Requirements for IETF Technical Publication Service
draft-mankin-pub-req-11
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 4714.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Allison J. Mankin , Stephen Hayes | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2006-07-28) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 4714 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Brian E. Carpenter | ||
| Send notices to | leslie@thinkingcat.com |
draft-mankin-pub-req-11
Network Working Group A. Mankin
Internet Draft
Expires: January 2007 S. Hayes
Ericsson
July 28, 2006
Requirements for IETF Technical Publication Service
draft-mankin-pub-req-11.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 28, 2007.
Abstract
The work of the IETF is to discuss, develop, and disseminate
technical specifications to support the Internet's operation.
Technical publication is the process by which that output is
disseminated to the community at large. As such, it is important to
understand the requirements on the publication process.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Scope..........................................................3
2.1. Stages in the Technical Specification Publication Lifetime4
3. Technical Publication Tasks and Requirements...................5
3.1. Pre-approval Review or Editing............................6
3.2. Preliminary Specification Availability....................7
3.3. Post-approval Editorial Cleanup (Non-author Editing)......7
3.4. Validation of References..................................9
3.5. Validation of Formal Languages...........................10
3.6. Insertion of Parameter Values............................10
3.7. Post-approval, Pre-publication Technical Corrections.....11
3.8. Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers...............12
3.9. Document Format Conversions..............................12
3.10. Language Translation....................................13
3.11. Publication Status Tracking.............................13
3.12. Expedited Handling......................................14
3.13. Exception Handling......................................15
3.14. Notification of publication.............................15
3.15. Post-publication Corrections............................15
3.16. Indexing: Maintenance of the Catalog....................16
3.17. Access to Published Documents...........................17
3.18. Maintenance of a Vocabulary Document....................17
3.19. Providing Publication Statistics and Status Reports.....18
3.20. Process and Document Evolution..........................18
3.21. Tutorial and Help Services..............................19
3.22. Liaison and Communication Support.......................20
4. Technical Publisher Performance Goals.........................20
4.1. Publication Timeframes...................................21
4.2. Publication Throughput...................................21
5. IETF Implications of Technical Publication Requirements.......22
6. IANA Considerations...........................................23
7. Security Considerations.......................................23
8. Acknowledgments...............................................23
Author's Addresses...............................................24
Intellectual Property Statement..................................24
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................25
Copyright Statement..............................................25
Acknowledgment...................................................25
1. Introduction
The work of the IETF is to discuss, develop, and disseminate
technical specifications to support the Internet's operation.
Therefore an important output of the IETF is published technical
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
specifications. The IETF technical publisher is responsible for the
final steps in the production of the published technical
specifications. This document sets forth requirements on the duties
of the IETF technical publisher and how it interacts with the IETF in
the production of those publications.
The term "technical specification" is used here purposefully to refer
to the technical output of the IETF. This document does not engage in
the debate about whether it is expressed as RFCs or otherwise, what
"is" an RFC, how to classify them, etc. These issues are considered
out of scope.
The intention of this document is to clarify the IETF's consensus on
its requirements for its technical publication service. It is
expected to be used in the preparation of future contracts. This
document is not a discussion of how well the current technical
publisher (the RFC Editor) fulfils those requirements.
2. Scope
The scope of this document is the requirements for the technical
publication process for IETF. Requirements on a technical publisher
can be expressed in terms of both what tasks the IETF technical
publisher is responsible for and performance targets the IETF
technical publisher should meet. The functions provided by the
technical publisher are sometimes referred to as editorial management
(RFC2850).
This draft specifically addresses those documents published by the
IETF technical standards process. In all cases, the requirements
have been written in generic terms, so that they may be used to
express the requirements of other publication streams, elsewhere.
The list of potential technical publication tasks was derived by
considering the tasks currently performed by the RFC editor as well
as the responsibilities of the technical publishers in other
standards organizations including 3GPP, ATIS, ETSI, IEEE, and ITU.
This requirements documents focuses on process issues in how the IETF
technical publisher serves the IETF. There are related issues
regarding non-technical aspects of document content that are not
addressed in this requirements document. Issues not addressed in
this document are:
o Policies governing the acceptable input and output document
formats (including figures, etc.),
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
o Policies governing the acceptable character sets
(internationalization)
o Policies governing the layout and style of published documents
o Policies governing the contents of non-technical sections
(acknowledgement sections, reference classifications, etc.)
It is realized that the above policies are also an important aspect
in determining the final published product from IETF. These policies
are likely to evolve as part of the ongoing IETF dialog. The IETF
technical publisher should be part of the discussions of these
policies and be prepared to implement and facilitate policy changes
as they are determined by IETF consensus. This requirement is
captured under the discussion of process and document evolution.
2.1. Stages in the Technical Specification Publication Lifetime
Figure 1 below provides a useful summary of where technical
publication falls in the current lifetime of a document in the IETF
standards process. This figure shows a Working Group (WG) document
and the reviews including Working Group Last Call (WGLC), Area
Director (AD) review, IETF Last Call (IETF LC), IANA review, and IESG
review. The document shepherd (shown in the diagram as "Shepherd" is
an individual designated by the IESG to shepherd a document through
the reviews and the publication process and is often not an AD. The
lifetime is very similar for AD-sponsored IETF documents, such as
documents that update IETF protocols where there is no longer a
working group, or documents on interdisciplinary topics.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
Actors Formal Actors Actors
Reviews
| Author, | WGLC | IESG, | | IANA,
| Editor, | AD | Shepherd, | A | Tech
| IETF Sec- | IETF LC | Editor, | P | Publisher,
| retariat | IANA | WG, | P | input from
| | IESG | AD | R | authors, et al
| | | | O |
Actions | Creation, | | Resolution | V | non-author
| Editing, | | of all | A | editing,
| Draft Pub,| | reviews | L | other
| Tracking | | | | publication
|---------------| |---------------------| |----------------|
In WG Out of WG Post-approval
Figure 1: Stages of a Working Group Document
Note that in some cases a single submission may actually consist of
multiple source documents (supporting files, code, etc.).
Under the IETF standards process stream the post-approval processing
is initiated by the IESG after technical approval.
3. Technical Publication Tasks and Requirements
Standards development organizations all have technical publication as
part of their process. However, the boundaries between what is done
by the technical committees and the technical publisher vary.
The following are potential tasks of a technical publisher. The
following list was derived after analyzing the technical publication
policies of the IETF and other standards development organizations.
1. Pre-approval review or editing
2. Preliminary specification availability
3. Post-approval editorial cleanup
4. Validation of references
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
5. Validation of formal languages
6. Insertion of parameter values
7. Post-approval, pre-publication corrections
8. Allocation of permanent stable identifiers
9. Document format conversions
10. Language translation
11. Publication status tracking
12. Expedited handling
13. Exception handling
14. Notification of publication
15. Post-publication corrections (errata)
16. Indexing: maintenance of the catalog
17. Access to published documents
18. Maintenance of a vocabulary document
19. Providing publication statistics and status reports
20. Process and document evolution
21. Tutorial and help services
22. Liaison and communication support
For each of these tasks we discuss its relevance to IETF and how it
is realized within the IETF processes. Based upon this information
we derive requirements on the IETF technical publisher
3.1. Pre-approval Review or Editing
Task Description: This provides a review or editing service to
improve document quality prior to the approval of a document. This
review process would normally address issues such as grammar,
spelling, formatting, adherence to pre-approval boilerplate, document
structure, proper use of keywords (RFC 2119), etc.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
Discussion: Pre-approval review is not part of the current IETF
standards process, but this concept has been explored in the early
copy editing experiment. Early feedback from the experiment has been
promising, however, the effectiveness of early editing is still being
evaluated.
Derived Requirements:
Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should be capable of
performing an editorial review of documents early enough to allow any
changes to be reviewed within the technical review process, should
the IETF choose to implement pre-approval editing. For the IETF
standards process stream this review should be performed before WG
last call and provide feedback to the authors to improve quality of
the documents. For the IETF standards process stream the publisher
should not perform a technical review of the document.
3.2. Preliminary Specification Availability
Task Description: Some standards organizations require their
publisher to make available a preliminary version of a document (with
appropriate caveats) to make the information available to the
industry as early as possible. This document is provided "as is"
after the approval. This document is withdrawn once the final
document is published.
Discussion: This is not required. A final approved version is
available as a draft. If publication can take more than 6 months, it
may be necessary to request that the draft version remains available.
Derived Requirements: none
3.3. Post-approval Editorial Cleanup (Non-author Editing)
Task Description: Most technical publishers do an editorial review to
ensure the quality of published documents. Typically this may
address issues such as grammar, spelling, readability, formatting,
adherence to boilerplate, document structure, proper use of keywords,
etc. Since any proposed changes occur after approval, a review and
signoff mechanism should usually be established to ensure that the
required changes are truly editorial. Since such changes occur
outside of the normal approval process, it is desirable that such
changes are minimized. Most standards organizations target "light"
editing due to the dangers of changing agreed text.
Discussion: Within IETF, the RFC Editor does post-approval cleanup
review and editing. The ambition level for cleanup can vary from:
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
o Corrections to errors only,
o Light rewriting,
o Significant editing of documents with less skillful WG editors,
and minimal editing when the WG editors were skilled,
o Rewriting of all documents to the dictates of a style manual
At times in the past year, stylistic editing has resulted in a
substantial number of changes in many documents. These changes must
then be vetted by all the authors followed by subsequent rounds of
author acceptance and re-vetting. This can add up to a substantial
delay in the publication process which must be weighed against the
incremental gain in communication improvement accomplished by the
cleanup.
Changes to improve readability (or possibly even grammar) can end up
inadvertently affecting consensus wording or technical meaning. Note
that pre-approval editing to some extent avoids this problem.
In specific instances it may be necessary to require that text be
published "verbatim" even if doing so introduces what is perceived as
poor readability or stylistic inconsistency. Examples of this
include:
- "Boilerplate" agreed on in an IETF working group to apply to all
instances of derivative works (e.g., IANA registration documents,
Management Information Bases (MIBs), etc.)
- Text referring to other organizations' work - which has been
carefully phrased and arranged with representatives of that other
organization to deal with some politically sensitive issue.
If pre-approval editing or review is done it may be possible to
reduce or even eliminate entirely the post-approval editing task in
some cases. Pre-approval editing may be more efficient since a
separate change control process is not required.
Derived Requirements:
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
o Req-POSTEDIT-1 - The IETF technical publisher should review the
document for grammar, spelling, formatting, alignment with
boilerplate, document structure, proper use of keywords, etc. The
review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with
previously published documents. In the IETF standards process
stream, the publisher should not perform a technical review of the
document.
o Req-POSTEDIT-2 - All changes made to post-approval documents
should be tracked and the changes must be signed off on by the
appropriate technical representatives. For the IETF standards
process stream this includes the authors, the document shepherd
(if there is one), and the Area Director. The Area Director is
the authority for approval of all changes.
o Req-POSTEDIT-3 - The IETF technical publisher should exercise
restraint in making stylistic changes that introduce a substantial
review load but only provides incremental increase in the clarity
of the specification. Specific guidelines on the types of changes
allowed may be further specified, but ultimately restraint in
editing must be imposed by the IETF technical publisher. Changes
for stylistic consistency should be done only when there are major
problems with the quality of the document.
o Req-POSTEDIT-4 - The IETF technical publisher should exercise
restraint in making changes to improve readability that may change
technical and consensus wording. Specific guidelines on the types
of changes allowed may be further specified, but ultimately
restraint in editing must be imposed by the IETF technical
publisher.
o Req-POSTEDIT-5 - In specific instances, where some or all of
document text is the result of a careful negotiation of
contributions (within or between working groups, reviewers,
etc.), the technical publisher may be required to publish that
text verbatim. In the IETF standards process verbatim
publication may be requested by the IESG. It is the expectation
of the IETF community that this will not be done often.
3.4. Validation of References
Task Description: Most standards organizations require that normative
references be publicly available. Some technical publishers verify
the validity and availability of references (including referenced
clauses and figures). Although some editorial clean-up of references
may be obvious, the issue becomes more severe when reference links
are broken, are not publicly available, or refer to obsoleted
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
documents. Such faults may be viewed as a post-approval fault found
in the document. Most publishers have the ability to put a document
on hold awaiting the publication of a reference expected to be
available soon.
Discussion: The RFC Editor may put a document on hold waiting for the
availability of other IETF documents. Incorrect references are
handled like any other fault detected in the editorial review.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-REFVAL-1 - The IETF technical publisher should ensure that all
references within specifications are currently available and are
expected to remain available.
o Req-REFVAL-2 - The IETF technical publisher should delay
publication until all required (normative) references are ready
for publication.
3.5. Validation of Formal Languages
Task Description: If the Specification contains a formal language
section (such as a MIB), the technical publisher may be required to
validate this using a tool.
Discussion: The RFC Editor syntactically validates sections of a
document containing MIBs, Augmented Backus Naur Form (ABNF),
eXtensible Markup Language (XML), Abstract Syntax Notation One
(ASN.1) and possibly other formal languages.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-FORMALVAL-1 - The IETF technical publisher should validate the
syntax of sections of documents containing formal languages. In
particular ASN.1, ABNF, and XML should be verified using
appropriate tools.
3.6. Insertion of Parameter Values
Task Description: The Technical Publisher is expected to work with
IANA (or possibly other organizations maintaining registries) to
populate assigned protocol parameter values when required, prior to
publication. The population of these parameters values should not
require technical expertise by the technical publisher.
Discussion: Within IETF, IANA normally does its allocations as an
early step in the technical publication process.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
Derived Requirements:
o Req-PARAMEDIT-1 - The IETF technical publisher should work with
IANA in the population of required parameter values into
documents.
3.7. Post-approval, Pre-publication Technical Corrections
Task Description: Regardless of efforts to minimize their occurrence,
it is always possible that technical flaws will be discovered in the
window between document approval and publication. The technical
publisher may be requested to incorporate technical changes into the
document prior to publication. Such changes necessitate a review and
sign-off procedure. Another option is to disallow such corrections
and treat them as you would post-publication errata. Note that this
task is distinct from post-approval changes that might originate due
to editorial review because they originate from outside the technical
publisher. For severe flaws, it should always be possible to
withdraw the document from the publication queue (See section 3.13).
Discussion: IETF allows minor technical corrections during the
publication process. This should ideally be a rare occurrence.
Since any changes introduced during the post-approval phase can lead
to publication delays it is important that only changes with
technical merit be permitted. In particular stylistic changes should
be discouraged. IETF processes must be in place to vet changes
proposed by the author, but this is not specifically a requirement on
the technical publisher.
The interaction between the authors and the technical publisher must
be sufficiently well policed that untracked and unapproved changes
cannot be introduced by the author or other parties.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-POSTCORR-1 - The IETF technical publisher should permit the
incorporation of technical changes detected after approval, but
pre-publication.
o Req-POSTCORR-2 - The IETF technical publisher should only allow
post-approval technical changes which have been approved by the
appropriate party. In the IETF standards process stream this
includes the authors and the Area Director. The document shepherd
(if there is one) should be kept informed of these changes.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
o Req-POSTCORR-3 - The IETF technical publisher should alert the
appropriate authority when it feels that a requested change is
suspect (e.g., an unapproved technical alteration) or
unreasonable (e.g., massive editorial changes). Further
processing of the draft should be suspended pending a response by
that authority. For the IETF standards process stream, that
authority is the Area Director. If there is a document shepherd
working with the Area Director, the shepherd should be notified
and kept informed as well.
o Req-POSTCORR-4 - The IETF technical publisher should ensure that
any source documents associated with a publication are updated in
conjunction with their associated specifications.
3.8. Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers
Task Description: For a document to be referenced, it must have a
unique permanent identifier. In some standards organization, it is
the technical publisher that generates this identifier. In other
cases the identifier may be allocated earlier in the process.
Discussion: Currently, the RFC Editor allocates RFC numbers and other
identifiers (the current IETF stable identifiers) when the document
is near the end of the publication process. Having identifiers
allocated early was considered, but a definite need could not be
established.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-PERMID-1 - The IETF technical publisher should allocate stable
identifiers as part of the publication process.
o Req-PERMID-2 - The IETF technical publisher should assign
additional permanent identifiers associated with various classes
of documents as directed by the appropriate authority. For the
IETF standards process stream, that authority is the IESG.
3.9. Document Format Conversions
Task Description: The technical publisher is responsible for
converting the documents into one or more output formats (text,
portable document format (pdf), etc.). In some standards
organizations, the technical publisher may be required to accept
input documents in various formats and produce a homogeneous set of
output documents.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
Discussion: Currently, the RFC Editor accepts input as an ascii text
file. The RFC editor has also accepted supplementary formats that
were used to generate the ascii text (xml and nroff). The documents
are published as ascii text and pdf files.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-DOCCONVERT-1 - The IETF technical publisher should accept as
input ascii text files and publish documents as ascii text files
and pdf files.
o Req-DOCCONVERT-2 - The technical publisher should accept
supplemental files that may contain information such as: code,
formal descriptions (XML, ASN.1, etc.) graphics, data files, etc.
Supplemental files may also include enhanced versions of the
document containing graphics or sections not presentable in text
format. Any supplemental files, barring any changes to the IETF
process rules, will be associated with the published IETF
documents, but may not be editable by the publisher.
3.10. Language Translation
Task Description: Some standards organizations require publication of
documents in multiple languages. This translation is the
responsibility of the technical publisher.
Discussion: IETF specifications are published only in English.
Derived Requirements: none
3.11. Publication Status Tracking
Task Description: The technical publisher should have the ability to
provide status information on the status of a document. This may
involve developing a process model or a checklist and providing
information on a document's state, outstanding issues, and
responsibility tokens. Depending on the need for transparency, this
information may need to be available online and continuously updated.
Discussion: The RFC Editor currently provides status information via
the RFC editor queue. Each document is attributed a status (AUTH48,
RFC-EDITOR, IANA, ISR, etc.) Items may stay on the queue for a long
time without changing status. This status tracking information is
not integrated with the IESG tracking tools. Within the IETF, the
PROTO team is considering requirements for marking the token-holder
accurately during long waiting periods, and others are looking into
improved notification tools. Requirements on the IETF technical
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
publisher for improved status integration and visibility could be met
by collaborations with these efforts, or by providing public access
to email logs regarding publications, or by some other proposal.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-STATUSTRK-1 - The IETF technical publisher should make state
information publicly available for each document in the
publication process. It is desirable that this information be
available through a documented interface to facilitate tools
development.
o Req-STATUSTRK-2 - The IETF technical publisher should integrate
its state information with the IETF tools to provide end-to-end
status tracking of documents. For the documents in the IETF
standards process stream it is expected that documents should be
able to move seamlessly from the IETF standards tracking system
into the technical publication tracking system.
o Req-STATUSTRK-3 - The IETF technical publisher should provide
external visibility of not only the fact that a document is in an
extended waiting period, but also the token-holder and
circumstances of the wait.
3.12. Expedited Handling
Task Description: In some cases (such as when the documents are
needed by another standards body), it should be possible for the
approving organization to request expedited publication of a
document. Ideally, this should not skip any of the publication
steps, but allocates it higher priority in the work queue to ensure
earlier publication than normal. Expedited publication should be
used sparingly since as with any priority scheme, overuse will negate
its benefits.
Discussion: The fast-tracking procedure is used to expedite
publication of a document at the request of the IESG. Fast-tracking
is generally employed when an external organization has a looming
publication deadline and a need to reference a document currently in
the RFC editors queue. Having short publication times would likely
reduce the need for fast-tracking.
Since fast tracking is disruptive to the workflow it is recommended
that expedited handling be phased out as soon as alternative ways of
achieving timely publication are in place.
Derived Requirements:
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
o Req-EXPEDITE-1 - The IETF technical publisher should expedite the
processing of specific documents at the request of an appropriate
authority. For the IETF standards process stream, that authority
is the IESG or the IAB.
3.13. Exception Handling
Task Description: It should be possible for various reasons for a
document to be withdrawn from publication or the publication put on
hold. Reasons for this could be due to an appeals process, detection
of a serious technical flaw, or determination that the document is
unsuitable for publication.
Discussion: For various reasons a document can be withdrawn before
publication.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-EXCEPTIONS-1 - The IETF technical publisher should permit
documents to be withdrawn from publication at the direction of an
appropriate authority. For the IETF standards process stream,
that authority is the IESG.
o Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 - The IETF technical publisher should permit
documents to be put on hold awaiting the outcome of an appeal at
the direction of an appropriate authority. For the IETF standards
process stream, that authority is the IESG.
3.14. Notification of publication
Task Description: The technical publisher should provide a mechanism
for alerting the community at large of the availability of published
documents.
Discussion: The RFC Editor notifies of document publication on the
rfc-dist and ietf-announce mailing lists.
o Req-PUBNOTIFY-1 - The IETF technical publisher should announce the
availability of published documents.
3.15. Post-publication Corrections
Task Description: If corrections are identified after publication,
the technical publisher should be able to publish errata that can be
linked with the original document.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
Discussion: The RFC Editor maintains a list of errata. Pointers to
relevant errata are presented as output from the RFC Editor search
engine.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-ERRATA-1 - The IETF technical publisher should maintain errata
for published documents. The process for review, updating, and
approval of errata for IETF documents will be defined by the IETF.
o Req-ERRATA-2 - The IETF technical publisher should provide
information on relevant errata as part of the information
associated with a RFC.
3.16. Indexing: Maintenance of the Catalog
Task Description: The technical publisher normally provides and
maintains the master catalog of publications of that organization.
As the publishers of the organization's output, the technical
publisher is expected to be the definitive source of publications and
maintainer of the database of published documents. This also
includes the cataloging and storage of meta-information associated
with documents such as its history, status (updated, obsoleted,
etc.), document categories (standard, draft standard, bcp, etc.)
Discussion: The RFC Editor maintains the catalog. The RFC editor is
also responsible for the permanent archival of specifications. Meta
information associated with an RFC should also be maintained. Since
this is the definitive archive, sufficient security should be in
place to prevent tampering with approved documents.
o Req-INDEX-1 - The IETF technical publisher should maintain the
index of all IETF published documents. It is desirable that the
interface to the index be documented to facilitate tools
development.
o Req-INDEX-2 - The IETF technical publisher should provide the
permanent archive for published documents.
o Req-INDEX-3 - Meta information associated with a published
document must be stored and updated as its status changes.
o Req-INDEX-4 - The archive must be sufficiently secure to prevent
the modification of published documents by external parties.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
o Req-INDEX-5 - The IETF technical publisher should provide the
permanent archive of any source documents associated with a
published specification.
o Req-INDEX-6 - An appropriate authority can indicate to the
publisher that it should change the status of a document (e.g.,
to Historical) and this should be reflected in the index. For
the IETF standards process stream, the indicating authority is the
IESG.
3.17. Access to Published Documents
Task Description: The technical publisher should facilitate access to
the documents published. It is assumed that the technical publisher
will provide online tools to search for and find information within
the archive of published documents. These access tools should
facilitate understanding the state of the document (identification of
replacement or updated documents, linkage to pertinent errata)
Discussion: Documents and status may be accessed via the RFC Editor's
web page
Derived Requirements:
o Req-PUBACCESS-1 - The IETF technical publisher should provide
search tools for finding and retrieving published documents.
o Req-PUBACCESS-2 - The IETF technical publisher tool should return
relevant meta information associated with a published document
(e.g., category of document, type of standard (if standards
track), obsoleted by or updated by information, associated
errata).
o Req-PUBACCESS-3 - The IETF Technical Publication search tools
should be integrated with the IETF search tools. For the IETF
standards process stream, this refers to integration with the
search tools used by the IETF standards process.
3.18. Maintenance of a Vocabulary Document
Task Description: Some standards organizations require the technical
publisher to maintain a publicly available vocabulary document or
database containing common terms and acronyms. The goal is provide
consistency of terminology between documents.
Discussion: The RFC Editor does not maintain a public document or
database of terms or acronyms.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
Derived Requirements: none
3.19. Providing Publication Statistics and Status Reports
Task Description: The technical publisher may be required to
periodically or continuously measure their performance. In many
standards organizations performance targets are set in terms of
timeliness, throughput, etc.
Discussion: The IETF technical publisher currently provides monthly
statistics on arrivals and completions of documents by category. In
addition a status report is provided at each IETF meeting. Other
statistics can be used to judge the health of the editing process.
Many of these statistics could be gathered using sampling techniques
to avoid excessive load on the technical publisher.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-STATS-1 - The IETF technical publisher should provide publicly
available monthly statistics on average queue times and documents
processed. The presentation should provide a historical context
to identify trends (see Goal-THROUGHPUT-1). For the IETF
standards process, this should include queue arrivals,
completions, documents on the queue, and the number of documents
in each state at the end of the month.
o Req-STATS-2 - The IETF technical publisher should provide periodic
status reports to the IETF meetings to apprise the community of
their work and performance.
o Req-STATS-3 - The IETF technical publisher should provide publicly
available monthly statistics on the types of editorial corrections
being found during reviews as well as the percent of corrections
which are rejected by the authors.
o Req-STATS-4 - The IETF technical publisher should provide publicly
available monthly statistics on author requested changes to
documents under publication. This statistic should also include
changes required by other authorities outside of the technical
publisher empowered to make changes. For the IETF standards
process, the designated authority would be the IESG or its
designees.
3.20. Process and Document Evolution
Task Description: The guidelines and rules for an organization's
publication output will change over time. New sections will be added
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
to documents, styles and conventions will change, boilerplate will be
changed, etc. Similarly, the specific processes for publication of a
specification will change. The technical publisher is expected to be
involved in these discussions and accommodate these changes as
required.
Discussion: Over time, the IETF consensus on what should be in a
published document has changed. Processes interfacing with the
publisher have also changed. Such changes are likely to continue in
the future. The RFC editor has been involved in such discussions and
provided guides, policies, faqs, etc. to document the current
expectations on published documents.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-PROCESSCHG-1 - The IETF technical publisher should participate
in the discussions of changes to author guidelines and publication
process changes.
o Req-PROCESSCHG-2 - The IETF technical publisher should
participate in and support process experiments involving the
technical publication process.
3.21. Tutorial and Help Services
Task Description: The technical publisher may be required to provide
tutorials, mentoring, help-desks, online tools, etc. to facilitate
smooth interaction with the technical publisher and IETF community
awareness of document guidelines, procedures, etc. In many
organizations the publisher maintains a style manual giving explicit
guidance to authors on how to write a specification.
Discussion: Guidelines are provided to the authors on how to write a
RFC as well as occasional tutorial presentations. The RFC Editor
provides a help desk at IETF meetings.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-PUBHELP-1 - The IETF technical publisher should provide and
maintain documentation giving guidance to authors on the layout,
structure, expectations, etc. required to develop documents
suitable for publication. For the IETF standards process stream,
the technical publisher should follow IESG guidance in specifying
documentation guidelines.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
o Req-PUBHELP-2 - The IETF technical publisher should provide
tutorials to the IETF community to educate authors on the
processes and expectations of the IETF technical publisher.
o Req-PUBHELP-3 - The IETF technical publisher should provide a
contact e-mail address and correspond as required to progress the
publication work. The publisher should address queries from both
inside and outside of the IETF community.
o Req-PUBHELP-4 - The IETF technical publisher should provide a
help desk at IETF meetings.
3.22. Liaison and Communication Support
Task Description: It is very valuable for the technical publisher of
an organization to have good information and communication about the
work streams which will result in publication streams. In order to
ensure a wide communication channel for the work, the technical
publisher holds a liaison position on the IESG, where there can be
valuable give-and-take about matters concerning the IETF standards
stream.
Discussion: The RFC Editor current maintains a liaison position with
the IESG. Although not specifically addressed in these requirements,
the RFC editor also maintains a liaison position towards the IAB.
Derived Requirements:
o Req-LIAISON-1 - Through a liaison participant, the technical
publisher should take part in meetings and activities as required
in order to be aware of ongoing activities related to the work
streams. For the IETF standards stream the technical publisher
should participate in IESG formal meetings, IESG face-to-face
activities at IETF, and other activities such as retreats.
4. Technical Publisher Performance Goals
A Technical Publisher is typically measured not only on what they do
but how well they perform the tasks. The expectations in this
section are treated as goals instead of requirements because:
- Achieving a given level of performance is not totally under the
control of the technical publisher. Publication is a process and
the goals are of the process, not just the publisher.
- The actual performance objectives will be set contractually. The
values herein represent values which the IETF community feels are
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
desirable and reasonable for work progress without consideration of
financial or other factors.
Goals are set forth in the following areas:
1. Publication timeframes
2. Publication throughput
4.1. Publication Timeframes
Goal Description: This is a measure of the time from entry into the
RFC editor queue until the documents are published. The metrics are
defined in (req-STATS-1).
Discussion: Long publication times create both internal and external
difficulties. Internal difficulties include the migration of authors
to other activities and the accumulation of tempting post-approval
fixes to be added to the document. External difficulties include the
inability of other standards organizations to reference IETF
publications for lack of a RFC number.
Derived Goals:
o Goal-TIMEFRAMES-1 - The consensus of the IETF community is that
an average publication time of under a month is desirable. It is
understood that in some cases there will be delays outside of the
publisher's control. The actual performance targets and metrics
are expected to be determined as part of the contract negotiation
process.
o Goal-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The consensus of the IETF community is that
the time required for a pre-approval review should be under 10
days. The actual performance targets and metrics are expected to
be determined as part of the contract negotiation process.
4.2. Publication Throughput
Goal Description: The number of documents published during a given
time period is a measure of publisher throughput. Some publishers
also provide the data in terms of pages produced. The counts should
be separated by categories of documents. The metrics are defined in
(req-STATS-1).
Discussion: The RFC editor currently provides monthly statistics on
the arrival and completion of documents onto the RFC queue. This is
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
sorted by category of document. This provides a measure of the
delays in the publication process.
Derived Goals:
o Goal-THROUGHPUT-1 - Although minor variations are expected, there
should be no long term growth trend in the length of the
publication queue. The actual performance targets and metrics
are expected to be determined as part of the contract negotiation
process.
5. IETF Implications of Technical Publication Requirements
Requirements on technical publication process have so far been stated
in terms of requirements on the technical publisher. However it must
be recognized that many of these requirements have implications on
the processes and tools within the IETF itself. It is anticipated
that these processes will be documented in companion documents.
The following is a list of potential issues that should be addressed
within the IETF based on the requirements applied to the technical
publisher:
o Pre- vs Post-approval Editing: If emphasis switches from post-
approval editing to pre-approval editing, then IETF processes must
be adapted to make use of this service. The processes for post-
approval editing can also be streamlined.
o Post-approval Editorial Cleanup: IETF must define under what
conditions the publisher should be instructed to bypass or
minimize post-approval editing.
o Approval of post-approval, pre-publication technical corrections:
Since the technical publisher can only accept approved changes, it
must be clear who is allowed to approve technical changes. This
process within the IETF needs to be decided and documented.
o Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers: IETF needs to clearly
identify the naming/numbering schemes and classes of documents to
which those names and numbers apply. Furthermore, the
responsibility for allocation of those names/numbers needs to be
identified.
o Expedited Handling: If publication timelines can be reduced
sufficiently, then expedited handling may no longer be needed.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
o Post-publication Corrections: Appropriate processes must be
defined with the IETF to ensure that errata are appropriately
vetted and authorized.
o Indexing: Appropriate processes must be defined within the IETF
to decide and inform the technical publisher of status changes to
published documents as the result of an appeal, legal action, or
some other procedural action.
6. IANA Considerations
Any new requirements that result from this discussion need to be
reviewed by IANA and the IETF to understand to what extent, if any,
the work flow of the documents through IANA are affected.
Interactions with IANA on parameter validation is discussed in
section 3.6.
7. Security Considerations
There is a tussle between the sought-for improvements in readability
and the specific language that has often been negotiated carefully
for the security content of IETF documents. As with other text,
extreme caution is needed in modifying any text in the security
considerations. This issue is assumed to have been dealt with under
the section 3.3.
The processes for the publication of documents should prevent the
introduction of unapproved changes (see section 3.7). Since the IETF
publisher maintains the index of publications, sufficient security
should be in place to prevent these published documents from being
changed by external parties (see section 3.16)
8. Acknowledgments
Bert Wijnen has provided input on the early copy edit experiment and
made useful comments throughout the document. Leslie Daigle has
contributed strongly to this text. Thanks to Steve Barclay, John
Meredith, Yvette Ho Sang, and Sami Trabulsi for discussions of the
publication practices of ATIS, ETSI, IEEE, and ITU. Other
acknowledgements to date: a discussion on the wg chairs mailing list,
Henning Schulzrinne, Henrik Levkowetz.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
Author's Addresses
Allison Mankin
Washington, DC
USA
Phone: +1 301 728 7199
Email: mankin@psg.com
URI: http://www.psg.com/~mankin/
Stephen Hayes
Ericsson
3634 Long Prairie Rd.
Ste 108-125
Flower Mound, TX 75022
USA
Phone: +1 469 360 8500
Email: stephen.hayes@ericsson.com
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft draft-mankin-pub-req-11 July 2006
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Mankin & Hayes Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 25]