[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-flanagan-rfc-framework) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 7990

Internet Architecture Board                                  H. Flanagan
Internet-Draft                                                RFC Editor
Intended status: Informational                             June 23, 2016
Expires: December 25, 2016


                          RFC Format Framework
                       draft-iab-rfc-framework-06

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 using the XML2RFC version 3 vocabulary.  Different
   publication formats will be 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.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

   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 December 25, 2016.





Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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.  Canonical Format Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  XML for RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Publication Format Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  HTML  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  PDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.3.  Plain Text  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.4.  Potential Future Publication Formats  . . . . . . . . . .   9
       7.4.1.  EPUB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Figures and Artwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  SVG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Content and Page Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.1.  Non-ASCII Characters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Style Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.3.  CSS Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Transition Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Statement of Work and RFP for Tool Development . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Testing and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.3.  Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   14. Appendix - Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     14.1.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-05 to -06  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     14.2.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-04 to -05  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     14.3.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-03 to -04  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     14.4.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-02 to -03  . . . . . . . . . . .  13



Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


     14.5.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-01 to -02  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     14.6.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-00 to -01  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   "RFC Series Format Requirements and Future Development" discussed 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
   [RFC6949].  Based on the discussions with the IETF community as well
   as other communities of interest, the RFC Series Editor decided 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
   transition plan that will take the Series from a plain-text, ASCII-
   only format to the new formats is described on the rfc-interest
   mailing list [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.

   The details described in this document are expected to change based
   on experience gained in implementing the RFC Production Center's
   toolset.  Revised documents will be published capturing those changes
   as the toolset is completed.  Other implementers must not expect
   those changes to remain backwards-compatible with the details
   described this document.

2.  Problem Statement

   There are nearly three billion people connected to the Internet, and
   individuals from 45 countries or more regularly attending IETF
   meetings over the last five years [ISTATS].  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



Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


   largest number of people possible, across a wide array of devices,
   and to respect the diversity of authors and reference materials while
   still recognizing the archival aspects of the Series, it is time to
   update 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
   time.  For example, existing authors and implementers, lawyers that
   argue Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), educators, managers, 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 be
   balanced with the needs for long-term archival storage.

3.  Terminology

   The following terminology is used 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

      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.



Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


   Regular conversations were held with the IETF, IRTF, IAB, and IAOC
   chairs, and the Independent Stream Editor, to discuss high-level
   stream requirements.  Updates regarding the status of the project
   were provided 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].

   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, as with all of the RFCs that informed the
   format update work, 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, the RFC Series
   Editor (RSE) brought together an RFC Format Design Team to start
   working out the necessary details to develop the code needed to
   create new and changed formats.  The design team discussed moving
   away from the existing xml2rfc vocabulary, but with such a strong
   existing support base within the community and no clear value with
   other XML vocabularies or schemas, the decision was made to work with
   the XML2RFC version 2 (xml2rfc v2) model and use it as the base for
   the new format world [RFC7749].  Part of this discussion included a
   decision to stop using an XML document type definition (DTD) in favor
   of a Regular Language for XML Next General (Relax NG) model using a
   defined vocabulary.  While the bi-weekly calls for this team were
   limited to Design Team members, review of the decisions as documented
   in 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 xml2rfc 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] [I-D.iab-xml2rfc].

   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] [NDN2014].

   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.



Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


   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].  They have offered support and input throughout the
   process.

   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].

5.  Key Changes

   At the highest level, the changes being made to the RFC Format
   involve breaking away from a pure-ASCII plain text 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 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 be 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.

6.  Canonical Format Documents

6.1.  XML for RFCs

   Key points regarding the XML format:

   o  The canonical format for RFCs is XML using the XML2RFC version 3
      (xml2rfc v3) vocabulary.  This file must contain all information
      necessary to render a variety of formats; any question about what
      was intended in the publication will be answered from this format.



Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


   o  Authors may submit drafts in xml2rfc v2 vocabulary, but the final
      publication will convert that to xml2rfc v3 vocabulary.

   o  SVG is supported and will be embedded in the final XML file.

   o  There will be automatically generated identifiers for sections,
      paragraphs, figures, and tables in the final XML file.

   o  The XML file will not contain any xml2rfc v3 vocabulary elements
      or attributes that have been marked deprecated.

   o  A Document Type Definition (DTD) will no longer be used.  The
      grammar will be defined using RelaxNG.

   o  The final XML file will contain, verbatim, the appropriate
      boilerplate as applicable at time of publication specified by RFC
      5741 or its successors [RFC5741].

   o  The final XML will be self-contained with all the information
      known at publication time.  For instance, all features that
      reference externally-defined input will be expanded.  This
      includes all uses of xinclude, src attributes (such as in
      <artwork> or <sourcecode> elements), include-like processing
      instructions, and externally defined entities.

   o  The final XML will not contain comments or processing
      instructions.

   o  The final XML will not contain src attributes for <artwork> or
      <sourcecode> elements.

   [RFC7749] describes the xml2rfc v2 vocabulary.  While in wide use
   today, this vocabulary previously 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 will be obsoleted by the RFC published from draft-iab-
   xml2rfc.

   [I-D.iab-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 7749.







Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


7.  Publication Format Documents

7.1.  HTML

   [I-D.iab-html-rfc] - Describes the semantic HTML that will be
   produced by the RFC Editor from the xml2rfc v3 files.

   Key points regarding the HTML output:

   o  The HTML will be rendered from the XML file; it will not be
      derived from the plain-text publication format.

   o  The body of the document will use a subset of HTML.  The documents
      will include CSS for default visual presentation; it can be
      overwritten by a local CSS file.

   o  SVG is supported and will be included in the HTML file.

   o  Text will be reflowable.

   o  JavaScript will be supported on a limited basis.  It will not be
      permitted to overwrite or change any text present in the rendered
      html.  It may, on a limited basis, add additional text that
      provides post-publication metadata or pointers if warranted.  All
      such text will be clearly marked as additional.

7.2.  PDF

   [I-D.iab-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.

   Key points regarding the PDF output:

   o  The PDF file will be rendered from the XML file; it will not be
      derived from the plain-text publication format.

   o  The PDF publication format will conform to the PDF/A-3 standard
      and will embed the canonical XML source.

   o  The PDF will look more like the HTML publication format than the
      plain-text publication format.

   o  The PDF will include a rich set of tags and metadata within the
      document




Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


   o  SVG is supported and will be included in the PDF file.

7.3.  Plain Text

   [I-D.iab-rfc-plaintext] - Describes the details of the plain text
   format, focusing in particular on what is changing from the existing
   plain-text output.

   Key points regarding the plain-text output:

   o  The plain-text document will no longer be the canonical version of
      an RFC.

   o  The plain-text format will be UTF-8 encoded; non-ASCII characters
      will be allowed.

   o  A Byte Order Mark (BOM) will be added at the start of each file.

   o  Widow and orphan control for the plain-text publication format
      will not have priority for the developers creating the rendering
      code [TYPOGRAPHY].

   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 an unpaginated plain-text file will be
      created.

   o  Running headers and footers will not be used.

7.4.  Potential Future Publication Formats

7.4.1.  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.

8.  Figures and Artwork

8.1.  SVG

   [I-D.iab-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.






Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


9.  Content and Page Layout

9.1.  Non-ASCII Characters

   There are security and readability implications to moving outside the
   ASCII range of characters.  [I-D.iab-rfc-nonascii] 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.

9.2.  Style Guide

   The RFC Style Guide [RFC7322] 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.

9.3.  CSS Requirements

   [I-D.iab-rfc-css] describe how the CSS classes mentioned in the HTML
   format draft, "HyperText Markup Language Request for Comments
   Format", should be used to create an accessible and responsive design
   for the HTML format.

10.  Transition Plan

10.1.  Statement of Work and RFP for Tool Development

   Existing tools for the creation of RFCs will need to be updated, and
   new tools created, to implement the updated format.  As the
   requirements gathering effort, described in the various documents
   described earlier int this draft, finishes the bulk of the work, the
   Tools Development Team of the IETF will work with the RSE to develop
   Statements of Work (SoWs).  Those SoWs will first be reviewed within
   the Tools Development Team, the Tools Management Committee, and go
   out for a public comment period.  After public review, the SoWs will
   be attached to a Request for Proposal (RFP) and posted as per the
   IASA bid process [IASA-RFP].

   Once bids have been received, reviewed, and awarded, coding will
   begin.

10.2.  Testing and Transition

   During the I-D review and approval process, authors and stream-
   approving bodies will select drafts to run through the proposed new
   publication process.  While the final RFCs published during this time
   will continue as plain-text and immutable once published, the



Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


   feedback process is necessary to bootstrap initial testing.  These
   early tests will target finding issues with the proposed xml2rfc v3
   vocabulary that result in poorly formed publication formats as well
   as issues that prevent proper review of submitted drafts.

   Feedback will result in regular iteration of the basic code and XML
   vocabulary.  In order to limit the amount of time the RFC Production
   Center (RPC) spends on testing and QA, their priority will be to edit
   and publish documents; therefore, community assistance will be
   necessary to help move this stage along.  A mailing list and
   experimental source directory on the RFC Editor website will be
   created for community members willing to assist in the detailed
   review of the XML and publication formats.  Editorial checks of the
   publication formats by the community are out of scope; the focus will
   be the QA of each available output, checking for inconsistencies
   across formats.

   The purpose of testing phase is 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.

   Any modifications to the draft review process, up to and including
   AUTH48, will happen with the community and the stream approving
   bodies as we learn more about the features and outputs of the new
   publication tools.  Defining those processes is out of scope for this
   document.

   Success will be measured by the closure of all bugs which had been
   identified by the RPC and the Tools Development team as fatal and
   consensus on the readiness of the XML vocabulary and final XML files
   for publication.  The actual rendering engine can go through further
   review and iteration, as the publication formats may be republished
   as needed.

   Authors are not required to submit their approved drafts in an XML
   format, though they are strongly encouraged to do so; plain-text will
   also remain an option for the foreseeable future.  However, documents
   submitted as plain-text cannot include such features as SVG artwork.
   The RPC will generate an XML file if necessary for basic processing
   and subsequent rendering into the approved output formats.

   A known risk at this point of the transition is the difficulty in
   quantifying the resources required from the RPC.  This phase will
   require more work on the part of the RPC to support both old and new
   publication processes for at least six months.  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



Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


   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.

   Final success of the transition will be measured by the closure of
   all bugs which had been identified by the RPC and the Tools
   Development team as major or critical.  There must also be rough
   consensus from the community regarding the utility of the new
   formats.

10.3.  Completion

   Authors may submit XML (preferred) or plain text.  The XML drafts
   submitted for publication will be converted to canonical XML format
   and published with all available publication formats.  All authors
   will be expected to review the final documents as consistent with the
   evolving procedures for reviewing drafts.

   Success for this phase will be measured by a solid understanding by
   the RSE and the IAOC of the necessary costs and resources required
   for long-term support of the new format model.

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

12.  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.

13.  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.

14.  Appendix - Change log

   To be removed by RFC Editor






Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


14.1.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-05 to -06

   xml2rfcv2: minor clarifications

14.2.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-04 to -05

   Introduction: minor clarifications

   Updated references

14.3.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-03 to -04

   Introduction: editorial changes

   Clarified that submitted plain text will be converted to XML by the
   RPC; the XML will be used to render all output formats.

14.4.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-02 to -03

   HTML output: clarified expectations around use of JavaScript.

14.5.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-01 to -02

   Introduction: Removed some unnecessary history.

14.6.  draft-iab-rfc-framework-00 to -01

   Decision Making Process: noted taht other XML schemas and
   vocabularies were considered by the design team

   XML for RFCs: "boilerplate at time of publication"

   HTML: clarified that JavaScript should not impact readability of the
   document as it looked at time of publication

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [RFC7749]  Reschke, J., "The "xml2rfc" Version 2 Vocabulary",
              RFC 7749, DOI 10.17487/RFC7749, February 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7749>.




Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


   [I-D.iab-xml2rfc]
              Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" version 3 Vocabulary", draft-
              iab-xml2rfc-03 (work in progress), February 2016.

   [I-D.iab-svg-rfc]
              Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC", draft-
              iab-svg-rfc-02 (work in progress), February 2016.

   [I-D.iab-html-rfc]
              Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, "HyperText Markup Language
              Request For Comments Format", draft-iab-html-rfc-02 (work
              in progress), February 2016.

   [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.

   [I-D.iab-rfc-plaintext]
              Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs", draft-
              iab-rfc-plaintext-03 (work in progress), May 2016.

   [I-D.iab-rfc-nonascii]
              Flanagan, H., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs",
              draft-iab-rfc-nonascii-02 (work in progress), April 2016.

   [I-D.iab-rfc-css]
              Flanagan, H., "CSS Requirements for RFCs", draft-iab-rfc-
              css-00 (work in progress), January 2016.

15.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4845]  Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "Process
              for Publication of IAB RFCs", RFC 4845,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4845, July 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4845>.

   [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>.






Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


   [RFC7322]  Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.

   [GEN-ART]  IETF, "General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)", n.d.,
              <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/gen-art.html>.

   [IASA-RFP]
              IETF Administrative Support Activity, "RFPs and RFIs",
              n.d., <http://iaoc.ietf.org/rfps-rfis.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/>.

   [NDN2014]  "28th NORDUnet Conference 2014", 2014,
              <https://events.nordu.net/display/NORDU2014/
              BoF%27s+and+side+meetings>.

   [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/>.

   [TNC2014]  Flanagan, H., "IETF Update - 'What's Hot?' - RFC Update",
              n.d., <https://tnc2014.terena.org/core/presentation/84>.






Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework                 June 2016


   [TYPOGRAPHY]
              Butterick, M., "Butterick's Practical Typography", n.d.,
              <http://practicaltypography.com/
              widow-and-orphan-control.html>.

   [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
   URI:   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220


































Flanagan                Expires December 25, 2016              [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/