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: 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.