Skip to main content

Implementation of RFC Publication Formats
draft-rossi-rfcpubformats-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Alexis Rossi
Last updated 2024-05-14
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-rossi-rfcpubformats-00
Network Working Group                                           A. Rossi
Internet-Draft                              RFC Series Consulting Editor
Updates: 79927993799479957996 (if approved)                  14 May 2024
Intended status: Informational                                          
Expires: 15 November 2024

               Implementation of RFC Publication Formats
                      draft-rossi-rfcpubformats-00

Abstract

   This document assigns responsibility for the code level
   implementation decisions for RFC publication formats (currently HTML,
   PDF, and TXT), the CSS file, and SVG files to the Tools Team and the
   RPC.  It assigns responsibility for defining high level design
   requirements for the RFC publication formats, CSS, and SVG files to
   the RSWG.  This document updates RFC7992, RFC7993, RFC7994, RFC7995,
   and RFC7996.  This document makes no changes to the RFCXML format
   described in RFC7991 or subsequent documents.

About This Document

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

   The latest revision of this draft can be found at
   https://alexisannerossi.github.io/id-RFCPubFormats/draft-rossi-
   rfcpubformats.html.  Status information for this document may be
   found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rossi-rfcpubformats/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/alexisannerossi/id-RFCPubFormats.

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."

Rossi                   Expires 15 November 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                RFCPubFormats                     May 2024

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 15 November 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Relation to RFC 7990bis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Changes to RFC 7992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Changes to RFC 7993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.4.  Changes to RFC 7994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.5.  Changes to RFC 7995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.6.  Changes to RFC 7996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Design Requirements vs Implementation Decisions . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Participation in implementation of publication formats  . . .   5
   4.  Dispute Resolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   The intent of this document is to allow the code level implementation
   of RFC publication formats to evolve without requiring the
   publication of new RFCs.  High level design requirements for
   publication formats are determined by the RFC Series Working Group
   (RSWG), but code level implementation decisions will now be made by
   the Tools Team and the RFC Production Center (RPC).  This document
   specifically does not change anything about the definitive RFCXML
   format described in RFC7991 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991)
   or subsequent documents.

Rossi                   Expires 15 November 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                RFCPubFormats                     May 2024

   Changes to the HTML and PDF publication formats are expected in the
   near future to allow accessibility improvements, and a new HTML
   version will be used on rfc-editor.org at the RFC “info” pages after
   a planned site redesign.  This document also allows for other
   implementation changes that may arise for other reasons.

   The Tools Team and the RPC are expected to abide by the design
   requirements set out by the RSWG, to seek expert input before making
   any changes to the publication formats, and to take community needs,
   recommendations, and requests into account.

   The Tools Team will maintain public documentation of the currently
   implemented formal grammar and any other rule sets related to the
   publication formats, as well as a public space for implementation
   updates (these may be the same space).  They will also maintain a
   public mailing list for discussion.

   Changes to the implementation of publication formats will be
   announced via the Tools Team mailing list.  They may also be
   announced on the rfc-interest and rswg mailing lists if there are
   changes that are likely to affect the whole community.

1.1.  Relation to RFC 7990bis

   RFC7990bis (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rswg-
   rfc7990-updates/09/) obsoletes RFC7990 (https://www.rfc-
   editor.org/info/rfc7990), which contained some requirements for RFC
   publication formats.  RFC7990bis does not specify code level
   implementation details that affect RFC publication formats, so that
   document does not affect the decisions in this RFC.

1.2.  Changes to RFC 7992

   Section 2 of RFC7992 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7992)
   provides high level design requirements for the HTML format.  These
   requirements remain in effect.

   Sections 3 through 9 of RFC7992 provide more detailed implementation
   decisions for the HTML publication format.  These are now considered
   to be recommendations from the community, and will be treated as such
   by the implementers of the HTML publication format in the future.

1.3.  Changes to RFC 7993

   Sections 2 and 3 of RFC7993 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7993)
   provide high level requirements for the CSS file.  These requirements
   remain in effect.

Rossi                   Expires 15 November 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                RFCPubFormats                     May 2024

   Sections 4 through 7 of RFC7993 provide more detailed implementation
   decisions for the CSS file.  These are now considered to be
   recommendations from the community, and will be treated as such by
   the implementers of the CSS file in the future.

1.4.  Changes to RFC 7994

   RFC7994 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7994) outlines
   requirements for the TXT publication format.  This document is now
   considered to be implementation recommendations from the community,
   and will be treated as such by the implementers of the TXT
   publication format in the future.

1.5.  Changes to RFC 7995

   RFC7995 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7995) outlines
   requirements for the PDF publication format.  This document is now
   considered to be implementation recommendations from the community,
   and will be treated as such by the implementers of the PDF
   publication format in the future.

1.6.  Changes to RFC 7996

   RFC7996 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7996) outlines
   requirements for SVG files.  This document is now considered to be
   implementation recommendations from the community, and will be
   treated as such by the implementers of the SVG tools in the future.

   It is recommended that the RSWG define the design requirements (not
   implementation details) for SVGs in a future RFC in consultation with
   technical and accessibility experts.  Until that time, the RPC may
   choose at their discretion to continue to view some elements of
   RFC7996 as requirements if needed.  We expect, for example, that SVGs
   will be black and white only until or unless that is specifically
   changed by new design requirements.

2.  Design Requirements vs Implementation Decisions

   This document makes a distinction between “high level” design
   requirements and “code level” implementation decisions.  The line
   between these may not be obvious, so this section tries to describe
   that difference.

   Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of this document provide examples of the line
   being drawn between “high level” and “code level.” In both cases, the
   “high level” design requirements are written entirely as prose (no
   markup language or code is used) and are meant to guide the
   implementation decisions made in subsequent sections of those

Rossi                   Expires 15 November 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                RFCPubFormats                     May 2024

   documents.  The “code level” implementation decisions are
   characterized by specifying particular tags to be used, or the values
   of those tags, the order in which the tags must be used, etc.

   As a specific example to illustrate this difference further, we can
   look at RFC7992.  Section 2 lists a high level design requirement for
   the HTML this way: “All sections, subsections, figures, and
   paragraphs should have stable numbered link anchors.  Additionally,
   anchors expressed in the source XML should be exposed as anchors in
   the HTML output as well.” Section 5.2 of that same document is a more
   code level description of implementation decisions that are meant to
   satisfy the design requirement.

3.  Participation in implementation of publication formats

   The community is invited to participate in the Tools Team to work on
   the implementation of RFC publication formats.  This team currently
   uses the tools-discuss@ietf.org mailing list and Github at
   https://github.com/ietf-tools for communication and implementation,
   but may move to another public space as needed in the future.  The
   Tools Team may choose to provide documentation for publication format
   implementation details at Github or another location.

4.  Dispute Resolution

   If there is disagreement among the community, the Tools Team, or the
   RPC about how an RFC publication format is implemented then this is
   considered a disagreement about interpretation of the relevant policy
   and should be addressed by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) as
   set out in RFC9280.  The matter should be brought to the RSAB by the
   RPC and the RSAB will evaluate the issue(s) and follow its processes
   documented in RFC9280 or subsequent relevant RFCs.

5.  Security Considerations

   Changes to the publication formats of RFCs introduce risk.  A risk is
   that unintended changes could occur in publication versions of an RFC
   as a result of an unintentional bug.  This may result in the
   corruption of a standard, practice, or critical piece of information
   about a protocol, and harm to the reputation of the RFC series.
   However, nothing in this document changes the definitive RFCXML
   format, so risk is limited to the publication formats and versions.

   The Tools Team and the RPC are expected to identify, track, and
   actively mitigate risks introduced by this policy.

Rossi                   Expires 15 November 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                RFCPubFormats                     May 2024

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

Acknowledgments

   The planning and work that went into the creation of RFC 7992, RFC
   7993, RFC 7994, and RFC 7995 was invaluable and will continue to be
   the basis of how publication formats are created moving forward.

   Thank you to the authors and editors of these documents: Heather
   Flanagan, Joe Hildebrand, Paul Hoffman, Tony Hansen, Larry Masinter,
   and Matthew Hardy.  Also, thanks are owed to the RFC Format Design
   Team for their efforts: 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.

Author's Address

   Alexis Rossi
   RFC Series Consulting Editor
   Email: rsce@rfc-editor.org

Rossi                   Expires 15 November 2024                [Page 6]