Skip to main content


Meeting Slides RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) (rfcedprog) IAB ASG
Title 2014-11-13-rsoc-minutes
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2022-06-10

Minutes of the November 13, 2014 RSOC Meeting, Honolulu

Reported by: Cindy Morgan, IETF Secretariat

- Sarah Banks
- Nevil Brownlee
- Heather Flanagan (RSE, non-voting)
- Joel Halpern (Lead)
- Joe Hildebrand
- Bob Hinden
- Alexey Melnikov (Chair)
- Cindy Morgan (Scribe)
- Ray Pelletier (IAOC Liaison, non-voting)
- Robert Sparks

- Tony Hansen


1. Format Status

  Heather Flanagan updated the RSOC on the current status of the design 
  team drafts:

  - v3 vocabulary (mostly stable)
  - HTML (mostly stable)
  - PDF (still in development)
  - plain text (still in development)
  - SVG (stable)
  - non-ASCII (mostly stable)
  - framework (still in development)

  Heather Flanagan noted that XML will be the canonical format, and will 
  be considered the final and immutable authority on what was intended 
  in the text. The XML will be archived both independently and as part 
  of the PDF/A-3, which will be the human-readable publication format.  
  She noted that the PDF/A-3 may be re-rendered at any point if a bug is 
  found in the rendering tool, but that the source XML would not change.  
  The render date for the PDF would be collected as part of the meta-

  Joel Halpern asked what sort of situation would cause a need to re-
  render an RFC, and who would make that call.

  Heather Flanagan replied that she sees this as an expansion of the 
  errata process, and when something is submitted, there will be an 
  evaluation process.


  Heather Flanagan reported that she is reviewing the draft RPC SLA with 
  the vendor selection committee, the stream managers, and the RSOC.  
  She is working with Sandy Ginoza to go back and apply the proposed SLA 
  to the last two years to show what the real numbers would look like.  
  The proposed SLA considers the average number of pages per document, 
  as well as the number of documents processed.

  Based on feedback received, Heather Flanagan will update the draft SLA 
  to include more "if, then, else" scenarios.
3. Check in on RPC Goals for 2014

  Heather Flanagan noted that the RPC has two sets of goals: fundamental 
  ongoing goals, and project goals. The ongoing goals take priority over 
  the project goals.

  Ongoing goals:

  - Prepare RFCs for publication within the time frame defined in the
    Work Standards.  This includes editing, formatting, and interacting 
    with the authors and stream managers as needed. 
  - Report on production times and queue throughput (reports submitted
     monthly and quarterly).
  - Report on errata and use of the system.
  - Liaise with the community.
  - Provide tutorials as needed.
  - Review and update processes as needed.
  - Assist the RSE as needed.

  Heather Flanagan added that many of the project goals will carry over 
  into 2015 (see next item).

4. Planning for 2015

Project goals:

  - Improve the look, feel, organization, and utility of the RFC Editor 
  - Further automate the creation of SLA-required and community-valued 
    stats and metrics
  - Prepare for RFC Format changes by
    + Actively participating on the RFC Format Design Team
    + Seeking out editor training on non-ASCII characters
    + Seeking out editor training on XML vocabulary 
    + Prepare educational material for authors on the new format tools 
      ways (including adding content to the Sunday tutorials)
  - Assign and register DOIs for all RFCs
  - Review and report on the RFC 10000 problem
  - Find additional ways to provide better author assistance for authors 
    who find written English challenging, including:
    + Creating an online support page that provides tips to authors
    + Participating with the IESG in document editing sessions 
    + Working with the community to improve support in this area
  - Work with the RSE to complete the revision of the new RFC Style 
    Guide.  In particular:
    + Provide input and support during the community review process

  Heather Flanagan reported that they have tried to time the various 
  RFPs so that they do not all overlap each other.

  Heather Flanagan noted that the goals above carry over from 2014, but 
  that several of these projects were waiting for SOWs to be completed 
  outside the RPC before work could begin.  She asked the RSOC if there 
  is anything from this list that should be dropped or deferred from 

  Bob Hinden asked how Heather Flanagan would prioritize the list.  
  Heather replied that the format work would come first, followed by the 
  DOIs, then the website, with all of the stats and metrics work to come 

  Heather Flanagan noted that the DOI work can be postponed until she 
  submits the application, but that once the application is accepted, 
  there is 18 months to complete the work without being out of contract 
  with the group that will register the DOIs.

  Heather Flanagan added that if something had to be pushed to 2016, she 
  would prefer it be the stats and metrics.  Ray Pelletier argued 
  against that, noting that the RPC currently compiles the statistics 
  manually, and that takes away editing time; it would be better to have 
  automated statistics reporting.

  Robert Sparks observed that projects tend to go slower than originally 
  anticipated, and that he would not be surprised if the execution of 
  the tools for the new format work does not happen until late 2015 or 
  early 2016.  He asked if the impact the format transition will make 
  has been factored into the prioritization.  Heather Flanagan replied 
  that she has discussed it with the RPC, and if the DOIs and website 
  work overlap at the beginning of the year, those projects should be 
  winding up by the time the format transition kicks off in a way that 
  impacts the RPC.

  Heather Flanagan will reorder the priorities list based on this 
  discussion and future discussion with the RPC, and will send it out to 
  the RSOC for review.

5. AOB

  Heather Flanagan reported that one part of the RFC preservation 
  project (see draft-flanagan-rfc-preservation) is to find partners to 
  help archive the series.  She is talking to contacts at the Royal 
  Library of Sweden, Trinity College Dublin, and the University of 
  Auckland‎ about this; there are archivists in the United Kingdom who 
  are talking about using the preservation of the RFC series as a use