idnits 2.17.1
draft-flanagan-fiftyyears-05.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section.
** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section
2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
when there are no actions for IANA.)
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
-- The document date (18 April 2019) is 1834 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2555' is defined on line 1072, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC5540' is defined on line 1094, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3
(Obsoleted by RFC 10)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 433
(Obsoleted by RFC 503)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1083
(Obsoleted by RFC 1100)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1150
(Obsoleted by RFC 6360)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4844
(Obsoleted by RFC 8729)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5620
(Obsoleted by RFC 6548, RFC 6635)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6635
(Obsoleted by RFC 8728)
Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 8 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Network Working Group H. Flanagan, Ed.
3 Internet-Draft RFC Editor
4 Updates2555, 5540 (if approved) 18 April 2019
5 Intended status: Informational
6 Expires: 20 October 2019
8 Fifty Years of RFCs
9 draft-flanagan-fiftyyears-05
11 Abstract
13 This RFC marks the fiftieth anniversary for the RFC Series. It
14 includes both retrospective material from individuals involved at key
15 inflection points, as well as a review of the current state of
16 affairs. It concludes with thoughts on possibilities for the next
17 fifty years for the Series. This document updates and brings current
18 the history started in RFCs 2555 and 5540.
20 Status of This Memo
22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
28 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
35 This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 October 2019.
37 Copyright Notice
39 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
40 document authors. All rights reserved.
42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
44 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
45 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
46 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
47 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
48 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
49 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
51 Table of Contents
53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
54 2. Key Moments in RFC History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
55 3. Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
56 3.1. The Origins of RFCs - by Stephen D. Crocker . . . . . . 5
57 3.2. The RFC Management and Editing Team - Vint Cerf . . . . . 10
58 3.3. Formalizing the RFC Editor Model - Leslie Daigle . . . . 11
59 3.4. The Continuation, or Creation, of a Stream - Nevil
60 Brownlee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
61 3.5. A View from Inside the RFC Editor - Sandy Ginoza . . . . 16
62 4. The Next Fifty Years of RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
63 4.1. Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
64 4.2. Evolution of the RFC Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
65 4.3. Stream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
66 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
67 6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
68 Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
69 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
71 1. Introduction
73 The RFC Series began in April 1969 with the publication of "Host
74 Software" by Steve Crocker. The early RFCs were, in fact, requests
75 for comments on ideas and proposals; the goal was to start
76 conversations, rather than to create an archival record of a standard
77 or best practice. This goal changed over time, as the formality of
78 the publication process evolved, and the community consuming the
79 material grew. Today, over 8500 RFCs have been published, ranging
80 across best practice information, experimental protocols,
81 informational material, and, of course, Internet standards. Material
82 is accepted for publication through the IETF, the IAB, the IRTF, and
83 the Independent Submissions stream, each with clear processes on how
84 drafts are submitted and potentially approved for publication as an
85 RFC. Ultimately, the goal of the RFC Series is to provide a
86 canonical source for the material published by the RFC Editor, and to
87 support the preservation of that material in perpetuity.
89 The RFC Editor as a role came a few years after the first RFC was
90 published. The actual date when the term was first used is unknown,
91 but it was formalized by [RFC0902] in July 1984; Jon Postel, the
92 first RFC Editor, defined the role by his actions and later by
93 defining the initial processes surrounding the publication of RFCs.
94 What is certain is that the RFC Editor is responsible for making sure
95 that the editorial quality of the RFCs published is high, and that
96 the archival record of what has been published is maintained.
98 Change does come to the Series, albeit slowly. First, we saw the
99 distribution method change from postal mail to FTP and email. From
100 there, we saw increased guidance for authors on how to write an RFC.
101 The editorial staff went from one person, Jon Postel, to a team of
102 five to seven. The actual editing and publishing work split from the
103 service for registration of protocol code points. The whole RFC
104 Editor structure was reviewed [RFC4844] and refined [RFC5620] and
105 refined again[RFC6635]. And, in the last few years, we have started
106 the process to change the format of the RFC documents themselves.
108 This is evolution, and the Series will continue to adapt in order to
109 meet the needs and expectations of the community of authors,
110 operators, historians, and users of the RFC Series. These changes
111 will be always be balanced against the core mission of the Series: to
112 maintain a strong, stable, archival record of technical
113 specifications, protocols, and other information relevant to the
114 ARPANET and Internet networking communities.
116 There is more to the history of the RFC Series than can be covered in
117 this document. Readers interested in earlier perspectives may find
118 the following RFCs of particular interest that focus on the enormous
119 contributions of Jon Postel, Czar of Socket Numbers [RFC0433] and
120 first RFC Editor:
122 [RFC2441]"Working with Jon, Tribute delivered at UCLA"
124 [RFC2555]"30 Years of RFCs"
126 [RFC5540]"40 Years of RFCs"
128 In this document, several individuals who have been a part of shaping
129 the Series offer their observations of key moments in the series.
130 Steve Crocker, author of RFC 1, offers his thoughts on how and why
131 the Series began. Leslie Daigle, a major influence in the
132 development of the RFC Editor model, offers her thoughts on the
133 change of the RFC Editor to a stronger, contracted function. Nevil
134 Brownlee, Independent Submissions Editor from 2010 through February
135 2018, shares his view on the clarification of the IS and its
136 transition from Bob Braden. As the current RFC Series Editor, I will
137 put my thoughts in on the most recent changes in formalizing the
138 digital preservation of the Series, the process to modernize the
139 format while respecting the need for stability, and my thoughts on
140 the next fifty years of RFCs.
142 This document brings up to date the historical records started in
143 RFCs 2555 and 5540.
145 2. Key Moments in RFC History
147 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
148 | Marker | Date | Event |
149 +====================+================+=============================+
150 | [RFC0001] | 1969 | First RFC published |
151 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
152 | [RFC0114] | 1971 | First distribution of |
153 | | | RFCs over the network |
154 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
155 | [RFC0433] | December 1972 | First mention of the |
156 | | | Czar of Socket Numbers |
157 | | | and the proposal for a |
158 | | | formal registry |
159 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
160 | [RFC0690] | June 1975 | Relationship starts |
161 | | | between ISI and the |
162 | | | RFC Editor, judging by |
163 | | | Jon Postel's |
164 | | | affiliation change |
165 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
166 | [RFC0748] | March 1977 | First April 1st RFC |
167 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
168 | [IETF1] | January 1986 | First Internet |
169 | | | Engineering Task Force |
170 | | | (IETF) meeting |
171 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
172 | [RFC1083] | October 1989 | Three stage standards |
173 | | | process first defined |
174 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
175 | [RFC1122][RFC1123] | December 1988 | First major effort to |
176 | | | review key |
177 | | | specifications and |
178 | | | write applicability |
179 | | | statements |
180 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
181 | [RFC1150] | March 1990 | FYI sub-series started |
182 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
183 | [RFC1311] | March 1992 | STD sub-series started |
184 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
185 | [RFC1818] | August 1995 | BCP sub-series started |
186 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
187 | [RFC-ONLINE] | (approx) | RFC Online Project to |
188 | | 1998-2010 | restore lost early |
189 | | | RFCs |
190 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
191 | [IAB-19880712] | July 1988 | IAB approved the |
192 | | | creation of an |
193 | | | Internet Draft series |
194 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
195 | [RFC2441] | 15 October | Jon Postel's death |
196 | | 1998 | |
197 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
198 | [ISI-to-AMS] | October 2009 | Transition starts from |
199 | | | ISI to Association |
200 | | | Management Solutions |
201 | | | (AMS) |
202 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
203 | [RFC4844] | July 2007 | RFC Stream structure |
204 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
205 | [RFC4846] | Formalize the | July 2007 |
206 | | Independent | |
207 | | Submission | |
208 | | document | |
209 | | stream | |
210 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
211 | [RFC5743] | Formalize the | December 2009 |
212 | | Internet | |
213 | | Research Task | |
214 | | Force document | |
215 | | stream | |
216 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
217 | [RFC6360] | August 2011 | FYI sub-series ended |
218 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
219 | [RFC6410] | October 2011 | Two stage standards |
220 | | | process formalized |
221 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
222 | [RFC6949] | May 2013 | RFC Format change |
223 | | | project started |
224 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
225 | [RFC8153] | April 2017 | RFCs no longer printed |
226 | | | to paper upon |
227 | | | publication |
228 +--------------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
230 Table 1
232 3. Perspectives
234 3.1. The Origins of RFCs - by Stephen D. Crocker
236 [This is a revision of material included in [RFC1000] August 1987,
237 more than thirty years ago.]
238 The Internet community now includes millions of nodes and billions of
239 users. It owes its beginning to the ARPANET, which was once but a
240 gleam in the eyes of J. C. R. Licklider, Bob Taylor, and Larry
241 Roberts of ARPA. While much of the development proceeded according
242 to plan, the initial design of the protocols and the creation of the
243 RFCs was largely accidental.
245 The procurement of the ARPANET was initiated in the summer of 1968
246 --remember Vietnam, flower children, etc.? There had been prior
247 experiments at various ARPA sites to link together computer systems,
248 but this was the first version to explore packet-switching as a core
249 part of the communication strategy. ("ARPA" didn't become "DARPA"
250 until 1972. It briefly changed back to ARPA in 1993 and then back
251 again to DARPA.) The government's Request for Quotations (RFQ)
252 called for four packet-switching devices, called Interface Message
253 Processors ("IMPs"), to be delivered to four sites in the western
254 part of the United States: University of California, Los Angeles
255 (UCLA); SRI International in Menlo Park, CA; University of
256 California, Santa Barbara; the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
257 These sites, respectively, were running a Scientific Data Systems
258 (SDS) Sigma 7, an SDS 940, an IBM 360/75, and a DEC PDP-10. These
259 machines not only had different operating systems, but even details
260 like character sets and byte sizes varied, and other sites would have
261 further variations.
263 The focus was on the basic movement of data. The precise use of the
264 ARPANET was not spelled out in advance, thus requiring the research
265 community to take some initiative. To stimulate this process, a
266 meeting was called in August 1968 with representatives from the
267 selected sites, chaired by Elmer Shapiro from SRI. Based on
268 Shapiro's notes from that meeting, the attendees were Dave Hopper and
269 Jeff Rulifson from SRI, Glen Culler and Gordon Buck from Santa
270 Barbara, R. Stephenson, C. Stephen Carr and W. Boam from Utah,
271 Vint Cerf and me from UCLA, and a few others from potential future
272 sites.
274 That first meeting was seminal. We had lots of questions. How IMPs
275 and "hosts" (I think that was the first time I was exposed to that
276 term) would be connected? What hosts would say to each other? What
277 applications would be supported? The only concrete answers were
278 remote login as a replacement for dial-up, telephone based
279 interactive terminal access, and file transfer, but we knew the
280 vision had to be larger. We found ourselves imagining all kinds of
281 possibilities -- interactive graphics, cooperating processes,
282 automatic data base query, electronic mail -- but no one knew where
283 to begin. We weren't sure whether there was really room to think
284 hard about these problems; surely someone senior and in charge,
285 likely from the East, would be along by and by to bring the word.
287 But we did come to one conclusion: we ought to meet again. Over the
288 next several months, we met at each of our sites, thereby setting the
289 precedent for regular face to face meetings. We also instantly felt
290 the irony. This new network was supposed to make it possible to work
291 together at a distance, and the first thing we did was schedule a
292 significant amount of travel.
294 Over the next several months, a small, fairly consistent set of
295 graduate students and staff members from the first four sites met.
296 We used the term Network Working Group (NWG) to designate ourselves.
297 This was the same term Elmer Shapiro had used when he convened our
298 first meeting, although it had been used until that point to refer to
299 the principal investigators and ARPA personnel -- senior people who
300 had been planning the network. Our group was junior and disjoint
301 from the prior group, except, of course, that each of us worked for
302 one of the principal investigators.
304 The first few meetings were quite tenuous, primarily because we
305 weren't sure how narrow or expansive our goals should be. We had no
306 official charter or leadership, and it remained unclear, at least to
307 me, whether someone or some group would show up with the official
308 authority and responsibility to take over the problems we were
309 dealing with. Without clear definition of what the host-IMP
310 interface would look like, or even a precise definition of what
311 functions the IMP would provide, we focused on broader ideas. We
312 envisioned the possibility of application specific protocols, with
313 code downloaded to user sites, and we took a crack at designing a
314 language to support this. The first version was known as DEL, for
315 "Decode-Encode Language" and a later version was called NIL, for
316 "Network Interchange Language."
318 In late 1968 Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) in Cambridge, MA won the
319 contract for the IMPs and began work in January 1969. A few of us
320 flew to Boston in the middle of February to meet the BBN crew. The
321 BBN folks, led by Frank Heart, included Bob Kahn, Severo Ornstein,
322 Ben Barker, Will Crowther, Bernie Cosell and Dave Walden. They were
323 organized, professional and focused. Their first concern was how to
324 meet their contract schedule of delivering the first IMP to UCLA at
325 the beginning of September and how to get bits to flow quickly and
326 reliably. The details of the host-IMP interface were not yet firm;
327 the specification came a few months later as BBN Report 1822. In
328 particular, BBN didn't take over our protocol design process, nor did
329 any other source of authority appear. Thus, we doggedly continued
330 debating and designing the protocols.
332 A month later our small NWG met in Utah. As the meeting came toward
333 an end, it became clear to us that we should start writing down our
334 discussions. We had accumulated a few notes on the design of DEL and
335 other matters, and we decided to put them together in a set of notes.
336 We assigned writing chores to each of us, and I took on the
337 additional task of organizing the notes. Though I initiated the
338 RFCs, my role was far less than an editor.. Each of the RFCs were
339 numbered in sequence. The only rule I imposed was the note had to be
340 complete before I assigned a number because I wanted to minimize the
341 number of holes in the sequence.
343 I tried a couple of times to write a note on how the notes would be
344 organized, but I found myself full of trepidation. Would these notes
345 look as if we were asserting authority we didn't have? Would we
346 unintentionally offend whomever the official protocol designers were?
347 Finally, unable to sleep, I wrote the a few humble words. The basic
348 ground rules were that anyone could say anything and that nothing was
349 official. And to emphasize the point, I used Bill Duvall's
350 suggestion and labeled the notes "Request for Comments." I never
351 dreamed these notes would eventually be distributed through the very
352 medium we were discussing in these notes. Talk about Sorcerer's
353 Apprentice!
355 After BBN distributed the specification for the hardware and software
356 interface to the IMPs to the initial ARPANET sites, our attention
357 shifted to low-level matters. The ambitious ideas for automatic
358 downloading of code evaporated. It would be several years before
359 ideas like mobile code, remote procedure calls, ActiveX, JAVA and
360 RESTful interfaces appeared.
362 Over the spring and summer of that year we grappled with the detailed
363 problems of protocol design. Although we had a vision of the vast
364 potential for intercomputer communication, designing usable protocols
365 was another matter. We knew a custom hardware interface and a custom
366 software addition in the operating system was going to be required
367 for anything we designed, and we anticipated these would pose some
368 difficulty at each of the sites. We looked for existing abstractions
369 to use. It would have been convenient if we could have made the
370 network simply look like regular device, e.g. a tape drive, but we
371 knew that wouldn't do. The essence of this network was peer-to-peer
372 cooperation among the machines and the processes running inside them,
373 not a central machine controlling dependent devices. We settled on a
374 virtual bit stream layer as the basic building block for the
375 protocols, but even back then we knew that some applications like
376 voice might need to avoid that layer of software. (Why a virtual bit
377 stream instead of a virtual byte stream? Because each computer had
378 its own notion of how many bits were in a byte. Eight-bit bytes
379 didn't become standard until a few years later.)
381 Over the next two years, we developed, exchanged, and implemented
382 ideas. I took a leave from UCLA in June 1971 to spend time working
383 at ARPA. Jon Postel took over the care and feeding of the RFCs,
384 evolving the process and adding collaborators over the next twenty-
385 seven years.
387 The rapid growth of the network and the working group also led to a
388 large pile of RFCs. When the 100th RFC was in sight, Peggy Karp at
389 MITRE took on the task of indexing them. That seemed like a large
390 task then, and we could have hardly anticipated seeing more than a
391 1000 RFCs several years later, and the evolution toward Internet
392 Drafts yet later.
394 When we first started working on the protocols, the network did not
395 exist. Except for our occasional face-to-face meetings, RFCs were
396 our only means of communication. In [RFC0003], I set the bar as low
397 as possible:
399 The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc.
400 related to the HOST software or other aspect of the network.
401 Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than polished.
402 Philosophical positions without examples or other specifics,
403 specific suggestions or implementation techniques without
404 introductory or background explication, and explicit questions
405 without any attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum
406 length for a NWG note is one sentence.
408 These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two
409 reasons. First, there is a tendency to view a written statement
410 as ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to promote the exchange
411 and discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas.
412 Second, there is a natural hesitancy to publish something
413 unpolished, and we hope to ease this inhibition.
415 Making the RFCs informal was not only a way of encouraging
416 participation; it was also important in making the communication
417 effective. One of the early participants said he was having trouble
418 writing and sending an RFC because his institution wanted to subject
419 them to publication review. These are not "publications," I
420 declared, and the problem went away. Another small detail, handled
421 instinctively and without debate, was the distribution model. Each
422 institution was required to send a copy directly to each of the other
423 handful of participating institutions. Each institution handled
424 internal copies and distribution itself. Submission to a central
425 point for redistribution was not required, so as to minimize delays.
426 SRI's Network Information Center, however, did maintain a central
427 repository of everything and provided an invaluable record.
429 We didn't intentionally set out to challenge the existing standards
430 organizations, but our natural mode of operation yielded some
431 striking results. The RFCs are open in two important respects:
432 anyone can write one for free and anyone get them for free. At the
433 time, virtually everyone in the ARPANET community was sponsored by
434 the government, so there was little competition and no need to use
435 documents as a way of raising money. Of course, as soon as we had
436 email working on the ARPANET, we distributed RFCs electronically.
437 When the ARPANET became just a portion of the Internet, this
438 distribution process became worldwide. The effect of this openness
439 is often overlooked. Students and young professionals all over the
440 world have been able to download the RFCs, learn about the many
441 pieces of technology, and then build the most amazing software. And
442 they still are. [They are also a fantastic resource for historians.]
444 Where will it end? The ARPANET begat the Internet and the underlying
445 technology transitioned from the original host-host protocol to TCP/
446 IP, but the superstructure of protocol layers, community driven
447 protocol design, and the RFCs continued. Through the many changes in
448 physical layer technology - analog copper circuits, digital circuits,
449 fiber and wireless -- resulting in speed increases from thousands to
450 billions of bits per second and a similar increase from thousands to
451 billions of users, this superstructure, including the RFCs has
452 continued to serve the community. All of the computers have changed,
453 as have all of the transmission lines. But the RFCs march on. Maybe
454 I'll write a few words for RFC 10,000.
456 Quite obviously the circumstances have changed. Email and other
457 media are most often used for the immediate exchange of inchoate
458 thoughts. Internet Drafts are the means for exchanging substantial,
459 albeit sometimes speculative content. And RFCs are reserved for
460 fully polished, reviewed, edited and approved specifications.
461 Comments to RFCs are not requested, although usage-related
462 discussions and other commentary on mailing lists often takes place
463 nonetheless. Rather than bemoan the change, I take it as a
464 remarkable example of adaptation. RFCs continue to serve the
465 protocol development community. Indeed, they are the bedrock of a
466 very vibrant and productive process that has fueled and guided the
467 Internet revolution.
469 3.2. The RFC Management and Editing Team - Vint Cerf
471 As Steve Crocker mentions in Section 3.1, Jon Postel assumed the role
472 of RFC manager in 1971 when Steve left UCLA for ARPA. Jon took on
473 this role in addition to his subsequent "numbers Czar"
474 responsibilities. Initially, his focus was largely on assigning RFC
475 numbers to aspiring writers but with time, and as the standardization
476 of the ARPANET and Internet protocols continued apace, he began to
477 serve in an editorial capacity. Moreover, as an accomplished
478 software engineer, he had opinions about technical content in
479 addition to writing style and did not hesitate to exercise editorial
480 discretion as would-be published authors presented their offerings
481 for his scrutiny. As the load increased, he recruited additional
482 "volunteer" talent, most notably Joyce K. Reynolds, a fellow
483 researcher at USC/ISI. Over the ensuing years, he also drafted
484 Robert (Bob) Braden into the team and when Jon unexpectedly passed
485 away in October 1998 (see [RFC2468]), Joyce and Bob undertook to
486 carry on with the RFC work in his stead, adding Sandy Ginoza to the
487 team. During the period when Jon and Joyce worked closely together,
488 Joyce would challenge me to tell which edits had been made by Jon and
489 which by her. I found this impossible, so aligned were they in their
490 editorial sensibilities. Sadly, three of these tireless Internauts
491 have passed on and we have only the product of their joint work and
492 Sandy Ginoza's and others' corporate memory by which to recall
493 history.
495 3.3. Formalizing the RFC Editor Model - Leslie Daigle
497 I was the chair of the Internet Architecture Board, the board
498 responsible for the general oversight of the RFC Series, at a
499 particular inflection point in the evolution of all Internet
500 technology institutions. To understand what we did, and why we had
501 to, let me first paint a broader picture of the arc of these
502 institutions.
504 Like many others who were in decision-making roles in the mid -00's,
505 I wasn't present when the Internet was born. The lore passed down to
506 me was that, out of the group of talented researchers that developed
507 the core specifications and established the direction of the
508 Internet, different individuals stepped up to take on roles necessary
509 to keep the process of specification development organized and open.
510 As the work of specification expanded, those individuals were
511 generally supported by organizations that carried on in the same
512 spirit. This was mostly Jon Postel, managing the allocation and
513 assignment of names and numbers, as well as working as the editor of
514 RFCs, but there were also individuals and institutions supporting the
515 IETF's Secretariat function. By the late 20th century, even this
516 model was wearing thin - the support functions were growing, and
517 organizations didn't have the ability to donate even more resources
518 to run them. In some cases (IANA) there was significant industry and
519 international dependence on the function and its neutrality.
521 The IETF, too, had grown in size, stature, and commercial reliance.
522 This system of institutional pieces "flying in formation" was not
523 providing the kind of contractual regularity or integrated
524 development that the IETF needed. People who hadn't been there as
525 the institutions developed, including IETF decision-makers, didn't
526 innately understand why things "had to be the way they were", and
527 were frustrated when trying to get individual systems updated for new
528 requirements, and better integrated across the spectrum of
529 activities.
531 Internet engineering had expanded beyond the point of being
532 supportable by a loosely-coupled set of organizations of people who
533 had been there since the beginning and knew each other well. New
534 forms of governance and were needed, as well as rationalized funding
535 The IANA function was absorbed into a purpose-built international
536 not-for-profit organization. The IETF stepped up to manage its own
537 organizational destiny, creating the IETF Administrative Support
538 Activity (IASA), and the Secretariat became one of its contracted
539 functions.
541 This left the RFC Editor function as an Internet Society-supported,
542 independent effort.
544 That independent nature was necessary for the historic role of the
545 RFC Series in considering all technical contributions. But, at that
546 inflection point in the Series' history, it needed a new governance
547 and funding model, just as the other Internet technical specification
548 supporting organizations had. Also, the IETF leadership had some
549 concerns it felt needed to addressed in its own technical publication
550 stream. While the RFC Series had been established before there was
551 an IETF, and had historically continued to have documents in it that
552 didn't originate from the IETF, the IETF was its largest and most
553 organized contributor. There was no particular organization of
554 independent contributors. Equally, the funding for the RFC Editor
555 was at that point coming from the Internet Society in the guise of
556 "support for the IETF". For people who hadn't been involved with the
557 institution from the outset, it was pretty easy to perceive the RFC
558 Series uniquely as the IETF's publication series. So, the challenge
559 was to identify and address the IETF's issues, along with governance
560 and funding, without sacrificing the fundamental nature of the RFC
561 Series as a broader-than-IETF publication series.
563 To give a sense of the kinds of tensions that were prevalent, let me
564 share that the one phrase that sticks in my mind from those
565 discussions is: "push to publish". There were those in IETF
566 leadership who felt that it would significantly reduce costs and
567 improve timeliness if an RFC could be published by, literally,
568 pushing a button on a web interface the moment it was approved by the
569 IESG. It would also, they argued, remove the specification issues
570 being introduced by copy-editors that were hired as occasional
571 workers to help with improving publication rates, but who weren't
572 necessarily up to speed on terms of art in technical specifications.
573 (There were some pretty egregious examples of copyeditors introducing
574 changes that significantly changed the technical meaning of the text
575 that I forbear from citing here; let's just say it wasn't strictly a
576 problem of Internet engineers getting uptight about their cheese
577 being moved). While "push to publish" would have addressed those
578 issues, it would not have addressed the loss of clarity from the many
579 significant text improvements copy editors successfully introduced,
580 or the fact that not all RFCs are approved by the IESG.
582 Institutionally, it was clear that the target was to have the RFC
583 Editor function governance within the reach of the Internet technical
584 community (as opposed to any particular private organization),
585 without tying it specifically to the IETF. That was reasonably
586 achievable by ensuring that the resultant pieces were established
587 under the oversight of the IAB (which is, itself, independent of the
588 IETF, even as it is supported by the IASA organization).
590 The IETF worked on a document outlining functional requirements for
591 its technical specification publication. This could have been useful
592 for establishing its own series, but it also was helpful in
593 establishing awareness of the challenges in document publishing (it
594 always looks easy when you haven't thought about it), and also to lay
595 the ground work for dialogue with the RFC Editor. The requirements
596 document was published as [RFC4714], as an Informational RFC that
597 stands today to provide guidance in the editing processes surrounding
598 IETF publications.
600 There was still, however, a certain lack of clarity about
601 responsibilities for making decisions and changes in the RFC Series
602 itself. To that end, I and the IAB worked with the various involved
603 parties to produce [RFC4844]. That document captured the RFC Series
604 mission (for a purpose greater than IETF technical specification
605 publication), as well as the roles and responsibilities of the
606 parties involved. The RFC Editor has responsibility for ensuring the
607 implementation of the mission. The IAB continues to have oversight
608 responsibilities, including policy oversight, which it could act on
609 by changing the person (organization) in the role of RFC Editor. At
610 the same time, operational oversight was migrated to the IASA support
611 function of the IETF (and IAB).
613 The discussions, and the resulting publication of RFC 4844, allowed
614 greater visibility into and commitment to the RFC Series, as a
615 general Internet publication. It also meant that subsequent
616 adjustments could be made, as requirements evolved - the responsible
617 parties are clearly identified.
619 3.4. The Continuation, or Creation, of a Stream - Nevil Brownlee
621 Arguably starting in 2006 with [RFC4714], the IAB and the IETF
622 community spent some time in the mid-2000's evolving the structure of
623 the RFC Series. This work included defining how those groups that
624 published into the RFC Series (initially including the IETF, the IAB
625 [RFC4845], and the Independent Submissions stream [RFC4846], and
626 later growing to include the IRTF [RFC5743]) would handle approving
627 documents to be published as RFCs. In 2009, the IAB published 'RFC
628 Editor (Version 1)' [RFC5620]. In this model, a new role was created
629 within the RFC Editor, the RFC Series Editor (RSE), an individual
630 that would oversee RFC publishing and development, while leaving the
631 process for approving documents for publication outside his or her
632 mandate. While arguably this was a role long filled by people like
633 Jon Postel, Bob Braden, and Joyce Reynolds, RFC 5620 saw the role of
634 RFC Series Editor defined in such a way as to distinctly separate it
635 from that of the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE).
637 Before 2009 the RFC Editor could accept 'Independent' submissions
638 from individuals, and - if he judged they were significant - publish
639 them as RFCs; the Independent Stream was set up to continue that
640 function. From February 2010 through February 2018, I was the
641 Independent Stream Editor (ISE) and I began by reading [RFC4846],
642 then went on to develop the Independent Stream (IS).
644 First I spent several days at the RFC Production Centre at ISI in
645 Marina Del Ray with the RFC Editor (Bob Braden) and Sandy Ginoza and
646 Alice Hagens, so as to learn how RFCs were actually edited and
647 published. All RFCs reach the Production Centre as Internet Drafts;
648 they are copy-edited, until the edited version can be approved by
649 their authors (AUTH48). At any stage authors can check their draft's
650 status in the RFC Editor Database.
652 For the Independent Submissions, Bob kept a journal (a simple ASCII
653 file) of his interactions with authors for every draft, indexed by
654 the draft name. Bob also entered the Independent drafts into the RFC
655 Editor database, so that authors could track their draft's status.
656 After my few days with his team at ISI, he handed me that journal
657 (covering about 30 drafts) over to me and said "now it's over to
658 you!"
660 I began by following in Bob's footsteps, maintaining a journal and
661 tracking each draft's status in the RFC Editor database. My first
662 consideration was that every serious Internet draft submitted needs
663 several careful reviews. If the ISE knows suitable reviewers, he can
664 simply ask them. Otherwise, if the draft relates to an IETF or IRTF
665 Working Group, he can ask ask Working Group chairs or Area Directors
666 to suggest reviewers. As well, the ISE has an Independent
667 Submissions Editorial Board (Ed Board) that he can ask for reviewers.
668 My experience with reviewers was that most of those I approached were
669 happy to help.
671 Most drafts were straightforward, but there were some that needed
672 extra attention. Often a draft requests IANA code points, and for
673 that IANA were always quick to offer help and support. Code points
674 in some IANA Registries require Expert Review - sometimes the
675 interactions with Expert reviewers took quite a long time! Again,
676 sometimes a draft seemed to fit better in the IETF Stream; for these
677 I would suggest that the draft authors try to find an Area Director
678 to sponsor their work as in Individual submission to the IETF Stream.
680 After my first few years as ISE, the IETF Tools Team developed the
681 Data Tracker so that it could keep show draft status, and perform all
682 the 'housekeeping' tasks for all of the streams. At that stage I
683 switched to use the Data Tracker rather than the RFC Editor database.
685 Once a draft has been reviewed, and the authors have revised it in
686 dialogue with their reviewers, the ISE must submit that draft to the
687 IESG for their "Conflict Review" [RFC5742]. Overall, each IS draft
688 benefited from discussions (which were usually simple) with my Ed
689 Board and the IESG. A (very) few drafts were somewhat controversial
690 - for those I was able to work with the IESG to negotiate a suitable
691 'IESG Statement' and/or an 'ISE Statement' to make it clearer why the
692 ISE published the draft.
694 One rather special part of the Independent Stream is the April First
695 drafts. These are humorous RFCs that are never formally posted as
696 drafts and which have no formal review process. The authors must
697 send them directly to the ISE or the RFC Editor. Only a few of them
698 can be published each year; they are reviewed by the ISE and the RSE;
699 Bob Braden's criteria for April First drafts were:
701 They must relate to the Internet (like all drafts)
703 Their readers should reach the end of page two before realizing
704 this is an April First RFC
706 They must actually be funny!
708 April First RFCs have a large following, and feedback from the
709 Internet community on 1 April each year has been enthusiastic and
710 quick!
712 I published 159 Independent Stream RFCs during my eight years as ISE.
713 Over those eight years I worked with, and often met with at IETF
714 meetings, most of their authors. For me that was a very rewarding
715 experience, so I thank all those contributors. Also, I've worked
716 with most of the IESG members during those eight years, that also
717 gave me a lot of helpful interaction. Last, I've always enjoyed
718 working with the RFC Editor, and all the staff of the RFC Production
719 Centre. The IETF (as a whole) is very fortunate to have such an
720 effective team of talented Professional Staff.
722 3.5. A View from Inside the RFC Editor - Sandy Ginoza
724 When I joined ISI, shortly after Jon Postel passed away, the RFC
725 Editor as we know it today (as defined in RFC 5620, and as obsoleted
726 by RFCs 6548 and 6635) did not exist. The RFC Editor functioned as
727 one unit; there was no RSE, Production Center, Publisher, or
728 Independent Submissions Editor. All of these roles were performed by
729 the RFC Editor, which was comprised of four individuals: Bob Braden,
730 Joyce Reynolds, a part-time student programmer, and me.
732 Bob provided high-level guidance and reviewed Independent
733 Submissions. While Bob was a researcher in "Div 7" (Networking) at
734 ISI, ostensibly, the percentage of time he had for the RFC Editor was
735 10%, but he invested much more time to keep the series running. He
736 pitched in where he could, especially when processing times were
737 getting longer; at one point, he even NROFFed a couple of RFCs-to-be.
738 Joyce was a full-time employee, but while continuing to ensure RFCs
739 were published and serve as a User Services Area Director and a
740 keynote speaker about the Internet, she was also temporarily on loan
741 to IANA for 50% of her time while IANA was getting established after
742 separating from ISI. The student programmer performed programming
743 tasks as requested and was, at the time, responsible for parsing
744 MIBs. I was a full-time staffer and had to quickly learn the ropes
745 so RFCs would continue to be published.
747 My primary tasks were to manage the publication queue, format and
748 prepare documents for Joyce's review, carry out AUTH48 once Joyce
749 completed her review, and publish, index, and archive the RFCs (both
750 soft and hard copies).
752 The workload increased significantly over the next few years. As the
753 workload increased, the RFC Editor reacted and slowly grew their
754 staff over time. To understand the team growth, let's first take a
755 look at the publication rates throughout history. The table below
756 shows average annual publication rates during 5-year periods.
758 +-------------+-------------------+
759 | Years | Avg Pubs per Year |
760 +=============+===================+
761 | 1969 - 1972 | 80 |
762 +-------------+-------------------+
763 | 1973 - 1977 | 55 |
764 +-------------+-------------------+
765 | 1978 - 1982 | 20 |
766 +-------------+-------------------+
767 | 1983 - 1987 | 39 |
768 +-------------+-------------------+
769 | 1988 - 1992 | 69 |
770 +-------------+-------------------+
771 | 1993 - 1997 | 171 |
772 +-------------+-------------------+
773 | 1998 - 2002 | 237 |
774 +-------------+-------------------+
775 | 2003 - 2007 | 325 |
776 +-------------+-------------------+
777 | 2008 - 2012 | 333 |
778 +-------------+-------------------+
779 | 2013 - 2017 | 295 |
780 +-------------+-------------------+
782 Table 2
784 There were significant jumps in the publication rates in the 90s and
785 onward, with the number of publications almost doubling between 1993
786 and 2007. The annual submission count surpassed the 300 mark for the
787 first time in 2004 and reached an all-time high of 385 in 2011. The
788 submission rate did not drop below 300 until 2016 (284).
790 As the submissions grew, the RFC Editor experienced growing pains.
791 Processing times began to increase as the existing staff was unable
792 to keep up with the expanding queue size. In an attempt to reduce
793 the training hump and to avoid permanently hiring staff in case the
794 submission burst was a fluke, ISI brought on temporary copy editors -
795 this way, the staff could easily be resized as needed. However, as
796 Leslie noted, this didn't work very well. The effects of the
797 experiment would be lasting, as this led to a form of the process we
798 have now, where the RFC Editor asks more questions during AUTH/AUTH48
799 and technical changes require approval from the relevant Area
800 Directors or stream managers, depending on the document stream.
801 These changes added to the workload and extended publication times;
802 many often now jokingly refer to AUTH48 as the authors' "48 days",
803 "48 weeks", etc.
805 Because the workload continued to increase (in more ways than just
806 document submissions; tool testing, editorial process changes, and
807 more) and the lessons learned with temporary copy editors, our team
808 grew more permanently. While we had other editors in between, two
809 additions are of particular interest, as they experienced much of the
810 RFC Editor's growing pains, helped work us out of a backlogged state,
811 shaped the RFC Editor function, and are still with the team today:
812 Alice Russo joined the team in 2005 and Megan Ferguson joined us in
813 2007.
815 With the understanding that the record breaking number of submissions
816 was not an anomaly, we made significant upgrades to the
817 infrastructure of the RFC Editor function to facilitate document
818 tracking and reporting. For example, the illustrious "black binder"
819 - an actual 3-ring binder used to track number assignment, a manually
820 edited HTML file for the queue page, and a Rube-Goldberg set of text
821 files and scripts that created queue statistics, all were eventually
822 replaced; an errata system was proposed and implemented; and XML
823 became a newly accepted source file.
825 In 2009, RFC 5620 was published, introducing the initial version of
826 the RFC Editor model we have now. While it was published in 2009, it
827 did not go into effect until 2010, when the RFC Editor project as I
828 knew it was disbanded and divvied up into four pieces: RFC Series
829 Editor (RSE), Independent Submissions Editor (ISE), RFC Production
830 Center (RPC), and Publisher. In addition, the RFC Series Advisory
831 Group (RSAG) was created to "provide expert, informed guidance
832 (chiefly, to the RSE) in matters affecting the RFC Series operation
833 and development."
835 In 2010, the RPC and Publisher contracts were awarded to Association
836 Management Systems (AMS); we started with three existing team members
837 (Alice Russo, Megan Ferguson, and me) and we were pleased to be
838 joined by Lynne Bartholomew, a new colleague to anchor us in the AMS
839 office, and later Rebecca VanRheenen shortly thereafter.
841 I was wary of this model and was especially worried about the hole
842 Bob Braden's departure would create. Luckily for us, Bob Braden
843 provided wise counsel and insight during the transition (and beyond).
844 He gave the staff transitioning to AMS particularly helpful parting
845 words - "keep the RFCs coming" - and that is what we did.
847 AMS embraced the RFC Series and helped us quickly get set up on new
848 servers. The RFC Production Center and Publisher were now part of
849 the AMS family and it was all hands on deck to make sure the
850 transition went smoothly to minimize the impact on document
851 processing.
853 Our focus during transition was to 1) keep the trains running; that
854 is, we wanted to get ourselves up and running with minimal down time
855 and 2) work with the Transitional RSE, the Independent Submissions
856 Editor (Nevil Brownlee), RSAG, and the IAD to better understand and
857 implement the newly defined RFC Editor model.
859 Though some portions of the transition were challenging and lasted
860 longer than expected, the Acting RSE (Olaf Kolkman) officially handed
861 the reins over to the RSE (Heather Flanagan) in 2012. She had to
862 jump in, learn the RFC Editor and IETF culture, and work through a
863 backlog of issues that had been left unattended.
865 Two of the backlogged issues were so old, they were ones someone
866 asked me about at my first IETF: when is the RFC Editor going to
867 allow non-ASCII characters in RFCs, and when will the RFC Editor
868 adopt a more modern publication format.
870 At that time, while we understood the desire to move toward
871 supporting a broader range of character sets and to have more modern
872 outputs, we also routinely received emails from individuals
873 requesting that we send them plain-text files (instead of pointing
874 them to the website) because their Internet access was limited. We
875 also regularly received complaints from rfc-editor.org users whenever
876 something on the site didn't work correctly with their older
877 browsers. In short, we could not advance without leaving a large
878 number of users behind.
880 However, we now find ourselves on the precipice of change. 2019
881 promises to be a BIG year for the RFC Series, as we expect to
882 transition from publishing plaintext, ASCII-only files to publishing
883 multiple file formats (XML, HTML, PDF/A-3, and TXT) that allow both
884 non-ASCII characters and SVG art.
886 Interestingly enough, I find that the RFC Editor has been in an
887 almost constant state of change since I joined the team, even though
888 the goal of the RFC Editor remains the same: to produce archival
889 quality RFCs in a timely manner that are easily accessible for future
890 generations.
892 4. The Next Fifty Years of RFCs
894 As Steve Crocker mentioned, the Series began with a goal of
895 communication over formality, openness over structure. As the
896 Internet has grown and become a pervasive, global construct, we still
897 aim for openness and communication, but recognize that for protocols
898 and other information to support interoperability, there must be
899 points of stability to build from. Small-time app developers to
900 multi-billion dollar companies are on the same footing. Anyone
901 should be able to look back at a point in time and understand what
902 was done, and why.
904 While the informality has given way to increased structure, the
905 openness and solid foundation that the Series provides must continue.
906 With that in mind, what is next for the next fifty years of RFCs?
908 4.1. Preservation
910 The RFC Editor exists to edit, publish, and maintain an archive of
911 documents published in the RFC Series. A proper digital archive,
912 however, is more than just saving RFCs to disk and making sure the
913 disks are backed up; the field of digital preservation has grown and
914 transformed into an industry in and of itself. "Digital Preservation
915 Considerations for the RFC Series" [RFC8153] reviews what a digital
916 archive means today and describes ways to support the archive into
917 the future, and recommends ways for the RFC Editor to take advantage
918 of those organizations that specialize in this field.
920 The future of digital preservation as far as the RFC Series is
921 concerned will mean both finding new partners that can absorb and
922 archive RFCs into a public, maintained digital archive, and reviewing
923 the RFC format to ensure that the published documents are archivable
924 according to whatever the industry best practice is over time.
926 4.2. Evolution of the RFC Format
928 RFCs have been digital documents since very early in the days of the
929 Series. While not always published in US-ASCII, that format has been
930 the canonical format for decades. The fact that this format has
931 lasted through so much evolution and change is remarkable.
933 Unfortunately, the old US-ASCII format does not extend enough to meet
934 the expectations and requirements of users today. The entire field
935 of online document presentation, consumption, and preservation, has
936 in some cases only been invented years after the first RFC was
937 published. While it can (and has) been argued that those newer
938 fields and their tools have not had a chance to stand the test of
939 time, the RFC Series Editor (in consultation with the community)
940 started a concerted effort in 2012 to bring the RFC Series into
941 alignment with a new array of possibilities for preservation and
942 display.
944 Information about the current RFC format project, the reasoning and
945 requirements for the changes underway today, can be found in
946 [RFC7990]. With the advent of these changes, the door has been
947 opened to consider further changes in the future as the
948 specifications for archiving digital material evolves, and as the
949 expectation of web development advances.
951 4.3. Stream Structure
953 In the eyes of many, particularly within the IETF, the RFC Series is
954 synonymous with the IETF. While the Series itself predates the IETF
955 by eighteen years, over time the IETF has become the source of the
956 majority of documents submitted for publication to the RFC Editor.
957 The policies developed for IETF stream drafts tend to apply across
958 all four document streams, and publication-related tools tend to
959 focus on the IETF as the primary audience for their use. It is
960 difficult for people to see how, or even why, there is a distinction
961 between the Series and the IETF.
963 We are in the midst of that question now more than ever. What is the
964 future of the Series? If people cannot tell where the IETF ends and
965 the Series starts, should we consider this an artificial distinction
966 and declare them to be the same entity?
968 Ultimately, this will be something the community decides, and
969 conversations are underway to consider the ramifications of possible
970 changes.
972 5. Conclusion
974 As the Internet evolves, expectations and possibilities evolve, too.
975 Over the next fifty years, the Series will continue to demonstrate a
976 balance between the need to stay true to the original mission of
977 publication and preservation, while also staying relevant to the
978 needs of the authors and consumers of RFCs. The tension in balancing
979 those needs rests on the RFC Editor and the community to resolve. We
980 will not run short of challenges.
982 6.
983 Informative References
985 [IAB-19880712]
986 IAB, "IAB Minutes 1988-07-12", July 1988,
987 .
990 [IETF1] "First IETF; January 16-17, 1986; San Diego, California",
991 January 1986,
992 .
995 [ISI-to-AMS]
996 The IETF Administrative Support Activity, "RFC Production
997 Center Agreement between Association Management Solutions,
998 LLC, and the Internet Society", October 2009,
999 .
1002 [RFC-ONLINE]
1003 RFC Editor, "History of RFC Online Project", April 2019,
1004 .
1006 [RFC0001] Crocker, S., "Host Software", RFC 1, DOI 10.17487/RFC0001,
1007 April 1969, .
1009 [RFC0003] Crocker, S.D., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3,
1010 DOI 10.17487/RFC0003, April 1969,
1011 .
1013 [RFC0114] Bhushan, A.K., "File Transfer Protocol", RFC 114,
1014 DOI 10.17487/RFC0114, April 1971,
1015 .
1017 [RFC0433] Postel, J., "Socket number list", RFC 433,
1018 DOI 10.17487/RFC0433, December 1972,
1019 .
1021 [RFC0690] Postel, J., "Comments on the proposed Host/IMP Protocol
1022 changes", RFC 690, DOI 10.17487/RFC0690, June 1975,
1023 .
1025 [RFC0748] Crispin, M.R., "Telnet randomly-lose option", RFC 748,
1026 DOI 10.17487/RFC0748, April 1978,
1027 .
1029 [RFC0902] Reynolds, J.K. and J. Postel, "ARPA Internet Protocol
1030 policy", RFC 902, DOI 10.17487/RFC0902, July 1984,
1031 .
1033 [RFC1000] Reynolds, J.K. and J. Postel, "Request For Comments
1034 reference guide", RFC 1000, DOI 10.17487/RFC1000, August
1035 1987, .
1037 [RFC1083] Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Internet
1038 Activities Board, "IAB official protocol standards",
1039 RFC 1083, DOI 10.17487/RFC1083, December 1988,
1040 .
1042 [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
1043 Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
1044 DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
1045 .
1047 [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
1048 Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123,
1049 DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989,
1050 .
1052 [RFC1150] Malkin, G.S. and J.K. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction
1053 to the FYI Notes", RFC 1150, DOI 10.17487/RFC1150, March
1054 1990, .
1056 [RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
1057 DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992,
1058 .
1060 [RFC1818] Postel, J., Li, T., and Y. Rekhter, "Best Current
1061 Practices", RFC 1818, DOI 10.17487/RFC1818, August 1995,
1062 .
1064 [RFC2441] Cohen, D., "Working with Jon, Tribute delivered at UCLA,
1065 October 30, 1998", RFC 2441, DOI 10.17487/RFC2441,
1066 November 1998, .
1068 [RFC2468] Cerf, V., "I REMEMBER IANA", RFC 2468,
1069 DOI 10.17487/RFC2468, October 1998,
1070 .
1072 [RFC2555] Editor, RFC. and et. al., "30 Years of RFCs", RFC 2555,
1073 DOI 10.17487/RFC2555, April 1999,
1074 .
1076 [RFC4714] Mankin, A. and S. Hayes, "Requirements for IETF Technical
1077 Publication Service", RFC 4714, DOI 10.17487/RFC4714,
1078 October 2006, .
1080 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
1081 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
1082 July 2007, .
1084 [RFC4845] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "Process
1085 for Publication of IAB RFCs", RFC 4845,
1086 DOI 10.17487/RFC4845, July 2007,
1087 .
1089 [RFC4846] Klensin, J., Ed. and D. Thaler, Ed., "Independent
1090 Submissions to the RFC Editor", RFC 4846,
1091 DOI 10.17487/RFC4846, July 2007,
1092 .
1094 [RFC5540] Editor, RFC., "40 Years of RFCs", RFC 5540,
1095 DOI 10.17487/RFC5540, April 2009,
1096 .
1098 [RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
1099 RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
1100 .
1102 [RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
1103 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
1104 BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
1105 .
1107 [RFC5743] Falk, A., "Definition of an Internet Research Task Force
1108 (IRTF) Document Stream", RFC 5743, DOI 10.17487/RFC5743,
1109 December 2009, .
1111 [RFC6360] Housley, R., "Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series", RFC 6360,
1112 DOI 10.17487/RFC6360, August 2011,
1113 .
1115 [RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
1116 Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
1117 DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,
1118 .
1120 [RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
1121 Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
1122 2012, .
1124 [RFC6949] Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
1125 Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949,
1126 DOI 10.17487/RFC6949, May 2013,
1127 .
1129 [RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990,
1130 DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016,
1131 .
1133 [RFC8153] Flanagan, H., "Digital Preservation Considerations for the
1134 RFC Series", RFC 8153, DOI 10.17487/RFC8153, April 2017,
1135 .
1137 Appendix A. Contributors
1139 With many thanks to Steve Crocker, Vint Cerf, Leslie Daigle, Nevil
1140 Brownlee, and Sandy Ginoza for their perspectives on the Series, and
1141 their ongoing support.
1143 Author's Address
1145 Heather Flanagan (editor)
1146 RFC Editor
1148 Email: rse@rfc-editor.org
1149 URI: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220