Network Working Group H. Flanagan
Internet-Draft RFC Editor
Intended status: Informational September 12, 2014
Expires: March 16, 2015
RFC Format Framework
draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-01
Abstract
The canonical format for the RFC Series has been plain-text, ASCII-
encoded for several decades. After extensive community discussion
and debate, the RFC Editor will be transitioning to XML as the
canonical format, 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
(rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org), which has its home page at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Overview of the Decision Making Process . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Key Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Canonical Format Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. XML for RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Publication Format Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
practice)
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
[GEN-ART].
While the IETF community provided the majority of input on the
process, additional outreach opportunities were sought to gain input
from an even broader audience. Informal discussions were held with
participants at several International Association of Scientific,
Technical, and Medical Publisher events, and presentations made at
technical conferences such as the TERENA Networking Conference 2014
and NORDUnet 2014 [TNC2014] [NDN2014].
In order to respond to concerns regarding responses to subpoenas and
to understand the requirements for lawyers, advice was requested from
the IETF Trust legal team regarding what format or formats would be
considered reasonable when responding to a subpoena request for an
RFC.
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.
[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-
xml2rfc.
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
format.
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
disabled.
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
format.
o The PDF publication format will conform to the PDF/A-3 standard
and will embed the canonical XML source.
o The PDF will look more like the HTML publication format than the
plain-text publication format.
o The PDF will include a rich set of tags and metadata within the
document
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
created.
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
publication.
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
begin.
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
draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-01
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
conference.
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
formats.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC6949] Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949, May 2013.
[draft-reschke-xml2rfc]
Reschke, J., "The 'XML2RFC' version 2 Vocabulary", draft-
reschke-xml2rfc-10 , July 2014.
[draft-hoffman-xml2rfc]
Hoffman, P., "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary", draft-
hoffman-xml2rfc-09 , July 2014.
[draft-brownlee-svg-rfc]
Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC", draft-
brownlee-svg-rfc-07 , July 2014.
[draft-hildebrand-html-rfc]
Hildebrand, J. and H. Flanagan, ed, "HyperText Markup
Language Request For Comments Format", draft-hildebrand-
html-rfc-03 , June 2014.
[draft-hansen-rfc-use-of-pdf]
Hansen, T., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF for an RFC
Series Output Document Format", draft-hansen-rfc-use-of-
pdf-02 , July 2014.
[draft-flanagan-plaintext]
Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain Text RFCs", draft-
flanagan-plaintext-01 , July 2014.
[draft-flanagan-nonascii]
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.
[draft-iab-styleguide]
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.,
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/gen-art.html>.
[IASA-RFP]
IETF Administrative Support Activity, "RFPs and RFIs",
n.d., <http://iaoc.ietf.org/rfps-rfis.html>.
[IETF84] Flanagan, H., "IETF 84 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
n.d., <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/rfcform.html>.
[IETF85] Flanagan, H., "IETF 85 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
n.d., <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/rfcform.html>.
[IETF88] Flanagan, H., "IETF 88 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
n.d., <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/rfcform.html>.
[IETF89] Flanagan, H., "IETF 89 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
n.d., <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/rfcform.html>.
[IETF90] Flanagan, H., "IETF 90 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
n.d., <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/rfcform.html>.
[ISTATS] "Internet Live Stats", n.d.,
<http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/>.
[NDN2014] "28th NORDUnet Conference 2014", 2014,
<https://events.nordu.net/display/NORDU2014/
BoF%27s+and+side+meetings>.
[RFC-INTEREST]
RFC Editor, "rfc-interest -- A list for discussion of the
RFC series and RFC Editor functions.", n.d.,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-
interest>.
Flanagan Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC Format Framework September 2014
[RSOC] IAB, "RFC Editor Program: The RSOC", n.d.,
<http://www.iab.org/activities/programs/
rfc-editor-program/>.
[TNC2014] Flanagan, H., "IETF Update - 'What's Hot?' - RFC Update",
n.d., <https://tnc2014.terena.org/core/presentation/84>.
[TYPOGRAPHY]
Butterick, M., "Butterick's Practical Typography", n.d.,
<http://practicaltypography.com/
widow-and-orphan-control.html>.
[XML-ANNOUNCE]
"Subject: [rfc-i] Direction of the RFC Format Development
effort", n.d., <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/
rfc-interest/2013-May/005584.html>.
Author's Address
Heather Flanagan
RFC Editor
Email: rse@rfc-editor.org
Flanagan Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 15]