Network Working Group                                        H. Flanagan
Internet-Draft                                                RFC Editor
Intended status: Informational                        September 12, 2014
Expires: March 16, 2015

                          RFC Format Framework


   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, with different publication formats 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.

   Discussion of this draft takes place on the rfc-interest mailing list
   (, which has its home page at

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

   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 March 16, 2015.

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   ( 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  HTML  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  PDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.3.  Plain Text  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.4.  Potential Future Publication Formats  . . . . . . . . . .   8
       7.4.1.  EPUB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Figures and Artwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  SVG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Content and Page Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  Non-ASCII Characters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.2.  Style Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.3.  CSS Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. Transition Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.1.  Tool Development Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.2.  Testing Phase  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.3.  Transition Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.4.  Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   14. Appendix - Changelog  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   [RFC6949], "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.  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 [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.

2.  Problem Statement

   When the first RFCs were published 45 years ago, the tools to create
   and read RFCs were limited.  Distribution was in effect restricted to
   individuals who had access to the network that became the Internet.

   Today, there are nearly three billion people connected to the
   Internet, and individuals from 45 countries or more regularly
   attending IETF meetings over the last 5 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 largest number of people possible, across a wide
   array of devices, and to respect the diversity of authors and
   reference materials, 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

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

   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 (see Section 2.3 for an explanation of current

      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.
   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 offered 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].

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

   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.  While the bi-weekly calls for this
   team were limited to Design Team members, review of 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 XML 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

   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

   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].

   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].

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

5.  Key Changes

   At the highest level, the changes being made to the RFC Format
   involve breaking away from a pure-ASCII mode 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 XML2RFC using vocabularly
      described in "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary"
      [draft-hoffman-xml2rfc].  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.

   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 (see
      section 6.3.1).

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

   o  A DTD will no longer be used.

   [draft-reschke-xml2rfc] Describes the xml2rfc v2 vocabulary.  While
   in wide use today, this vocabulary had not been formally documented.

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

   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, when published, will be obsoleted by the RFC published from

   [draft-hoffman-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 published from draft-reschke-

7.  Publication Format Documents

7.1.  HTML

   [draft-hildebrand-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 not be derived from the plain-text publication

   o  The HTML will contain semantic information only, with all style
      information to be stored in an override-able CSS.

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

   o  Text will be reflowable.

   o  JavaScript will be supported only as a publication option to
      provide up-to-date links to errata and obsoleted or obsoleting
      RFCs; documents will be complete and readable when JavaScript is

7.2.  PDF

   [draft-hansen-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:

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

   o  The PDF file will not be derived from the plain-text publication

   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

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

7.3.  Plain Text

   [draft-flanagan-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, unless it is the only format of an approved I-D submitted
      to the RFC Editor.

   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

   o  Running headers and footers will not be used.

7.4.  Potential Future Publication Formats

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

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

   [draft-brownlee-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

9.  Content and Page Layout

9.1.  Non-ASCII Characters

   There are security and readability implications to moving outside the
   ASCII range of characters.  [draft-flanagan-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 [draft-iab-styleguide] 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

   Requirements under development; a draft will be posted and described
   here in a later revision of this framework.

10.  Transition Plan

10.1.  Tool Development Phase

   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

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

   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

10.2.  Testing Phase

   During the document review and approval phase, authors and stream-
   approving body will select drafts to run through the new process,
   noting that final publication will continue to be in plain text and
   the new PDF/A-3 publication format.  No other PDF will be created
   during this time.  In order to limit the amount of time the RFC
   Production Center (RPC) spends on testing and QA, note that their
   priority is to edit and publish documents, community assistance will
   be necessary to help move this stage along.

   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.

   Success for this phase will be measured by the closure of all bugs
   which had been identified by the RPC and the Tools Development team
   as fatal.

10.3.  Transition Phase

   All documents submitted with an XML file will go through the new
   process to produce a canonical XML document and the available
   publication formats.  Documents submitted as plain text will be
   continue to be published as plain text only; they will not be
   converted to XML by the RPC and no additional publication formats
   will be created.  Discovery of bugs may require a document that was
   submitted as XML be published as plain-text only.

   The purpose of transition phase is to introduce the new publication
   process to the community at large, and to identify and fix any
   additional bugs in the code and the workflow.

   A know 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
   plain text.  There may be a delay in publication as new bugs are

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

   found that must be fixed before the files can be converted into the
   canonical format and associated publication formats.

   Success for this phase 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.

10.4.  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 XML and PDF/A-3 formats prior to
   publication.  While tools will be available to the community to
   convert (as much as is practicable) plain text to XML, the RPC will
   not be responsible for that conversion.  Approved I-Ds submitted as
   plain text will only be published as plain text RFCs.  All I-Ds
   submitted as XML will be published with a canonical XML format and
   all available publication formats.

   A known risk for this phase of the transition is the potentially
   consistent higher work load for the RPC.  In addition to the grammar
   and style editing, they also create and/or encourage best practice
   with the XML structure.  Another risk is the future confusion around
   having most RFCs published with multiple formats, including a
   canonical XML file, with a small number of plain-text only RFCs still
   being created.

   Success for this phase will be easured 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.

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

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 - Changelog

   To be removed by RFC Editor


   o  Problem Statement: Added educators and managers to the list of
      communities impacted by the format of the RFC Series

   o  Terminology: Removed comment about RFC 2119

   o  Overview of the Decision Making Process: Added a point about
      conversation with the IETF, IRTF, IAB, and IAOC chairs, and the
      ISE.  Indicated that the RSE brought together the RFC Format
      Design Team.  Added a proper citation tag for the NORDUnet 2014

   o  Key Changes: Removed "canonical" from description of the plain-
      text file.

   o  Document Summary: Removed "Section 6.  Document Summary" and moved
      key points for the different formats in the "Canonical Format
      Documents" and "Publication Format Documents" sections.

   o  XML for RFCs: Reworded bullet points to offer complete sentences.
      Added a statement regarding the DTD.  Changed mention of "v2
      vocabulary" and "v3 vocabulary: to XML2RFC v2/v3 vocabulary

   o  HTML: Reworded bullet points to offer complete sentences.  Added
      "complete" to statement about JavaScript.

   o  PDF: Reworded bullet points to offer complete sentences.

   o  Plain Text: Reworded bullet points to offer complete sentences.
      Added reference for "widow and orphan control."

   o  Transition Plan: Added a "Tool Development Phase" to the
      Transition Plan.

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

   o  Transition Phase: Emphasized the possibility of dropping back to
      publishing plain text documents if bugs are found that prevent
      timely creation of RFCs.

   o  Completion: Revised the expectation to indicate the RPC will not
      do the text to XML conversion for the authors.  Added the
      statement that all drafts submitted with an XML file will be
      published as a canonical XML and all avaialble publication

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [RFC6949]  Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
              Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949, May 2013.

              Reschke, J., "The 'XML2RFC' version 2 Vocabulary", draft-
              reschke-xml2rfc-10 , July 2014.

              Hoffman, P., "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary", draft-
              hoffman-xml2rfc-09 , July 2014.

              Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC", draft-
              brownlee-svg-rfc-07 , July 2014.

              Hildebrand, J. and H. Flanagan, ed, "HyperText Markup
              Language Request For Comments Format", draft-hildebrand-
              html-rfc-03 , June 2014.

              Hansen, T., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF for an RFC
              Series Output Document Format", draft-hansen-rfc-use-of-
              pdf-02 , July 2014.

              Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain Text RFCs", draft-
              flanagan-plaintext-01 , July 2014.

              Flanagan, H., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs",
              draft-flanagan-nonascii-03 , July 2014.

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

15.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4845]  Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "Process for
              Publication of IAB RFCs", RFC 4845, July 2007.

   [RFC6635]  Kolkman, O., Halpern, J., and IAB, "RFC Editor Model
              (Version 2)", RFC 6635, June 2012.

              Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "The RFC Style Guide", draft-
              iab-styleguide-02 , April 2014.

   [GEN-ART]  IETF, "General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)", n.d.,

              IETF Administrative Support Activity, "RFPs and RFIs",
              n.d., <>.

   [IETF84]   Flanagan, H., "IETF 84 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
              n.d., <>.

   [IETF85]   Flanagan, H., "IETF 85 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
              n.d., <>.

   [IETF88]   Flanagan, H., "IETF 88 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
              n.d., <>.

   [IETF89]   Flanagan, H., "IETF 89 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
              n.d., <>.

   [IETF90]   Flanagan, H., "IETF 90 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
              n.d., <>.

   [ISTATS]   "Internet Live Stats", n.d.,

   [NDN2014]  "28th NORDUnet Conference 2014", 2014,

              RFC Editor, "rfc-interest -- A list for discussion of the
              RFC series and RFC Editor functions.", n.d.,

Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework            September 2014

   [RSOC]     IAB, "RFC Editor Program: The RSOC", n.d.,

   [TNC2014]  Flanagan, H., "IETF Update - 'What's Hot?' - RFC Update",
              n.d., <>.

              Butterick, M., "Butterick's Practical Typography", n.d.,

              "Subject: [rfc-i] Direction of the RFC Format Development
              effort", n.d., <

Author's Address

   Heather Flanagan
   RFC Editor


Flanagan                 Expires March 16, 2015                [Page 15]