2020-05-27-rsoc-minutes
slides-interim-2022-rfcedprog-10-sessa-2020-05-27-rsoc-minutes-00

RFC SERIES OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (RSOC)
May 27, 2020 RSOC Meeting

Reported by: Cindy Morgan, IETF Secretariat

ATTENDEES
---------------------------------
  Sarah Banks (RSOC Chair) 
  Jay Daley (IETF LLC Board Liaison, non-voting)
  Tony Hansen 
  Cullen Jennings (IAB Lead)
  John Levine, (Temporary RFC Series Project Manager, non-voting)
  Cindy Morgan (Scribe, non-voting)
  Adam Roach
  Peter Saint-Andre

REGRETS
---------------------------------
  Mark Nottingham 

RSOC DECISIONS: 2020
---------------------------------
  - 2020-05-27: RSOC agrees that the RFC Series should plan to be able 
    to regenerate the output formats of RFCs. Related action item: John 
    Levine to draft a plan that defines when it is appropriate to 
    regenerate the output formats of RFCs.

  - 2019 Decisions: 
    <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2020/01/rsoc-decisions-2019.txt>

ACTION ITEMS
---------------------------------

  Done: 

  - 2020-02-26: Jay Daley (was: John Levine) to draft a plan on how to 
    manage canonical versions of the RELAX NG schema used in XML2RFC v3.

  In Progress:

  - 2020-02-26: John Levine to draft a report for RSOC outlining all of 
    the open issues with the v3 work.
    * Deadline: 2020-06-10

  - 2020-04-27: Jay Daley and John Levine to set up a video call with 
    Henrik Levkowetz and Robert Sparks to discuss prioritization of open 
    issues with the v3 tools.
    * Deadline: 2020-06-10

  - 2020-02-26: John Levine to draft a plan on how to manage change 
    control for the v3 XML.
    * Depends on outcome of action item to discuss prioritization of 
      open issues with the v3 tools.
    * Deadline: 2020-06-10

  New:

  - 2020-05-27: Sarah Banks to ask the RPC if there are any gating 
    issues preventing v3 from being declared stable.

  - 2020-05-27: Sarah Banks to talk to the RPC about running an 
    unofficial "shadow SLA" in order to assess what the actual SLA 
    should be under v3.

  - 2020-05-27: John Levine to draft a plan that defines when it is 
    appropriate to regenerate the output formats of RFCs and what 
    version control mechanisms should be used.

1. Administrivia

  The minutes of the 2020-04-27 RSOC meetings were approved.

2. v3 Issues and Tools

  John Levine noted that they are still reconciling issues between the 
  nominal grammar and the actual grammar for v3. 

  Sarah Banks asked John Levine for an ETA on the report outlining all 
  of the open issues with the v3 work. John Levine agreed to provide 
  that by 2020-06-10.

  John Levine said that much of what they have been discussing are minor 
  formatting nits that should not affect the language and may not be 
  worth fixing. Sarah Banks asked if he thinks that v3 is good enough to 
  be considered done. John replied that he thinks it is close; there are 
  a couple of changes that he is not comfortable with from an archival 
  point of view that may need to be backed out first.

  Jay Daley noted that if v3 is now at the point where people are just 
  requesting new features rather than fixing bugs, then it may be ready 
  to be considered stable. Sarah Banks asked if there was any major 
  functionality left that still needs to be delivered. John Levine 
  replied that there is one bug crash issue that needs to be resolved, 
  but the rest are all nits.

  The RSOC agreed to check with the RPC to see if they have any 
  showstoppers that would prevent v3 from being considered stable.

  * Action item: Sarah Banks to ask the RPC if there are any gating 
    issues preventing v3 from being declared stable.

  Tony Hansen said that there needs to be a well-defined mechanism for 
  defining updates. He sees two major categories of future enhancement 
  requests:

  - Requests to be able to do something that the current tools cannot do
  - Requests to change the XML grammar to make an existing tool work 
    better

  Sarah Banks replied that there is a process to handle such requests. 
  John Levine added that it is important to document that so that people 
  in the future can understand the tools without having to decipher 
  ancient Python code.

  Adam Roach observed that this issue might interact with the question 
  about regeneration of the output formats. Some bugs are about things 
  not rendering perfectly; when new tools are released, should the 
  output formats be regenerated?

  After a brief discussion, the RSOC agreed that the RFC Series should 
  plan to be able to regenerate the output formats of RFCs.

  * Action item: John Levine to draft a plan that defines when it is 
    appropriate to regenerate the output formats of RFCs and what 
    version control mechanisms should be used. 

  Sarah Banks asked that this plan be discussed on the RSOC list in 
  sadvance of the June RSOC meeting.

3. SLA Update

  Noting that v3 is close to being considered stable and that Sarah 
  Banks has an action item to ask the RPC about any gating issues, Jay 
  Daley suggested running an unofficial "shadow" SLA on the RPC for two 
  months, in order to get a feel for what sort of measurements a real 
  SLA would look like under v3.

  * Action item: Sarah Banks to talk to the RPC about running an 
    unofficial "shadow SLA" in order to assess what the actual SLA 
    should be under v3.