|Meeting Slides||RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) (rfcedprog) IAB ASG|
|Date and time||2022-01-01 14:00|
|Other versions||plain text|
RFC SERIES OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (RSOC) July 21, 2016 RSOC Meeting Reported by: Cindy Morgan, IETF Secretariat ATTENDEES --------------------------------- 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) REGRETS --------------------------------- Tony Hansen Bob Hinden GUESTS --------------------------------- Sandy Ginoza Russ Housley MINUTES --------------------------------- 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 "rfc-editor.org." 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 (tools.ietf.org) 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 RFCs. 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 Comodo. The current plan for use of digital signatures is outlined in draft-housley-rfc-and-id-signatures. 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 proceed. 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.