idnits 2.17.1 draft-flanagan-fiftyyears-06.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 an Introduction section. ** 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.) -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5540, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2555, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC2555, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1999-04-01) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 3, 2019) is 1812 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Missing reference section? 'RFC0902' on line 884 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC4844' on line 929 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC5620' on line 944 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC6635' on line 962 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC0433' on line 874 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1000' on line 888 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC0003' on line 868 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2468' on line 919 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC4714' on line 925 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC4845' on line 933 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC4846' on line 937 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC5743' on line 951 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC5742' on line 947 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC8153' on line 973 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC7990' on line 970 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'IAB-19880712' on line 844 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'IETF1' on line 849 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'ISI-to-AMS' on line 854 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-ONLINE' on line 861 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC0001' on line 865 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC0114' on line 871 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC0690' on line 877 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC0748' on line 881 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1083' on line 892 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1122' on line 896 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1123' on line 900 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1150' on line 904 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1311' on line 908 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1818' on line 911 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2441' on line 915 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2555' on line 922 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC5540' on line 941 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC6360' on line 955 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC6410' on line 958 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC6949' on line 966 looks like a reference Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 39 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 Updates: 2555, 5540 (if approved) May 3, 2019 5 Intended status: Informational 6 Expires: November 4, 2019 8 Fifty Years of RFCs 9 draft-flanagan-fiftyyears-06 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 November 4, 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 44 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 59 3.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 60 3.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 61 3.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 62 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 63 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 64 4.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 65 4.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 66 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 67 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 68 Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 69 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 71 1. 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 In this document, several individuals who have been a part of shaping 123 the Series offer their observations of key moments in the series. 124 Steve Crocker, author of RFC 1, offers his thoughts on how and why 125 the Series began. Leslie Daigle, a major influence in the 126 development of the RFC Editor model, offers her thoughts on the 127 change of the RFC Editor to a stronger, contracted function. Nevil 128 Brownlee, Independent Submissions Editor from 2010 through February 129 2018, shares his view on the clarification of the IS and its 130 transition from Bob Braden. As the current RFC Series Editor, I will 131 put my thoughts in on the most recent changes in formalizing the 132 digital preservation of the Series, the process to modernize the 133 format while respecting the need for stability, and my thoughts on 134 the next fifty years of RFCs. 136 This document brings up to date the historical records started in 137 RFCs 2555 and 5540. 139 2. 141 3. 143 3.1. 145 [This is a revision of material included in [RFC1000] August 1987, 146 more than thirty years ago.] 148 The Internet community now includes millions of nodes and billions of 149 users. It owes its beginning to the ARPANET, which was once but a 150 gleam in the eyes of J. C. R. Licklider, Bob Taylor, and Larry 151 Roberts of ARPA. While much of the development proceeded according 152 to plan, the initial design of the protocols and the creation of the 153 RFCs was largely accidental. 155 The procurement of the ARPANET was initiated in the summer of 1968 156 --remember Vietnam, flower children, etc.? There had been prior 157 experiments at various ARPA sites to link together computer systems, 158 but this was the first version to explore packet-switching as a core 159 part of the communication strategy. ("ARPA" didn't become "DARPA" 160 until 1972. It briefly changed back to ARPA in 1993 and then back 161 again to DARPA.) The government's Request for Quotations (RFQ) 162 called for four packet-switching devices, called Interface Message 163 Processors ("IMPs"), to be delivered to four sites in the western 164 part of the United States: University of California, Los Angeles 165 (UCLA); SRI International in Menlo Park, CA; University of 166 California, Santa Barbara; the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. 167 These sites, respectively, were running a Scientific Data Systems 168 (SDS) Sigma 7, an SDS 940, an IBM 360/75, and a DEC PDP-10. These 169 machines not only had different operating systems, but even details 170 like character sets and byte sizes varied, and other sites would have 171 further variations. 173 The focus was on the basic movement of data. The precise use of the 174 ARPANET was not spelled out in advance, thus requiring the research 175 community to take some initiative. To stimulate this process, a 176 meeting was called in August 1968 with representatives from the 177 selected sites, chaired by Elmer Shapiro from SRI. Based on 178 Shapiro's notes from that meeting, the attendees were Dave Hopper and 179 Jeff Rulifson from SRI, Glen Culler and Gordon Buck from Santa 180 Barbara, R. Stephenson, C. Stephen Carr and W. Boam from Utah, 181 Vint Cerf and me from UCLA, and a few others from potential future 182 sites. 184 That first meeting was seminal. We had lots of questions. How IMPs 185 and "hosts" (I think that was the first time I was exposed to that 186 term) would be connected? What hosts would say to each other? What 187 applications would be supported? The only concrete answers were 188 remote login as a replacement for dial-up, telephone based 189 interactive terminal access, and file transfer, but we knew the 190 vision had to be larger. We found ourselves imagining all kinds of 191 possibilities -- interactive graphics, cooperating processes, 192 automatic data base query, electronic mail -- but no one knew where 193 to begin. We weren't sure whether there was really room to think 194 hard about these problems; surely someone senior and in charge, 195 likely from the East, would be along by and by to bring the word. 196 But we did come to one conclusion: we ought to meet again. Over the 197 next several months, we met at each of our sites, thereby setting the 198 precedent for regular face to face meetings. We also instantly felt 199 the irony. This new network was supposed to make it possible to work 200 together at a distance, and the first thing we did was schedule a 201 significant amount of travel. 203 Over the next several months, a small, fairly consistent set of 204 graduate students and staff members from the first four sites met. 205 We used the term Network Working Group (NWG) to designate ourselves. 206 This was the same term Elmer Shapiro had used when he convened our 207 first meeting, although it had been used until that point to refer to 208 the principal investigators and ARPA personnel -- senior people who 209 had been planning the network. Our group was junior and disjoint 210 from the prior group, except, of course, that each of us worked for 211 one of the principal investigators. 213 The first few meetings were quite tenuous, primarily because we 214 weren't sure how narrow or expansive our goals should be. We had no 215 official charter or leadership, and it remained unclear, at least to 216 me, whether someone or some group would show up with the official 217 authority and responsibility to take over the problems we were 218 dealing with. Without clear definition of what the host-IMP 219 interface would look like, or even a precise definition of what 220 functions the IMP would provide, we focused on broader ideas. We 221 envisioned the possibility of application specific protocols, with 222 code downloaded to user sites, and we took a crack at designing a 223 language to support this. The first version was known as DEL, for 224 "Decode-Encode Language" and a later version was called NIL, for 225 "Network Interchange Language." 227 In late 1968 Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) in Cambridge, MA won the 228 contract for the IMPs and began work in January 1969. A few of us 229 flew to Boston in the middle of February to meet the BBN crew. The 230 BBN folks, led by Frank Heart, included Bob Kahn, Severo Ornstein, 231 Ben Barker, Will Crowther, Bernie Cosell and Dave Walden. They were 232 organized, professional and focused. Their first concern was how to 233 meet their contract schedule of delivering the first IMP to UCLA at 234 the beginning of September and how to get bits to flow quickly and 235 reliably. The details of the host-IMP interface were not yet firm; 236 the specification came a few months later as BBN Report 1822. In 237 particular, BBN didn't take over our protocol design process, nor did 238 any other source of authority appear. Thus, we doggedly continued 239 debating and designing the protocols. 241 A month later our small NWG met in Utah. As the meeting came toward 242 an end, it became clear to us that we should start writing down our 243 discussions. We had accumulated a few notes on the design of DEL and 244 other matters, and we decided to put them together in a set of notes. 245 We assigned writing chores to each of us, and I took on the 246 additional task of organizing the notes. Though I initiated the 247 RFCs, my role was far less than an editor.. Each of the RFCs were 248 numbered in sequence. The only rule I imposed was the note had to be 249 complete before I assigned a number because I wanted to minimize the 250 number of holes in the sequence. 252 I tried a couple of times to write a note on how the notes would be 253 organized, but I found myself full of trepidation. Would these notes 254 look as if we were asserting authority we didn't have? Would we 255 unintentionally offend whomever the official protocol designers were? 256 Finally, unable to sleep, I wrote the a few humble words. The basic 257 ground rules were that anyone could say anything and that nothing was 258 official. And to emphasize the point, I used Bill Duvall's 259 suggestion and labeled the notes "Request for Comments." I never 260 dreamed these notes would eventually be distributed through the very 261 medium we were discussing in these notes. Talk about Sorcerer's 262 Apprentice! 264 After BBN distributed the specification for the hardware and software 265 interface to the IMPs to the initial ARPANET sites, our attention 266 shifted to low-level matters. The ambitious ideas for automatic 267 downloading of code evaporated. It would be several years before 268 ideas like mobile code, remote procedure calls, ActiveX, JAVA and 269 RESTful interfaces appeared. 271 Over the spring and summer of that year we grappled with the detailed 272 problems of protocol design. Although we had a vision of the vast 273 potential for intercomputer communication, designing usable protocols 274 was another matter. We knew a custom hardware interface and a custom 275 software addition in the operating system was going to be required 276 for anything we designed, and we anticipated these would pose some 277 difficulty at each of the sites. We looked for existing abstractions 278 to use. It would have been convenient if we could have made the 279 network simply look like regular device, e.g. a tape drive, but we 280 knew that wouldn't do. The essence of this network was peer-to-peer 281 cooperation among the machines and the processes running inside them, 282 not a central machine controlling dependent devices. We settled on a 283 virtual bit stream layer as the basic building block for the 284 protocols, but even back then we knew that some applications like 285 voice might need to avoid that layer of software. (Why a virtual bit 286 stream instead of a virtual byte stream? Because each computer had 287 its own notion of how many bits were in a byte. Eight-bit bytes 288 didn't become standard until a few years later.) 290 Over the next two years, we developed, exchanged, and implemented 291 ideas. I took a leave from UCLA in June 1971 to spend time working 292 at ARPA. Jon Postel took over the care and feeding of the RFCs, 293 evolving the process and adding collaborators over the next twenty- 294 seven years. 296 The rapid growth of the network and the working group also led to a 297 large pile of RFCs. When the 100th RFC was in sight, Peggy Karp at 298 MITRE took on the task of indexing them. That seemed like a large 299 task then, and we could have hardly anticipated seeing more than a 300 1000 RFCs several years later, and the evolution toward Internet 301 Drafts yet later. 303 When we first started working on the protocols, the network did not 304 exist. Except for our occasional face-to-face meetings, RFCs were 305 our only means of communication. In [RFC0003], I set the bar as low 306 as possible: 308 Making the RFCs informal was not only a way of encouraging 309 participation; it was also important in making the communication 310 effective. One of the early participants said he was having trouble 311 writing and sending an RFC because his institution wanted to subject 312 them to publication review. These are not "publications," I 313 declared, and the problem went away. Another small detail, handled 314 instinctively and without debate, was the distribution model. Each 315 institution was required to send a copy directly to each of the other 316 handful of participating institutions. Each institution handled 317 internal copies and distribution itself. Submission to a central 318 point for redistribution was not required, so as to minimize delays. 319 SRI's Network Information Center, however, did maintain a central 320 repository of everything and provided an invaluable record. 322 We didn't intentionally set out to challenge the existing standards 323 organizations, but our natural mode of operation yielded some 324 striking results. The RFCs are open in two important respects: 325 anyone can write one for free and anyone get them for free. At the 326 time, virtually everyone in the ARPANET community was sponsored by 327 the government, so there was little competition and no need to use 328 documents as a way of raising money. Of course, as soon as we had 329 email working on the ARPANET, we distributed RFCs electronically. 330 When the ARPANET became just a portion of the Internet, this 331 distribution process became worldwide. The effect of this openness 332 is often overlooked. Students and young professionals all over the 333 world have been able to download the RFCs, learn about the many 334 pieces of technology, and then build the most amazing software. And 335 they still are. [They are also a fantastic resource for historians.] 337 Where will it end? The ARPANET begat the Internet and the underlying 338 technology transitioned from the original host-host protocol to TCP/ 339 IP, but the superstructure of protocol layers, community driven 340 protocol design, and the RFCs continued. Through the many changes in 341 physical layer technology - analog copper circuits, digital circuits, 342 fiber and wireless -- resulting in speed increases from thousands to 343 billions of bits per second and a similar increase from thousands to 344 billions of users, this superstructure, including the RFCs has 345 continued to serve the community. All of the computers have changed, 346 as have all of the transmission lines. But the RFCs march on. Maybe 347 I'll write a few words for RFC 10,000. 349 Quite obviously the circumstances have changed. Email and other 350 media are most often used for the immediate exchange of inchoate 351 thoughts. Internet Drafts are the means for exchanging substantial, 352 albeit sometimes speculative content. And RFCs are reserved for 353 fully polished, reviewed, edited and approved specifications. 354 Comments to RFCs are not requested, although usage-related 355 discussions and other commentary on mailing lists often takes place 356 nonetheless. Rather than bemoan the change, I take it as a 357 remarkable example of adaptation. RFCs continue to serve the 358 protocol development community. Indeed, they are the bedrock of a 359 very vibrant and productive process that has fueled and guided the 360 Internet revolution. 362 3.2. 364 As Steve Crocker mentions in Section 3.1, Jon Postel assumed the role 365 of RFC manager in 1971 when Steve left UCLA for ARPA. Jon took on 366 this role in addition to his subsequent "numbers Czar" 367 responsibilities. Initially, his focus was largely on assigning RFC 368 numbers to aspiring writers but with time, and as the standardization 369 of the ARPANET and Internet protocols continued apace, he began to 370 serve in an editorial capacity. Moreover, as an accomplished 371 software engineer, he had opinions about technical content in 372 addition to writing style and did not hesitate to exercise editorial 373 discretion as would-be published authors presented their offerings 374 for his scrutiny. As the load increased, he recruited additional 375 "volunteer" talent, most notably Joyce K. Reynolds, a fellow 376 researcher at USC/ISI. Over the ensuing years, he also drafted 377 Robert (Bob) Braden into the team and when Jon unexpectedly passed 378 away in October 1998 (see [RFC2468]), Joyce and Bob undertook to 379 carry on with the RFC work in his stead, adding Sandy Ginoza to the 380 team. During the period when Jon and Joyce worked closely together, 381 Joyce would challenge me to tell which edits had been made by Jon and 382 which by her. I found this impossible, so aligned were they in their 383 editorial sensibilities. Sadly, three of these tireless Internauts 384 have passed on and we have only the product of their joint work and 385 Sandy Ginoza's and others' corporate memory by which to recall 386 history. 388 3.3. 390 I was the chair of the Internet Architecture Board, the board 391 responsible for the general oversight of the RFC Series, at a 392 particular inflection point in the evolution of all Internet 393 technology institutions. To understand what we did, and why we had 394 to, let me first paint a broader picture of the arc of these 395 institutions. 397 Like many others who were in decision-making roles in the mid -00's, 398 I wasn't present when the Internet was born. The lore passed down to 399 me was that, out of the group of talented researchers that developed 400 the core specifications and established the direction of the 401 Internet, different individuals stepped up to take on roles necessary 402 to keep the process of specification development organized and open. 403 As the work of specification expanded, those individuals were 404 generally supported by organizations that carried on in the same 405 spirit. This was mostly Jon Postel, managing the allocation and 406 assignment of names and numbers, as well as working as the editor of 407 RFCs, but there were also individuals and institutions supporting the 408 IETF's Secretariat function. By the late 20th century, even this 409 model was wearing thin - the support functions were growing, and 410 organizations didn't have the ability to donate even more resources 411 to run them. In some cases (IANA) there was significant industry and 412 international dependence on the function and its neutrality. 414 The IETF, too, had grown in size, stature, and commercial reliance. 415 This system of institutional pieces "flying in formation" was not 416 providing the kind of contractual regularity or integrated 417 development that the IETF needed. People who hadn't been there as 418 the institutions developed, including IETF decision-makers, didn't 419 innately understand why things "had to be the way they were", and 420 were frustrated when trying to get individual systems updated for new 421 requirements, and better integrated across the spectrum of 422 activities. 424 Internet engineering had expanded beyond the point of being 425 supportable by a loosely-coupled set of organizations of people who 426 had been there since the beginning and knew each other well. New 427 forms of governance and were needed, as well as rationalized funding 428 The IANA function was absorbed into a purpose-built international 429 not-for-profit organization. The IETF stepped up to manage its own 430 organizational destiny, creating the IETF Administrative Support 431 Activity (IASA), and the Secretariat became one of its contracted 432 functions. 434 This left the RFC Editor function as an Internet Society-supported, 435 independent effort. 437 That independent nature was necessary for the historic role of the 438 RFC Series in considering all technical contributions. But, at that 439 inflection point in the Series' history, it needed a new governance 440 and funding model, just as the other Internet technical specification 441 supporting organizations had. Also, the IETF leadership had some 442 concerns it felt needed to addressed in its own technical publication 443 stream. While the RFC Series had been established before there was 444 an IETF, and had historically continued to have documents in it that 445 didn't originate from the IETF, the IETF was its largest and most 446 organized contributor. There was no particular organization of 447 independent contributors. Equally, the funding for the RFC Editor 448 was at that point coming from the Internet Society in the guise of 449 "support for the IETF". For people who hadn't been involved with the 450 institution from the outset, it was pretty easy to perceive the RFC 451 Series uniquely as the IETF's publication series. So, the challenge 452 was to identify and address the IETF's issues, along with governance 453 and funding, without sacrificing the fundamental nature of the RFC 454 Series as a broader-than-IETF publication series. 456 To give a sense of the kinds of tensions that were prevalent, let me 457 share that the one phrase that sticks in my mind from those 458 discussions is: "push to publish". There were those in IETF 459 leadership who felt that it would significantly reduce costs and 460 improve timeliness if an RFC could be published by, literally, 461 pushing a button on a web interface the moment it was approved by the 462 IESG. It would also, they argued, remove the specification issues 463 being introduced by copy-editors that were hired as occasional 464 workers to help with improving publication rates, but who weren't 465 necessarily up to speed on terms of art in technical specifications. 466 (There were some pretty egregious examples of copyeditors introducing 467 changes that significantly changed the technical meaning of the text 468 that I forbear from citing here; let's just say it wasn't strictly a 469 problem of Internet engineers getting uptight about their cheese 470 being moved). While "push to publish" would have addressed those 471 issues, it would not have addressed the loss of clarity from the many 472 significant text improvements copy editors successfully introduced, 473 or the fact that not all RFCs are approved by the IESG. 475 Institutionally, it was clear that the target was to have the RFC 476 Editor function governance within the reach of the Internet technical 477 community (as opposed to any particular private organization), 478 without tying it specifically to the IETF. That was reasonably 479 achievable by ensuring that the resultant pieces were established 480 under the oversight of the IAB (which is, itself, independent of the 481 IETF, even as it is supported by the IASA organization). 483 The IETF worked on a document outlining functional requirements for 484 its technical specification publication. This could have been useful 485 for establishing its own series, but it also was helpful in 486 establishing awareness of the challenges in document publishing (it 487 always looks easy when you haven't thought about it), and also to lay 488 the ground work for dialogue with the RFC Editor. The requirements 489 document was published as [RFC4714], as an Informational RFC that 490 stands today to provide guidance in the editing processes surrounding 491 IETF publications. 493 There was still, however, a certain lack of clarity about 494 responsibilities for making decisions and changes in the RFC Series 495 itself. To that end, I and the IAB worked with the various involved 496 parties to produce [RFC4844]. That document captured the RFC Series 497 mission (for a purpose greater than IETF technical specification 498 publication), as well as the roles and responsibilities of the 499 parties involved. The RFC Editor has responsibility for ensuring the 500 implementation of the mission. The IAB continues to have oversight 501 responsibilities, including policy oversight, which it could act on 502 by changing the person (organization) in the role of RFC Editor. At 503 the same time, operational oversight was migrated to the IASA support 504 function of the IETF (and IAB). 506 The discussions, and the resulting publication of RFC 4844, allowed 507 greater visibility into and commitment to the RFC Series, as a 508 general Internet publication. It also meant that subsequent 509 adjustments could be made, as requirements evolved - the responsible 510 parties are clearly identified. 512 3.4. 514 Arguably starting in 2006 with [RFC4714], the IAB and the IETF 515 community spent some time in the mid-2000's evolving the structure of 516 the RFC Series. This work included defining how those groups that 517 published into the RFC Series (initially including the IETF, the IAB 518 [RFC4845], and the Independent Submissions stream [RFC4846], and 519 later growing to include the IRTF [RFC5743]) would handle approving 520 documents to be published as RFCs. In 2009, the IAB published 'RFC 521 Editor (Version 1)' [RFC5620]. In this model, a new role was created 522 within the RFC Editor, the RFC Series Editor (RSE), an individual 523 that would oversee RFC publishing and development, while leaving the 524 process for approving documents for publication outside his or her 525 mandate. While arguably this was a role long filled by people like 526 Jon Postel, Bob Braden, and Joyce Reynolds, RFC 5620 saw the role of 527 RFC Series Editor defined in such a way as to distinctly separate it 528 from that of the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE). 530 Before 2009 the RFC Editor could accept 'Independent' submissions 531 from individuals, and - if he judged they were significant - publish 532 them as RFCs; the Independent Stream was set up to continue that 533 function. From February 2010 through February 2018, I was the 534 Independent Stream Editor (ISE) and I began by reading [RFC4846], 535 then went on to develop the Independent Stream (IS). 537 First I spent several days at the RFC Production Centre at ISI in 538 Marina Del Ray with the RFC Editor (Bob Braden) and Sandy Ginoza and 539 Alice Hagens, so as to learn how RFCs were actually edited and 540 published. All RFCs reach the Production Centre as Internet Drafts; 541 they are copy-edited, until the edited version can be approved by 542 their authors (AUTH48). At any stage authors can check their draft's 543 status in the RFC Editor Database. 545 For the Independent Submissions, Bob kept a journal (a simple ASCII 546 file) of his interactions with authors for every draft, indexed by 547 the draft name. Bob also entered the Independent drafts into the RFC 548 Editor database, so that authors could track their draft's status. 549 After my few days with his team at ISI, he handed me that journal 550 (covering about 30 drafts) over to me and said "now it's over to 551 you!" 553 I began by following in Bob's footsteps, maintaining a journal and 554 tracking each draft's status in the RFC Editor database. My first 555 consideration was that every serious Internet draft submitted needs 556 several careful reviews. If the ISE knows suitable reviewers, he can 557 simply ask them. Otherwise, if the draft relates to an IETF or IRTF 558 Working Group, he can ask ask Working Group chairs or Area Directors 559 to suggest reviewers. As well, the ISE has an Independent 560 Submissions Editorial Board (Ed Board) that he can ask for reviewers. 561 My experience with reviewers was that most of those I approached were 562 happy to help. 564 Most drafts were straightforward, but there were some that needed 565 extra attention. Often a draft requests IANA code points, and for 566 that IANA were always quick to offer help and support. Code points 567 in some IANA Registries require Expert Review - sometimes the 568 interactions with Expert reviewers took quite a long time! Again, 569 sometimes a draft seemed to fit better in the IETF Stream; for these 570 I would suggest that the draft authors try to find an Area Director 571 to sponsor their work as in Individual submission to the IETF Stream. 573 After my first few years as ISE, the IETF Tools Team developed the 574 Data Tracker so that it could keep show draft status, and perform all 575 the 'housekeeping' tasks for all of the streams. At that stage I 576 switched to use the Data Tracker rather than the RFC Editor database. 578 Once a draft has been reviewed, and the authors have revised it in 579 dialogue with their reviewers, the ISE must submit that draft to the 580 IESG for their "Conflict Review" [RFC5742]. Overall, each IS draft 581 benefited from discussions (which were usually simple) with my Ed 582 Board and the IESG. A (very) few drafts were somewhat controversial 583 - for those I was able to work with the IESG to negotiate a suitable 584 'IESG Statement' and/or an 'ISE Statement' to make it clearer why the 585 ISE published the draft. 587 One rather special part of the Independent Stream is the April First 588 drafts. These are humorous RFCs that are never formally posted as 589 drafts and which have no formal review process. The authors must 590 send them directly to the ISE or the RFC Editor. Only a few of them 591 can be published each year; they are reviewed by the ISE and the RSE; 592 Bob Braden's criteria for April First drafts were: 594 April First RFCs have a large following, and feedback from the 595 Internet community on 1 April each year has been enthusiastic and 596 quick! 598 I published 159 Independent Stream RFCs during my eight years as ISE. 599 Over those eight years I worked with, and often met with at IETF 600 meetings, most of their authors. For me that was a very rewarding 601 experience, so I thank all those contributors. Also, I've worked 602 with most of the IESG members during those eight years, that also 603 gave me a lot of helpful interaction. Last, I've always enjoyed 604 working with the RFC Editor, and all the staff of the RFC Production 605 Centre. The IETF (as a whole) is very fortunate to have such an 606 effective team of talented Professional Staff. 608 3.5. 610 When I joined ISI, shortly after Jon Postel passed away, the RFC 611 Editor as we know it today (as defined in RFC 5620, and as obsoleted 612 by RFCs 6548 and 6635) did not exist. The RFC Editor functioned as 613 one unit; there was no RSE, Production Center, Publisher, or 614 Independent Submissions Editor. All of these roles were performed by 615 the RFC Editor, which was comprised of four individuals: Bob Braden, 616 Joyce Reynolds, a part-time student programmer, and me. 618 Bob provided high-level guidance and reviewed Independent 619 Submissions. While Bob was a researcher in "Div 7" (Networking) at 620 ISI, ostensibly, the percentage of time he had for the RFC Editor was 621 10%, but he invested much more time to keep the series running. He 622 pitched in where he could, especially when processing times were 623 getting longer; at one point, he even NROFFed a couple of RFCs-to-be. 624 Joyce was a full-time employee, but while continuing to ensure RFCs 625 were published and serve as a User Services Area Director and a 626 keynote speaker about the Internet, she was also temporarily on loan 627 to IANA for 50% of her time while IANA was getting established after 628 separating from ISI. The student programmer performed programming 629 tasks as requested and was, at the time, responsible for parsing 630 MIBs. I was a full-time staffer and had to quickly learn the ropes 631 so RFCs would continue to be published. 633 My primary tasks were to manage the publication queue, format and 634 prepare documents for Joyce's review, carry out AUTH48 once Joyce 635 completed her review, and publish, index, and archive the RFCs (both 636 soft and hard copies). 638 The workload increased significantly over the next few years. As the 639 workload increased, the RFC Editor reacted and slowly grew their 640 staff over time. To understand the team growth, let's first take a 641 look at the publication rates throughout history. The table below 642 shows average annual publication rates during 5-year periods. 644 There were significant jumps in the publication rates in the 90s and 645 onward, with the number of publications almost doubling between 1993 646 and 2007. The annual submission count surpassed the 300 mark for the 647 first time in 2004 and reached an all-time high of 385 in 2011. The 648 submission rate did not drop below 300 until 2016 (284). 650 As the submissions grew, the RFC Editor experienced growing pains. 651 Processing times began to increase as the existing staff was unable 652 to keep up with the expanding queue size. In an attempt to reduce 653 the training hump and to avoid permanently hiring staff in case the 654 submission burst was a fluke, ISI brought on temporary copy editors - 655 this way, the staff could easily be resized as needed. However, as 656 Leslie noted, this didn't work very well. The effects of the 657 experiment would be lasting, as this led to a form of the process we 658 have now, where the RFC Editor asks more questions during AUTH/AUTH48 659 and technical changes require approval from the relevant Area 660 Directors or stream managers, depending on the document stream. 661 These changes added to the workload and extended publication times; 662 many often now jokingly refer to AUTH48 as the authors' "48 days", 663 "48 weeks", etc. 665 Because the workload continued to increase (in more ways than just 666 document submissions; tool testing, editorial process changes, and 667 more) and the lessons learned with temporary copy editors, our team 668 grew more permanently. While we had other editors in between, two 669 additions are of particular interest, as they experienced much of the 670 RFC Editor's growing pains, helped work us out of a backlogged state, 671 shaped the RFC Editor function, and are still with the team today: 672 Alice Russo joined the team in 2005 and Megan Ferguson joined us in 673 2007. 675 With the understanding that the record breaking number of submissions 676 was not an anomaly, we made significant upgrades to the 677 infrastructure of the RFC Editor function to facilitate document 678 tracking and reporting. For example, the illustrious "black binder" 679 - an actual 3-ring binder used to track number assignment, a manually 680 edited HTML file for the queue page, and a Rube-Goldberg set of text 681 files and scripts that created queue statistics, all were eventually 682 replaced; an errata system was proposed and implemented; and XML 683 became a newly accepted source file. 685 In 2009, RFC 5620 was published, introducing the initial version of 686 the RFC Editor model we have now. While it was published in 2009, it 687 did not go into effect until 2010, when the RFC Editor project as I 688 knew it was disbanded and divvied up into four pieces: RFC Series 689 Editor (RSE), Independent Submissions Editor (ISE), RFC Production 690 Center (RPC), and Publisher. In addition, the RFC Series Advisory 691 Group (RSAG) was created to "provide expert, informed guidance 692 (chiefly, to the RSE) in matters affecting the RFC Series operation 693 and development." 695 In 2010, the RPC and Publisher contracts were awarded to Association 696 Management Systems (AMS); we started with three existing team members 697 (Alice Russo, Megan Ferguson, and me) and we were pleased to be 698 joined by Lynne Bartholomew, a new colleague to anchor us in the AMS 699 office, and later Rebecca VanRheenen shortly thereafter. 701 I was wary of this model and was especially worried about the hole 702 Bob Braden's departure would create. Luckily for us, Bob Braden 703 provided wise counsel and insight during the transition (and beyond). 704 He gave the staff transitioning to AMS particularly helpful parting 705 words - "keep the RFCs coming" - and that is what we did. 707 AMS embraced the RFC Series and helped us quickly get set up on new 708 servers. The RFC Production Center and Publisher were now part of 709 the AMS family and it was all hands on deck to make sure the 710 transition went smoothly to minimize the impact on document 711 processing. 713 Our focus during transition was to 1) keep the trains running; that 714 is, we wanted to get ourselves up and running with minimal down time 715 and 2) work with the Transitional RSE, the Independent Submissions 716 Editor (Nevil Brownlee), RSAG, and the IAD to better understand and 717 implement the newly defined RFC Editor model. 719 Though some portions of the transition were challenging and lasted 720 longer than expected, the Acting RSE (Olaf Kolkman) officially handed 721 the reins over to the RSE (Heather Flanagan) in 2012. She had to 722 jump in, learn the RFC Editor and IETF culture, and work through a 723 backlog of issues that had been left unattended. 725 Two of the backlogged issues were so old, they were ones someone 726 asked me about at my first IETF: when is the RFC Editor going to 727 allow non-ASCII characters in RFCs, and when will the RFC Editor 728 adopt a more modern publication format. 730 At that time, while we understood the desire to move toward 731 supporting a broader range of character sets and to have more modern 732 outputs, we also routinely received emails from individuals 733 requesting that we send them plain-text files (instead of pointing 734 them to the website) because their Internet access was limited. We 735 also regularly received complaints from rfc-editor.org users whenever 736 something on the site didn't work correctly with their older 737 browsers. In short, we could not advance without leaving a large 738 number of users behind. 740 However, we now find ourselves on the precipice of change. 2019 741 promises to be a BIG year for the RFC Series, as we expect to 742 transition from publishing plaintext, ASCII-only files to publishing 743 multiple file formats (XML, HTML, PDF/A-3, and TXT) that allow both 744 non-ASCII characters and SVG art. 746 Interestingly enough, I find that the RFC Editor has been in an 747 almost constant state of change since I joined the team, even though 748 the goal of the RFC Editor remains the same: to produce archival 749 quality RFCs in a timely manner that are easily accessible for future 750 generations. 752 4. 754 As Steve Crocker mentioned, the Series began with a goal of 755 communication over formality, openness over structure. As the 756 Internet has grown and become a pervasive, global construct, we still 757 aim for openness and communication, but recognize that for protocols 758 and other information to support interoperability, there must be 759 points of stability to build from. Small-time app developers to 760 multi-billion dollar companies are on the same footing. Anyone 761 should be able to look back at a point in time and understand what 762 was done, and why. 764 While the informality has given way to increased structure, the 765 openness and solid foundation that the Series provides must continue. 766 With that in mind, what is next for the next fifty years of RFCs? 768 4.1. 770 The RFC Editor exists to edit, publish, and maintain an archive of 771 documents published in the RFC Series. A proper digital archive, 772 however, is more than just saving RFCs to disk and making sure the 773 disks are backed up; the field of digital preservation has grown and 774 transformed into an industry in and of itself. "Digital Preservation 775 Considerations for the RFC Series" [RFC8153] reviews what a digital 776 archive means today and describes ways to support the archive into 777 the future, and recommends ways for the RFC Editor to take advantage 778 of those organizations that specialize in this field. 780 The future of digital preservation as far as the RFC Series is 781 concerned will mean both finding new partners that can absorb and 782 archive RFCs into a public, maintained digital archive, and reviewing 783 the RFC format to ensure that the published documents are archivable 784 according to whatever the industry best practice is over time. 786 4.2. 788 RFCs have been digital documents since very early in the days of the 789 Series. While not always published in US-ASCII, that format has been 790 the canonical format for decades. The fact that this format has 791 lasted through so much evolution and change is remarkable. 793 Unfortunately, the old US-ASCII format does not extend enough to meet 794 the expectations and requirements of users today. The entire field 795 of online document presentation, consumption, and preservation, has 796 in some cases only been invented years after the first RFC was 797 published. While it can (and has) been argued that those newer 798 fields and their tools have not had a chance to stand the test of 799 time, the RFC Series Editor (in consultation with the community) 800 started a concerted effort in 2012 to bring the RFC Series into 801 alignment with a new array of possibilities for preservation and 802 display. 804 Information about the current RFC format project, the reasoning and 805 requirements for the changes underway today, can be found in 806 [RFC7990]. With the advent of these changes, the door has been 807 opened to consider further changes in the future as the 808 specifications for archiving digital material evolves, and as the 809 expectation of web development advances. 811 4.3. 813 In the eyes of many, particularly within the IETF, the RFC Series is 814 synonymous with the IETF. While the Series itself predates the IETF 815 by eighteen years, over time the IETF has become the source of the 816 majority of documents submitted for publication to the RFC Editor. 817 The policies developed for IETF stream drafts tend to apply across 818 all four document streams, and publication-related tools tend to 819 focus on the IETF as the primary audience for their use. It is 820 difficult for people to see how, or even why, there is a distinction 821 between the Series and the IETF. 823 We are in the midst of that question now more than ever. What is the 824 future of the Series? If people cannot tell where the IETF ends and 825 the Series starts, should we consider this an artificial distinction 826 and declare them to be the same entity? 828 Ultimately, this will be something the community decides, and 829 conversations are underway to consider the ramifications of possible 830 changes. 832 5. 834 As the Internet evolves, expectations and possibilities evolve, too. 835 Over the next fifty years, the Series will continue to demonstrate a 836 balance between the need to stay true to the original mission of 837 publication and preservation, while also staying relevant to the 838 needs of the authors and consumers of RFCs. The tension in balancing 839 those needs rests on the RFC Editor and the community to resolve. We 840 will not run short of challenges. 842 6. References 844 [IAB-19880712] 845 IAB, "IAB Minutes 1988-07-12", July 1988, 846 . 849 [IETF1] "First IETF; January 16-17, 1986; San Diego, California", 850 January 1986, 851 . 854 [ISI-to-AMS] 855 The IETF Administrative Support Activity, "RFC Production 856 Center Agreement between Association Management Solutions, 857 LLC, and the Internet Society", October 2009, 858 . 861 [RFC-ONLINE] 862 RFC Editor, "History of RFC Online Project", n.d., 863 . 865 [RFC0001] Crocker, S., "Host Software", April 1969, 866 . 868 [RFC0003] Crocker, S., "Documentation conventions", April 1969, 869 . 871 [RFC0114] Bhushan, A., "File Transfer Protocol", April 1971, 872 . 874 [RFC0433] Postel, J., "Socket number list", December 1972, 875 . 877 [RFC0690] Postel, J., "Comments on the proposed Host/IMP Protocol 878 changes", June 1975, 879 . 881 [RFC0748] Crispin, M., "Telnet randomly-lose option", April 1978, 882 . 884 [RFC0902] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "ARPA Internet Protocol 885 policy", July 1984, 886 . 888 [RFC1000] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Request For Comments 889 reference guide", August 1987, 890 . 892 [RFC1083] Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Internet 893 Activities Board, "IAB official protocol standards", 894 December 1988, . 896 [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - 897 Communication Layers", October 1989, 898 . 900 [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - 901 Application and Support", October 1989, 902 . 904 [RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction to 905 the FYI Notes", March 1990, 906 . 908 [RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", March 1992, 909 . 911 [RFC1818] Postel, J., Li, T., and Y. Rekhter, "Best Current 912 Practices", August 1995, 913 . 915 [RFC2441] Cohen, D., "Working with Jon, Tribute delivered at UCLA, 916 October 30, 1998", November 1998, 917 . 919 [RFC2468] Cerf, V., "I REMEMBER IANA", October 1998, 920 . 922 [RFC2555] Editor, RFC. and et. al., "30 Years of RFCs", April 1999, 923 . 925 [RFC4714] Mankin, A. and S. Hayes, "Requirements for IETF Technical 926 Publication Service", October 2006, 927 . 929 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 930 Series and RFC Editor", July 2007, 931 . 933 [RFC4845] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "Process 934 for Publication of IAB RFCs", July 2007, 935 . 937 [RFC4846] Klensin, J., Ed. and D. Thaler, Ed., "Independent 938 Submissions to the RFC Editor", July 2007, 939 . 941 [RFC5540] Editor, RFC., "40 Years of RFCs", April 2009, 942 . 944 [RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", 945 August 2009, . 947 [RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for 948 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", 949 December 2009, . 951 [RFC5743] Falk, A., "Definition of an Internet Research Task Force 952 (IRTF) Document Stream", December 2009, 953 . 955 [RFC6360] Housley, R., "Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series", August 956 2011, . 958 [RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the 959 Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", October 2011, 960 . 962 [RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor 963 Model (Version 2)", June 2012, 964 . 966 [RFC6949] Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format 967 Requirements and Future Development", May 2013, 968 . 970 [RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", December 2016, 971 . 973 [RFC8153] Flanagan, H., "Digital Preservation Considerations for the 974 RFC Series", April 2017, 975 . 977 Appendix A. 979 With many thanks to Steve Crocker, Vint Cerf, Leslie Daigle, Nevil 980 Brownlee, and Sandy Ginoza for their perspectives on the Series, and 981 their ongoing support. 983 Author's Address 985 Heather Flanagan (editor) 986 RFC Editor 988 Email: rse@rfc-editor.org 989 URI: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220