request For Comments
reference guide", RFC 1000, DOI 10.17487/RFC1000, August
1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1000>.
[RFC2441] Cohen, D., "Working with Jon, Tribute delivered at UCLA,
October 30, 1998", RFC 2441, DOI 10.17487/RFC2441,
November 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2441>.
[RFC2555] Editor, RFC. and et. al., "30 Years of RFCs", RFC 2555,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2555, April 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2555>.
[RFC4714] Mankin, A. and S. Hayes, "Requirements for IETF Technical
Publication Service", RFC 4714, DOI 10.17487/RFC4714,
October 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4714>.
[RFC4744] Lear, E. and K. Crozier, "Using the NETCONF Protocol over
the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 4744,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4744, December 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4744>.
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Fifty Years of RFCs October 2018
[RFC4846] Klensin, J., Ed. and D. Thaler, Ed., "Independent
Submissions to the RFC Editor", RFC 4846,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4846, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4846>.
[RFC5540] Editor, RFC., "40 Years of RFCs", RFC 5540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5540, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5540>.
[RFC5629] Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Application Interaction in
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5629,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5629, October 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5629>.
[RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5742>.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
[RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7990>.
[RFC8153] Flanagan, H., "Digital Preservation Considerations for the
RFC Series", RFC 8153, DOI 10.17487/RFC8153, April 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8153>.
Appendix A. Contributors
With many thanks to Steve Crocker, Leslie Daigle, Nevil Brownlee, and
Sandy Ginoza for their perspectives on the Series, and their ongoing
support.
Author's Address
Heather Flanagan (editor)
RFC Editor
Email: rse@rfc-editor.org
URI: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220
Flanagan Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 16]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/