Skip to main content


Meeting Slides RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) (rfcedprog) IAB ASG
Date and time 2022-01-01 14:00
Title 2016-07-21-rsoc-minutes
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2022-06-10

July 21, 2016 RSOC Meeting

Reported by: Cindy Morgan, IETF Secretariat


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

Tony Hansen 
Bob Hinden

Sandy Ginoza
Russ Housley


0. Approval of Minutes

  The minutes of the 8 June 2016 RSOC call were approved.

1. Agenda bash

  An item on Tools-style HTML RFCs was added to the agenda.

2. RSE 2015-2016 Goals update

2.1. RPC Contract 

  The RPC Contract is done.

2.2. Format Work 

  Robert Sparks reported that the IAB is currently voting on whether to 
  approve the format drafts. Heather Flanagan said that they are 
  planning to send out the RFP for the CSS work soon, as that RFP is 
  very different from the other format work RFPs.

2.3. Stats/Metrics 

  Heather Flanagan reported that the code has been accepted and 
  installed in one place in the RPC environment, and will go into 
  production over the next couple of weeks.

2.4. Digital Preservation 

  Heather Flanagan reported that she is focusing on the partnership with 
  Royal Library of Sweden. The unique identifier issue has been sorted 
  out, and at this point we are just waiting for people to return from 
  summer holidays. 

  Adam Roach asked what identifier will be used. Robert Sparks replied 
  that they will use ""

  Ray Pelletier suggested that even though the agreement with the Royal 
  Library of Sweden is pro bono, it may be useful to have an MOU in 
  place to document what was done.

2.5. Infrastructure/Data Accessibility Work 

  Heather Flanagan reported that the infrastructure work is ongoing, 
  with incremental changes. 

3. Tools-style HTML RFCs

  Heather Flanagan noted that the Tools site ( already 
  has HTML RFCs available, and that there is talk of putting those HTML 
  RFCs on the RFC Editor website.  Joe Hildebrand noted that the section 
  links within the RFCs will need to be the same as in the new format. 
  Heather replied that the tools will need to be adjusted for the new 
  format anyway.

  Russ Housley asked if the plan was to deploy the current HTML RFCs and 
  then replace them with new ones when the new tools are available. 
  Robert Sparks replied that the new tools will create the HTML for new 

  Joe Hildebrand noted that there are a couple of different approaches 
  that can be taken, but the section references will need to work with 
  the new formats. Robert and Joe will talk to Henrik Levkowetz about 
  this and come back to the RSOC with a recommendation.

4. Digital Signatures

  Russ Housley reported that the process used by the RPC for signing 
  RFCs will be a bit different from what is currently used to sign 
  internet-drafts. Three people from the RPC will have access to a 
  signing key, and each key maps to a different certificate, donated by 

  The current plan for use of digital signatures is outlined in 

5. Goals for 2016-2017

 - Format implementation
   • including initial changes to errata system
 - Infrastructure redesign
   • incremental changes to continue
   • goal is to make the data available to community more accessible
 - Digital Signatures
 - Start a Style Guide update
   • Improve Citation Guidance
     * citation library improvements
     * guidance for third parties
   • Format-related changes as needed
 - Digital Preservation
   • Find another partner
   • Finish the draft

  Ray Pelletier asked if there has been any more interest from people 
  who want their own RFC streams. Heather Flanagan replied that there 
  has not.

  Heather Flanagan noted that the RPC has been reaching the new SLA, but 
  there is a concern that once the new format is introduced, the extra 
  work added for the RPC will prevent them from making the SLA. Heather 
  has already raised this concern with the stream managers.

  Sandy Ginoza said that on top of the learning curve, once the new 
  format is in place, processing times will be longer because there will 
  be more outputs and thus more files. Part of it will depend on how 
  good the tools are, but if bugs are found in the tools, then the RPC 
  will still be forced to wait for the bugs to be fixed before they can 

  Joel Halpern observed that the testing of new tools is not part of the 
  normal RPC work flow, which will also be a disruption. Sandy Ginoza 
  added that the RPC has requested to hire an additional editor, but the 
  request was denied with a note to come back and ask again once the 
  tools are in place.

6. AOB: Use of SVG

  Robert Sparks reported that a concern was raised about use of SVG in 
  the new format. The spec provides a subset of the SVG language that 
  people are allowed to use, but does not discuss what the RFC Editor 
  will accept as art. He noted that the different RFC streams may choose 
  to have different, more restrictive policies, and asked if the 
  drawings produced in SVG need to be reproducible in text. Several 
  people replied that according to the format drafts, they do not.

  Sandy Ginoza stated that having some guidelines for each stream would 
  be useful. Adam Roach added that articulating the general goal for the 
  use of SVG is something that should be added to the RFC Style Guide.