2019-05-28-rsoc-minutes
slides-interim-2022-rfcedprog-09-sessa-2019-05-28-rsoc-minutes-00

RFC SERIES OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (RSOC)
May 28, 2019 RSOC Meeting

Reported by: Cindy Morgan, IETF Secretariat

ATTENDEES
---------------------------------
 Sarah Banks (Chair) 
 Heather Flanagan (RSE, non-voting)
 Tony Hansen 
 Christian Huitema (IAB Lead)
 Cindy Morgan (Scribe, non-voting)
 Mark Nottingham 
 Peter Saint-Andre
 Portia Wenze-Danley (IETF LLC Board Liaison, non-voting)

REGRETS
---------------------------------

 Adam Roach

MINUTES
---------------------------------

1. Approval of Minutes

  The minutes of the 2019-04-30 teleconference were approved.

2. RPC update

2.1. SLA status

  Heather Flanagan reported that the RPC has been working to get the 
  queue down since they are in a lull for the testing of the new format 
  tools. The RPC has resumes from the last round of hiring editors and 
  is ready to proceed as soon as they get approval to do so from the 
  IETF LLC. Portia Wenze-Danley reported that the request for additional 
  editors is on the Board's 2019-05-30 meeting agenda.

2.2. Summary of survey feedback

  Heather Flanagan reported that a survey has been sent out to all 
  authors who have had an RFC published since 2019-02-01 (excluding 
  the April 1st RFCs), with about 16% of authors (50 authors) 
  responding. This is more responses than were received when the survey 
  was sent out at the end of the year.

  The survey results suggested making improvements to the AUTH48 
  process.

  * Action item: Heather Flanagan to see if the Tao of the IETF can be 
    updated to address some of the issues that arise during AUTH48.

  The RSOC discussed how the RPC handles "un-editable" documents. The 
  RFC Editor has the authority to reject such document, and they can 
  also raise issues to the stream managers if there’s a situation with 
  the authors being difficult or unresponsive. 

  Christian Huitema observed that a document that is "un-editable" 
  should never make it to the RFC Editor; those issues should be raised 
  by reviewers much earlier in the process. 

  * Action item: Heather Flanagan to propose suggestions on how to 
    prevent un-editable documents from reaching the RPC. Deadline: IETF 
    105, July 2019.

  Mark Nottingham noted that as an author, he would have liked the 
  survey to have a place for the author to provide more open-ended 
  feedback.

  * Action item: Heather Flanagan to propose modifications to the survey 
    questions.


3. Format update

  Heather Flanagan reported that they are currently on target to move to 
  the new format by the end of August 2019.

3.1. bis documents

  Heather Flanagan reported that she is waiting on the built-as 
  documentation from Henrik Levkowetz. Heather will need to determine 
  what needs to change, either in the xml2rfc vocabulary or in the code. 
  The current goal is to have the -bis documents completed by the end of 
  2019, although that deadline may be pushed back depending on the level 
  of changes required. 


4. Draft-flanagan-fiftyyears and the IAB Retreat 

  Heather Flanagan reported that she will be working with Christian 
  Huitema to add text to the introduction of draft-flanagan-fiftyyears 
  to make it clear that the document is not the IAB's view of history; 
  rather, it is a collection of first-hand accounts and the history is 
  more complicated than can be addressed in the document. 

  The IAB had a discussion at their retreat about whether draft-
  flanagan-fiftyyears should be adopted in the IAB stream or if it would 
  make more sense to publish in the Independent Stream. The current 
  policy that RFC Editor documents should be published on the IAB stream 
  is not well documented, and the IAB may choose to revisit that at a 
  future date.


5. Draft-roach-bis-documents

  Heather Flanagan shared some of her initial thoughts on draft-roach-
  bis-documents with the RSOC:

  - If reviewers only look at changes, critical context will be missed. 
    Part of the RFC Editor job is to ensure consistency, which means 
    reviewing a document in the context of other items published in the 
    series. This muddies those waters. 

  - There is a concern about giving known issues a "free pass"; 
    republishing the document without addressing those issues implies 
    endorsement, which could damage the reputation of the RFC Series as 
    a whole.

  - This could cause confusion if documents that normatively referenced 
    the original RFC are automatically updated to reference the 
    replacement document.

  Heather Flanagan noted that there are also implications for the new 
  format work here, and whether -bis authors will be able to take 
  advantage of the v3 format features.

  Christian Huitema noted that there is a tension between the timeliness 
  of documents and having high-quality documents. He pointed out that 
  high-quality documents that arrive too late are not useful either, 
  which is another kind of reputational risk for the RFC Series.

  * Action item: RSOC to read draft-roach-bis-documents and be prepared 
    to comment on it.


6. Executive session

  The 2018 Vendor Evaluation was discussed in an executive session.