Internet Architecture Board                                  H. Flanagan
Internet-Draft                                                RFC Editor
Intended status: Informational                           January 4, 2016
Expires: July 7, 2016

                          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.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

   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 July 7, 2016.

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.3.  Plain Text  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.4.  Potential Future Publication Formats  . . . . . . . . . .   9
       7.4.1.  EPUB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Figures and Artwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  SVG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Content and Page Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  Non-ASCII Characters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.2.  Style Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.3.  CSS Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Transition Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Statement of Work and RFP for Tool Development . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Testing and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.3.  Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   14. Appendix - Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

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.

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

2.  Problem Statement

   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

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

   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
   argue Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), educators, managers, and
   policy-makers that need to know what to list in potential RFPs for
   their organizations, all have preferences and requirements for their
   specific needs.  The immediate needs of today's communities must be
   balanced with the needs for long-term archival storage.

3.  Terminology

   The following terminology is used as described in RFC 6949:

      ASCII: Coded Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for
      Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986

      Canonical format: the authorized, recognized, accepted, and
      archived version of the document

      Metadata: information associated with a document so as to provide,
      for example, definitions of its structure, or of elements within
      the document such as its topic or author

      Publication format: display and distribution format as it may be
      read or printed after the publication process has completed

      Reflowable text: text that automatically wraps to the next line in
      a document as the user moves the margins of the text, either by
      resizing the window or changing the font size

      Revisable format: the format that will provide the information for
      conversion into a Publication format; it is used or created by the
      RFC Editor

      Submission format: the format submitted to the RFC Editor for
      editorial revision and publication

4.  Overview of the Decision Making Process

   Requirements, use cases, concerns, and suggestions were collected
   from the communities of interest at every stage of the RFC format
   update project.  Input was received through the rfc-interest mailing
   list, as well as in several face-to-face sessions at IETF meetings.
   Regular conversations were held with the IETF, IRTF, IAB, and IAOC
   chairs, and the Independent Stream Editor, to discuss high-level

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

   stream requirements.  Updates regarding the status of the project
   were provided to the IETF community during the IETF Technical Plenary
   as well as Format BoFs or IAB sessions at IETF 84, IETF 85, IETF 88,
   IETF 89, and IETF 90 [IETF84] [IETF85] [IETF88] [IETF89] [IETF90].

   The first document published, RFC 6949, provided the first solid
   documentation on what the requirements were for the Series and in
   effect was the output from the first year of discussion on the topic
   of RFC format.  That RFC, as with all of the RFCs that informed the
   format update work, was published as an IAB stream document, thus
   following the process described in RFC 4845, "Process for Publication
   of IAB RFCs" [RFC4845].

   After the high-level requirements were published, the RFC Series
   Editor (RSE) brought together an RFC Format Design Team to start
   working out the necessary details to develop the code needed to
   create new and changed formats.  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].

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

   Where consensus was not reached during the process, the RSE made any
   necessary final decisions, as per the guidance in RFC 6635, "RFC
   Editor Model (Version 2)" [RFC6635].

5.  Key Changes

   At the highest level, the changes being made to the RFC Format
   involve breaking away from a pure-ASCII plain text and moving to
   canonical format that includes all the information required for
   rendering a document into a wide variety of publication formats.  The
   RFC Editor will become responsible for more than just the plain-text
   file and the PDF-from-text format created at time of publication;
   they will be creating several different formats in order to meet the
   diverse requirements of the community.

   The final XML file produced by the RFC Editor will be considered the
   canonical format for RFCs; it is the lowest common denominator that
   holds all the information intended for an RFC.  PDF/A-3 will be the
   publication format offered in response to subpoenas for RFCs
   published through this new process, and will be developed with an eye
   towards long-term archival storage.  HTML will be the focus of
   providing the most flexible set of features for an RFC, including
   JavaScript to provide pointers to errata and other metadata.  Plain-
   text will continue to be offered in order to support existing tool
   chains where practicable and the individuals who prefer to read RFCs
   in this format.

6.  Canonical Format Documents

6.1.  XML for RFCs

   Key points regarding the XML format:

   o  The canonical format for RFCs is XML using the XML2RFC v3
      vocabulary [I-D.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.

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

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

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

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

   o  The final XML file will contain, verbatim, the appropriate
      boilerplate specified by RFC 5741.

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

   o  The final XML will not contain comments or processing

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

   [I-D.iab-xml2rfcv2] Describes the xml2rfc v2 vocabulary.  While in
   wide use today, this vocabulary had not been formally documented.  In
   order to understand what needed to change in the vocabulary to allow
   for a more simple experience and additional features for authors, the
   current vocabulary needed to be fully described.  This document, when
   published, will be obsoleted by the RFC published from draft-hoffman-

   [I-D.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-iab-xml2rfcv2.

7.  Publication Format Documents

7.1.  HTML

   [I-D.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

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

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

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

   o  Text will be reflowable.

   o  JavaScript will be supported only as an additional option for
      presentation of specific publication formats to provide up-to-date
      links to post-publication metadata, such as errata or obsoletion.
      Documents will be complete and readable when JavaScript is

7.2.  PDF

   [I-D.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:

   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

   [I-D.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.

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

   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

7.4.1.  EPUB

   This format is intended for use by ebook readers and will be
   available for RFCs after the requirements have been defined.  No
   draft is currently available.

8.  Figures and Artwork

8.1.  SVG

   [I-D.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.  [I-D.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.

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

9.2.  Style Guide

   The RFC Style Guide [RFC7322] was revised to remove as much page
   formatting information as possible, focusing instead on grammar,
   structure, and content of RFCs.  Some of the changes recommended,
   however, informed the XML v3 vocabulary.

9.3.  CSS Requirements

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

10.  Transition Plan

10.1.  Statement of Work and RFP for Tool Development

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

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

10.2.  Testing and Transition

   During the I-D review and approval process, authors and stream-
   approving bodies will select drafts to run through the proposed new
   publication process.  While the final RFCs published during this time
   will continue as plain-text and immutable once published, the
   feedback process is necessary to bootstrap initial testing.  These
   early tests will target finding issues with the proposed xml2rfc v3
   vocabulary that result in poorly formed publication formats as well
   as issues that prevent proper review of submitted drafts.

   Feedback will result in regular iteration of the basic code and XML
   vocabulary.  In order to limit the amount of time the RFC Production
   Center (RPC) spends on testing and QA, note that their priority is to
   edit and publish documents, community assistance will be necessary to
   help move this stage along.  A mailing list and experimental source
   directory on the RFC Editor website will be created for community
   members willing to assist in the detailed review of the XML and

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

   publication formats.  Editorial checks of the publication formats by
   the community are out of scope; the focus will be the QA of each
   available output, checking for inconsistencies across formats.

   The purpose of testing phase is to work with the community to
   identify and fix bugs in the process and the code, before producing
   canonical, immutable XML, and to collect additional feedback on the
   usability of the new publication formats.

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

   Authors are not required to submit their approved drafts in an XML
   format; plain-text will also remain an option for the foreseeable
   future.  However, documents submitted as plain-text cannot include
   such features as SVG artwork.

   A known risk at this point of the transition is the difficulty in
   quantifying the resources required from the RPC.  This phase will
   require more work on the part of the RPC to support both old and new
   publication processes for at least six months.  There is potential
   for confusion as consumers of RFCs find some documents published at
   this time with a full set of outputs, while other documents only have
   plain text.  There may be a delay in publication as new bugs are
   found that must be fixed before the files can be converted into the
   canonical format and associated publication formats.

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

10.3.  Completion

   Authors may submit XML (preferred) or plain text.  The XML drafts
   submitted for publication will be converted to canonical XML format
   and published with all available publication formats.  All authors
   will be expected to review the XML and the publication formats prior
   to publication.  Further process detail still under discussion.

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

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

12.  Security Considerations

   Changing the format for RFCs involves modifying a great number of
   components to publication.  Understanding those changes and the
   implications for the entire tool chain is critical so as to avoid
   unintended bugs that would allow unintended changes to text.
   Unintended changes to text could in turn corrupt a standard, practice
   or critical piece of information about a protocol.

13.  Acknowledgements

   With many thanks to the RFC Format Design Team for their efforts in
   making this transition successful: Nevil Brownlee (ISE), Tony Hansen,
   Joe Hildebrand, Paul Hoffman, Ted Lemon, Julian Reschke, Adam Roach,
   Alice Russo, Robert Sparks (Tools Team liaison), and Dave Thaler.

14.  Appendix - Change log

   To be removed by RFC Editor


      Minor wording cleanup


   o  XML for RFCs: additional details on changes added

   o  Fixed references


   o  HTML: Fixed the statement on semantic HTML to capture intended
      balance between CSS and HTML.

   o  Transition: Major changes to overall plan, emphasizing a more
      iterative process for tool development; also removed statement
      that I-Ds submitted as plain-text would only be published as
      plain-text.  The final process for publication and review has been
      marked as under discussion.


Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

   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.

   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 may
      perform 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 available publication

15.  References

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

15.1.  Normative References

   [RFC6949]  Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
              Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6949, May 2013,

              Hoffman, P., "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary", draft-
              hoffman-xml2rfc-23 (work in progress), September 2015.

              Reschke, J., "The 'XML2RFC' version 2 Vocabulary", draft-
              iab-xml2rfcv2-02 (work in progress), September 2015.

              Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC", draft-
              brownlee-svg-rfc-13 (work in progress), October 2015.

              Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, "HyperText Markup Language
              Request For Comments Format", draft-hildebrand-html-rfc-10
              (work in progress), August 2015.

              Hansen, T., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF for an RFC
              Series Output Document Format", draft-hansen-rfc-use-of-
              pdf-08 (work in progress), October 2015.

              Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs", draft-
              flanagan-plaintext-09 (work in progress), November 2015.

              Flanagan, H., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs",
              draft-flanagan-nonascii-06 (work in progress), November

15.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4845]  Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "Process
              for Publication of IAB RFCs", RFC 4845,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4845, July 2007,

   [RFC6635]  Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
              Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
              2012, <>.

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

   [RFC7322]  Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 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.,

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

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

Flanagan                  Expires July 7, 2016                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft            RFC Format Framework              January 2016

              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 July 7, 2016                 [Page 16]