idnits 2.17.1
draft-flanagan-fiftyyears-07.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 (June 3, 2019) is 1788 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2555' is defined on line 1067, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC5540' is defined on line 1089, 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) June 3, 2019
5 Intended status: Informational
6 Expires: December 5, 2019
8 Fifty Years of RFCs
9 draft-flanagan-fiftyyears-07
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 the perspectives
18 offered 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 December 5, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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, the history of the series is viewed through the
129 eyes of several individuals who have been a part of shaping the
130 Series. Narratives of this nature offer a limited perspective on
131 events; there are almost certainly other viewpoints, memories, and
132 perspective on events that are equally valid and would reflect a
133 different history. So, while these retrospectives are enormously
134 valuable and provide an insight to events of the day, they are just
135 one lens on the history of the RFC Series.
137 Steve Crocker, author of RFC 1, offers his thoughts on how and why
138 the Series began. Leslie Daigle, a major influence in the
139 development of the RFC Editor model, offers her thoughts on the
140 change of the RFC Editor to a stronger, contracted function. Nevil
141 Brownlee, Independent Submissions Editor from 2010 through February
142 2018, shares his view on the clarification of the IS and its
143 transition from Bob Braden. As the current RFC Series Editor, I will
144 put my thoughts in on the most recent changes in formalizing the
145 digital preservation of the Series, the process to modernize the
146 format while respecting the need for stability, and my thoughts on
147 the next fifty years of RFCs.
149 This document updates the perspectives offered in RFCs 2555 and 5540.
151 2. Key Moments in RFC History
153 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
154 | Marker | Date | Event |
155 +====================+===========+=================================+
156 | [RFC0001] | 1969 | First RFC published |
157 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
158 | [RFC0114] | 1971 | First distribution of RFCs over |
159 | | | the network |
160 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
161 | [RFC0433] | December | First mention of the Czar of |
162 | | 1972 | Socket Numbers and the proposal |
163 | | | for a formal registry |
164 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
165 | [RFC0690] | June 1975 | Relationship starts between ISI |
166 | | | and the RFC Editor, judging by |
167 | | | Jon Postel's affiliation change |
168 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
169 | [RFC0748] | March | First April 1st RFC |
170 | | 1977 | |
171 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
172 | [IETF1] | January | First Internet Engineering Task |
173 | | 1986 | Force (IETF) meeting |
174 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
175 | [RFC1083] | October | Three stage standards process |
176 | | 1989 | first defined |
177 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
178 | [RFC1122][RFC1123] | December | First major effort to review |
179 | | 1988 | key specifications and write |
180 | | | applicability statements |
181 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
182 | [RFC1150] | March | FYI sub-series started |
183 | | 1990 | |
184 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
185 | [RFC1311] | March | STD sub-series started |
186 | | 1992 | |
187 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
188 | [RFC1818] | August | BCP sub-series started |
189 | | 1995 | |
190 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
191 | [RFC-ONLINE] | (approx) | RFC Online Project to restore |
192 | | 1998-2010 | lost early RFCs |
193 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
194 | [IAB-19880712] | July 1988 | IAB approved the creation of an |
195 | | | Internet Draft series |
196 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
197 | [RFC2441] | 15 | Jon Postel's death |
198 | | October | |
199 | | 1998 | |
200 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
201 | [ISI-to-AMS] | October | Transition starts from ISI to |
202 | | 2009 | Association Management |
203 | | | Solutions (AMS) |
204 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
205 | [RFC4844] | July 2007 | RFC Stream structure |
206 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
207 | [RFC4846] | July 2007 | Formalize the Independent |
208 | | | Submission document stream |
209 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
210 | [RFC5743] | December | Formalize the Internet Research |
211 | | 2009 | Task Force document stream |
212 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
213 | [RFC6360] | August | FYI sub-series ended |
214 | | 2011 | |
215 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
216 | [RFC6410] | October | Two stage standards process |
217 | | 2011 | formalized |
218 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
219 | [RFC6949] | May 2013 | RFC Format change project |
220 | | | started |
221 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
222 | [RFC8153] | April | RFCs no longer printed to paper |
223 | | 2017 | upon publication |
224 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
226 Table 1: Key Moments in RFC History
228 3. Perspectives
230 3.1. The Origins of RFCs - by Stephen D. Crocker
232 [This is a revision of material included in [RFC1000] August 1987,
233 more than thirty years ago.]
235 The Internet community now includes millions of nodes and billions of
236 users. It owes its beginning to the ARPANET, which was once but a
237 gleam in the eyes of J. C. R. Licklider, Bob Taylor, and Larry
238 Roberts of ARPA. While much of the development proceeded according
239 to plan, the initial design of the protocols and the creation of the
240 RFCs was largely accidental.
242 The procurement of the ARPANET was initiated in the summer of 1968
243 --remember Vietnam, flower children, etc.? There had been prior
244 experiments at various ARPA sites to link together computer systems,
245 but this was the first version to explore packet-switching as a core
246 part of the communication strategy. ("ARPA" didn't become "DARPA"
247 until 1972. It briefly changed back to ARPA in 1993 and then back
248 again to DARPA.) The government's Request for Quotations (RFQ)
249 called for four packet-switching devices, called Interface Message
250 Processors ("IMPs"), to be delivered to four sites in the western
251 part of the United States: University of California, Los Angeles
252 (UCLA); SRI International in Menlo Park, CA; University of
253 California, Santa Barbara; the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
254 These sites, respectively, were running a Scientific Data Systems
255 (SDS) Sigma 7, an SDS 940, an IBM 360/75, and a DEC PDP-10. These
256 machines not only had different operating systems, but even details
257 like character sets and byte sizes varied, and other sites would have
258 further variations.
260 The focus was on the basic movement of data. The precise use of the
261 ARPANET was not spelled out in advance, thus requiring the research
262 community to take some initiative. To stimulate this process, a
263 meeting was called in August 1968 with representatives from the
264 selected sites, chaired by Elmer Shapiro from SRI. Based on
265 Shapiro's notes from that meeting, the attendees were Dave Hopper and
266 Jeff Rulifson from SRI, Glen Culler and Gordon Buck from Santa
267 Barbara, R. Stephenson, C. Stephen Carr and W. Boam from Utah,
268 Vint Cerf and me from UCLA, and a few others from potential future
269 sites.
271 That first meeting was seminal. We had lots of questions. How IMPs
272 and "hosts" (I think that was the first time I was exposed to that
273 term) would be connected? What hosts would say to each other? What
274 applications would be supported? The only concrete answers were
275 remote login as a replacement for dial-up, telephone based
276 interactive terminal access, and file transfer, but we knew the
277 vision had to be larger. We found ourselves imagining all kinds of
278 possibilities -- interactive graphics, cooperating processes,
279 automatic data base query, electronic mail -- but no one knew where
280 to begin. We weren't sure whether there was really room to think
281 hard about these problems; surely someone senior and in charge,
282 likely from the East, would be along by and by to bring the word.
283 But we did come to one conclusion: we ought to meet again. Over the
284 next several months, we met at each of our sites, thereby setting the
285 precedent for regular face to face meetings. We also instantly felt
286 the irony. This new network was supposed to make it possible to work
287 together at a distance, and the first thing we did was schedule a
288 significant amount of travel.
290 Over the next several months, a small, fairly consistent set of
291 graduate students and staff members from the first four sites met.
292 We used the term Network Working Group (NWG) to designate ourselves.
293 This was the same term Elmer Shapiro had used when he convened our
294 first meeting, although it had been used until that point to refer to
295 the principal investigators and ARPA personnel -- senior people who
296 had been planning the network. Our group was junior and disjoint
297 from the prior group, except, of course, that each of us worked for
298 one of the principal investigators.
300 The first few meetings were quite tenuous, primarily because we
301 weren't sure how narrow or expansive our goals should be. We had no
302 official charter or leadership, and it remained unclear, at least to
303 me, whether someone or some group would show up with the official
304 authority and responsibility to take over the problems we were
305 dealing with. Without clear definition of what the host-IMP
306 interface would look like, or even a precise definition of what
307 functions the IMP would provide, we focused on broader ideas. We
308 envisioned the possibility of application specific protocols, with
309 code downloaded to user sites, and we took a crack at designing a
310 language to support this. The first version was known as DEL, for
311 "Decode-Encode Language" and a later version was called NIL, for
312 "Network Interchange Language."
314 In late 1968 Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) in Cambridge, MA won the
315 contract for the IMPs and began work in January 1969. A few of us
316 flew to Boston in the middle of February to meet the BBN crew. The
317 BBN folks, led by Frank Heart, included Bob Kahn, Severo Ornstein,
318 Ben Barker, Will Crowther, Bernie Cosell and Dave Walden. They were
319 organized, professional and focused. Their first concern was how to
320 meet their contract schedule of delivering the first IMP to UCLA at
321 the beginning of September and how to get bits to flow quickly and
322 reliably. The details of the host-IMP interface were not yet firm;
323 the specification came a few months later as BBN Report 1822. In
324 particular, BBN didn't take over our protocol design process, nor did
325 any other source of authority appear. Thus, we doggedly continued
326 debating and designing the protocols.
328 A month later our small NWG met in Utah. As the meeting came toward
329 an end, it became clear to us that we should start writing down our
330 discussions. We had accumulated a few notes on the design of DEL and
331 other matters, and we decided to put them together in a set of notes.
332 We assigned writing chores to each of us, and I took on the
333 additional task of organizing the notes. Though I initiated the
334 RFCs, my role was far less than an editor.. Each of the RFCs were
335 numbered in sequence. The only rule I imposed was the note had to be
336 complete before I assigned a number because I wanted to minimize the
337 number of holes in the sequence.
339 I tried a couple of times to write a note on how the notes would be
340 organized, but I found myself full of trepidation. Would these notes
341 look as if we were asserting authority we didn't have? Would we
342 unintentionally offend whomever the official protocol designers were?
343 Finally, unable to sleep, I wrote the a few humble words. The basic
344 ground rules were that anyone could say anything and that nothing was
345 official. And to emphasize the point, I used Bill Duvall's
346 suggestion and labeled the notes "Request for Comments." I never
347 dreamed these notes would eventually be distributed through the very
348 medium we were discussing in these notes. Talk about Sorcerer's
349 Apprentice!
351 After BBN distributed the specification for the hardware and software
352 interface to the IMPs to the initial ARPANET sites, our attention
353 shifted to low-level matters. The ambitious ideas for automatic
354 downloading of code evaporated. It would be several years before
355 ideas like mobile code, remote procedure calls, ActiveX, JAVA and
356 RESTful interfaces appeared.
358 Over the spring and summer of that year we grappled with the detailed
359 problems of protocol design. Although we had a vision of the vast
360 potential for intercomputer communication, designing usable protocols
361 was another matter. We knew a custom hardware interface and a custom
362 software addition in the operating system was going to be required
363 for anything we designed, and we anticipated these would pose some
364 difficulty at each of the sites. We looked for existing abstractions
365 to use. It would have been convenient if we could have made the
366 network simply look like regular device, e.g. a tape drive, but we
367 knew that wouldn't do. The essence of this network was peer-to-peer
368 cooperation among the machines and the processes running inside them,
369 not a central machine controlling dependent devices. We settled on a
370 virtual bit stream layer as the basic building block for the
371 protocols, but even back then we knew that some applications like
372 voice might need to avoid that layer of software. (Why a virtual bit
373 stream instead of a virtual byte stream? Because each computer had
374 its own notion of how many bits were in a byte. Eight-bit bytes
375 didn't become standard until a few years later.)
377 Over the next two years, we developed, exchanged, and implemented
378 ideas. I took a leave from UCLA in June 1971 to spend time working
379 at ARPA. Jon Postel took over the care and feeding of the RFCs,
380 evolving the process and adding collaborators over the next twenty-
381 seven years.
383 The rapid growth of the network and the working group also led to a
384 large pile of RFCs. When the 100th RFC was in sight, Peggy Karp at
385 MITRE took on the task of indexing them. That seemed like a large
386 task then, and we could have hardly anticipated seeing more than a
387 1000 RFCs several years later, and the evolution toward Internet
388 Drafts yet later.
390 When we first started working on the protocols, the network did not
391 exist. Except for our occasional face-to-face meetings, RFCs were
392 our only means of communication. In [RFC0003], I set the bar as low
393 as possible:
395 The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc.
396 related to the HOST software or other aspect of the network.
397 Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than polished.
398 Philosophical positions without examples or other specifics,
399 specific suggestions or implementation techniques without
400 introductory or background explication, and explicit questions
401 without any attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum
402 length for a NWG note is one sentence.
404 These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two
405 reasons. First, there is a tendency to view a written statement
406 as ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to promote the exchange
407 and discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas.
408 Second, there is a natural hesitancy to publish something
409 unpolished, and we hope to ease this inhibition.
411 Making the RFCs informal was not only a way of encouraging
412 participation; it was also important in making the communication
413 effective. One of the early participants said he was having trouble
414 writing and sending an RFC because his institution wanted to subject
415 them to publication review. These are not "publications," I
416 declared, and the problem went away. Another small detail, handled
417 instinctively and without debate, was the distribution model. Each
418 institution was required to send a copy directly to each of the other
419 handful of participating institutions. Each institution handled
420 internal copies and distribution itself. Submission to a central
421 point for redistribution was not required, so as to minimize delays.
422 SRI's Network Information Center, however, did maintain a central
423 repository of everything and provided an invaluable record.
425 We didn't intentionally set out to challenge the existing standards
426 organizations, but our natural mode of operation yielded some
427 striking results. The RFCs are open in two important respects:
428 anyone can write one for free and anyone get them for free. At the
429 time, virtually everyone in the ARPANET community was sponsored by
430 the government, so there was little competition and no need to use
431 documents as a way of raising money. Of course, as soon as we had
432 email working on the ARPANET, we distributed RFCs electronically.
433 When the ARPANET became just a portion of the Internet, this
434 distribution process became worldwide. The effect of this openness
435 is often overlooked. Students and young professionals all over the
436 world have been able to download the RFCs, learn about the many
437 pieces of technology, and then build the most amazing software. And
438 they still are. [They are also a fantastic resource for historians.]
440 Where will it end? The ARPANET begat the Internet and the underlying
441 technology transitioned from the original host-host protocol to TCP/
442 IP, but the superstructure of protocol layers, community driven
443 protocol design, and the RFCs continued. Through the many changes in
444 physical layer technology - analog copper circuits, digital circuits,
445 fiber and wireless -- resulting in speed increases from thousands to
446 billions of bits per second and a similar increase from thousands to
447 billions of users, this superstructure, including the RFCs has
448 continued to serve the community. All of the computers have changed,
449 as have all of the transmission lines. But the RFCs march on. Maybe
450 I'll write a few words for RFC 10,000.
452 Quite obviously the circumstances have changed. Email and other
453 media are most often used for the immediate exchange of inchoate
454 thoughts. Internet Drafts are the means for exchanging substantial,
455 albeit sometimes speculative content. And RFCs are reserved for
456 fully polished, reviewed, edited and approved specifications.
457 Comments to RFCs are not requested, although usage-related
458 discussions and other commentary on mailing lists often takes place
459 nonetheless. Rather than bemoan the change, I take it as a
460 remarkable example of adaptation. RFCs continue to serve the
461 protocol development community. Indeed, they are the bedrock of a
462 very vibrant and productive process that has fueled and guided the
463 Internet revolution.
465 3.2. The RFC Management and Editing Team - Vint Cerf
467 As Steve Crocker mentions in Section 3.1, Jon Postel assumed the role
468 of RFC manager in 1971 when Steve left UCLA for ARPA. Jon took on
469 this role in addition to his subsequent "numbers Czar"
470 responsibilities. Initially, his focus was largely on assigning RFC
471 numbers to aspiring writers but with time, and as the standardization
472 of the ARPANET and Internet protocols continued apace, he began to
473 serve in an editorial capacity. Moreover, as an accomplished
474 software engineer, he had opinions about technical content in
475 addition to writing style and did not hesitate to exercise editorial
476 discretion as would-be published authors presented their offerings
477 for his scrutiny. As the load increased, he recruited additional
478 "volunteer" talent, most notably Joyce K. Reynolds, a fellow
479 researcher at USC/ISI. Over the ensuing years, he also drafted
480 Robert (Bob) Braden into the team and when Jon unexpectedly passed
481 away in October 1998 (see [RFC2468]), Joyce and Bob undertook to
482 carry on with the RFC work in his stead, adding Sandy Ginoza to the
483 team. During the period when Jon and Joyce worked closely together,
484 Joyce would challenge me to tell which edits had been made by Jon and
485 which by her. I found this impossible, so aligned were they in their
486 editorial sensibilities. Sadly, three of these tireless Internauts
487 have passed on and we have only the product of their joint work and
488 Sandy Ginoza's and others' corporate memory by which to recall
489 history.
491 3.3. Formalizing the RFC Editor Model - Leslie Daigle
493 I was the chair of the Internet Architecture Board, the board
494 responsible for the general oversight of the RFC Series, at a
495 particular inflection point in the evolution of all Internet
496 technology institutions. To understand what we did, and why we had
497 to, let me first paint a broader picture of the arc of these
498 institutions.
500 Like many others who were in decision-making roles in the mid -00's,
501 I wasn't present when the Internet was born. The lore passed down to
502 me was that, out of the group of talented researchers that developed
503 the core specifications and established the direction of the
504 Internet, different individuals stepped up to take on roles necessary
505 to keep the process of specification development organized and open.
506 As the work of specification expanded, those individuals were
507 generally supported by organizations that carried on in the same
508 spirit. This was mostly Jon Postel, managing the allocation and
509 assignment of names and numbers, as well as working as the editor of
510 RFCs, but there were also individuals and institutions supporting the
511 IETF's Secretariat function. By the late 20th century, even this
512 model was wearing thin - the support functions were growing, and
513 organizations didn't have the ability to donate even more resources
514 to run them. In some cases (IANA) there was significant industry and
515 international dependence on the function and its neutrality.
517 The IETF, too, had grown in size, stature, and commercial reliance.
518 This system of institutional pieces "flying in formation" was not
519 providing the kind of contractual regularity or integrated
520 development that the IETF needed. People who hadn't been there as
521 the institutions developed, including IETF decision-makers, didn't
522 innately understand why things "had to be the way they were", and
523 were frustrated when trying to get individual systems updated for new
524 requirements, and better integrated across the spectrum of
525 activities.
527 Internet engineering had expanded beyond the point of being
528 supportable by a loosely-coupled set of organizations of people who
529 had been there since the beginning and knew each other well. New
530 forms of governance and were needed, as well as rationalized funding
531 The IANA function was absorbed into a purpose-built international
532 not-for-profit organization. The IETF stepped up to manage its own
533 organizational destiny, creating the IETF Administrative Support
534 Activity (IASA), and the Secretariat became one of its contracted
535 functions.
537 This left the RFC Editor function as an Internet Society-supported,
538 independent effort.
540 That independent nature was necessary for the historic role of the
541 RFC Series in considering all technical contributions. But, at that
542 inflection point in the Series' history, it needed a new governance
543 and funding model, just as the other Internet technical specification
544 supporting organizations had. Also, the IETF leadership had some
545 concerns it felt needed to addressed in its own technical publication
546 stream. While the RFC Series had been established before there was
547 an IETF, and had historically continued to have documents in it that
548 didn't originate from the IETF, the IETF was its largest and most
549 organized contributor. There was no particular organization of
550 independent contributors. Equally, the funding for the RFC Editor
551 was at that point coming from the Internet Society in the guise of
552 "support for the IETF". For people who hadn't been involved with the
553 institution from the outset, it was pretty easy to perceive the RFC
554 Series uniquely as the IETF's publication series. So, the challenge
555 was to identify and address the IETF's issues, along with governance
556 and funding, without sacrificing the fundamental nature of the RFC
557 Series as a broader-than-IETF publication series.
559 To give a sense of the kinds of tensions that were prevalent, let me
560 share that the one phrase that sticks in my mind from those
561 discussions is: "push to publish". There were those in IETF
562 leadership who felt that it would significantly reduce costs and
563 improve timeliness if an RFC could be published by, literally,
564 pushing a button on a web interface the moment it was approved by the
565 IESG. It would also, they argued, remove the specification issues
566 being introduced by copy-editors that were hired as occasional
567 workers to help with improving publication rates, but who weren't
568 necessarily up to speed on terms of art in technical specifications.
569 (There were some pretty egregious examples of copyeditors introducing
570 changes that significantly changed the technical meaning of the text
571 that I forbear from citing here; let's just say it wasn't strictly a
572 problem of Internet engineers getting uptight about their cheese
573 being moved). While "push to publish" would have addressed those
574 issues, it would not have addressed the loss of clarity from the many
575 significant text improvements copy editors successfully introduced,
576 or the fact that not all RFCs are approved by the IESG.
578 Institutionally, it was clear that the target was to have the RFC
579 Editor function governance within the reach of the Internet technical
580 community (as opposed to any particular private organization),
581 without tying it specifically to the IETF. That was reasonably
582 achievable by ensuring that the resultant pieces were established
583 under the oversight of the IAB (which is, itself, independent of the
584 IETF, even as it is supported by the IASA organization).
586 The IETF worked on a document outlining functional requirements for
587 its technical specification publication. This could have been useful
588 for establishing its own series, but it also was helpful in
589 establishing awareness of the challenges in document publishing (it
590 always looks easy when you haven't thought about it), and also to lay
591 the ground work for dialogue with the RFC Editor. The requirements
592 document was published as [RFC4714], as an Informational RFC that
593 stands today to provide guidance in the editing processes surrounding
594 IETF publications.
596 There was still, however, a certain lack of clarity about
597 responsibilities for making decisions and changes in the RFC Series
598 itself. To that end, I and the IAB worked with the various involved
599 parties to produce [RFC4844]. That document captured the RFC Series
600 mission (for a purpose greater than IETF technical specification
601 publication), as well as the roles and responsibilities of the
602 parties involved. The RFC Editor has responsibility for ensuring the
603 implementation of the mission. The IAB continues to have oversight
604 responsibilities, including policy oversight, which it could act on
605 by changing the person (organization) in the role of RFC Editor. At
606 the same time, operational oversight was migrated to the IASA support
607 function of the IETF (and IAB).
609 The discussions, and the resulting publication of RFC 4844, allowed
610 greater visibility into and commitment to the RFC Series, as a
611 general Internet publication. It also meant that subsequent
612 adjustments could be made, as requirements evolved - the responsible
613 parties are clearly identified.
615 3.4. The Continuation, or Creation, of a Stream - Nevil Brownlee
617 Arguably starting in 2006 with [RFC4714], the IAB and the IETF
618 community spent some time in the mid-2000's evolving the structure of
619 the RFC Series. This work included defining how those groups that
620 published into the RFC Series (initially including the IETF, the IAB
621 [RFC4845], and the Independent Submissions stream [RFC4846], and
622 later growing to include the IRTF [RFC5743]) would handle approving
623 documents to be published as RFCs. In 2009, the IAB published 'RFC
624 Editor (Version 1)' [RFC5620]. In this model, a new role was created
625 within the RFC Editor, the RFC Series Editor (RSE), an individual
626 that would oversee RFC publishing and development, while leaving the
627 process for approving documents for publication outside his or her
628 mandate. While arguably this was a role long filled by people like
629 Jon Postel, Bob Braden, and Joyce Reynolds, RFC 5620 saw the role of
630 RFC Series Editor defined in such a way as to distinctly separate it
631 from that of the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE).
633 Before 2009 the RFC Editor could accept 'Independent' submissions
634 from individuals, and - if he judged they were significant - publish
635 them as RFCs; the Independent Stream was set up to continue that
636 function. From February 2010 through February 2018, I was the
637 Independent Stream Editor (ISE) and I began by reading [RFC4846],
638 then went on to develop the Independent Stream (IS).
640 First I spent several days at the RFC Production Centre at ISI in
641 Marina Del Ray with the RFC Editor (Bob Braden) and Sandy Ginoza and
642 Alice Hagens, so as to learn how RFCs were actually edited and
643 published. All RFCs reach the Production Centre as Internet Drafts;
644 they are copy-edited, until the edited version can be approved by
645 their authors (AUTH48). At any stage authors can check their draft's
646 status in the RFC Editor Database.
648 For the Independent Submissions, Bob kept a journal (a simple ASCII
649 file) of his interactions with authors for every draft, indexed by
650 the draft name. Bob also entered the Independent drafts into the RFC
651 Editor database, so that authors could track their draft's status.
652 After my few days with his team at ISI, he handed me that journal
653 (covering about 30 drafts) over to me and said "now it's over to
654 you!"
656 I began by following in Bob's footsteps, maintaining a journal and
657 tracking each draft's status in the RFC Editor database. My first
658 consideration was that every serious Internet draft submitted needs
659 several careful reviews. If the ISE knows suitable reviewers, he can
660 simply ask them. Otherwise, if the draft relates to an IETF or IRTF
661 Working Group, he can ask ask Working Group chairs or Area Directors
662 to suggest reviewers. As well, the ISE has an Independent
663 Submissions Editorial Board (Ed Board) that he can ask for reviewers.
664 My experience with reviewers was that most of those I approached were
665 happy to help.
667 Most drafts were straightforward, but there were some that needed
668 extra attention. Often a draft requests IANA code points, and for
669 that IANA were always quick to offer help and support. Code points
670 in some IANA Registries require Expert Review - sometimes the
671 interactions with Expert reviewers took quite a long time! Again,
672 sometimes a draft seemed to fit better in the IETF Stream; for these
673 I would suggest that the draft authors try to find an Area Director
674 to sponsor their work as in Individual submission to the IETF Stream.
676 After my first few years as ISE, the IETF Tools Team developed the
677 Data Tracker so that it could keep show draft status, and perform all
678 the 'housekeeping' tasks for all of the streams. At that stage I
679 switched to use the Data Tracker rather than the RFC Editor database.
681 Once a draft has been reviewed, and the authors have revised it in
682 dialogue with their reviewers, the ISE must submit that draft to the
683 IESG for their "Conflict Review" [RFC5742]. Overall, each IS draft
684 benefited from discussions (which were usually simple) with my Ed
685 Board and the IESG. A (very) few drafts were somewhat controversial
686 - for those I was able to work with the IESG to negotiate a suitable
687 'IESG Statement' and/or an 'ISE Statement' to make it clearer why the
688 ISE published the draft.
690 One rather special part of the Independent Stream is the April First
691 drafts. These are humorous RFCs that are never formally posted as
692 drafts and which have no formal review process. The authors must
693 send them directly to the ISE or the RFC Editor. Only a few of them
694 can be published each year; they are reviewed by the ISE and the RSE;
695 Bob Braden's criteria for April First drafts were:
697 They must relate to the Internet (like all drafts)
699 Their readers should reach the end of page two before realizing
700 this is an April First RFC
702 They must actually be funny!
704 April First RFCs have a large following, and feedback from the
705 Internet community on 1 April each year has been enthusiastic and
706 quick!
708 I published 159 Independent Stream RFCs during my eight years as ISE.
709 Over those eight years I worked with, and often met with at IETF
710 meetings, most of their authors. For me that was a very rewarding
711 experience, so I thank all those contributors. Also, I've worked
712 with most of the IESG members during those eight years, that also
713 gave me a lot of helpful interaction. Last, I've always enjoyed
714 working with the RFC Editor, and all the staff of the RFC Production
715 Centre. The IETF (as a whole) is very fortunate to have such an
716 effective team of talented Professional Staff.
718 3.5. A View from Inside the RFC Editor - Sandy Ginoza
720 When I joined ISI, shortly after Jon Postel passed away, the RFC
721 Editor as we know it today (as defined in RFC 5620, and as obsoleted
722 by RFCs 6548 and 6635) did not exist. The RFC Editor functioned as
723 one unit; there was no RSE, Production Center, Publisher, or
724 Independent Submissions Editor. All of these roles were performed by
725 the RFC Editor, which was comprised of four individuals: Bob Braden,
726 Joyce Reynolds, a part-time student programmer, and me.
728 Bob provided high-level guidance and reviewed Independent
729 Submissions. While Bob was a researcher in "Div 7" (Networking) at
730 ISI, ostensibly, the percentage of time he had for the RFC Editor was
731 10%, but he invested much more time to keep the series running. He
732 pitched in where he could, especially when processing times were
733 getting longer; at one point, he even NROFFed a couple of RFCs-to-be.
734 Joyce was a full-time employee, but while continuing to ensure RFCs
735 were published and serve as a User Services Area Director and a
736 keynote speaker about the Internet, she was also temporarily on loan
737 to IANA for 50% of her time while IANA was getting established after
738 separating from ISI. The student programmer performed programming
739 tasks as requested and was, at the time, responsible for parsing
740 MIBs. I was a full-time staffer and had to quickly learn the ropes
741 so RFCs would continue to be published.
743 My primary tasks were to manage the publication queue, format and
744 prepare documents for Joyce's review, carry out AUTH48 once Joyce
745 completed her review, and publish, index, and archive the RFCs (both
746 soft and hard copies).
748 The workload increased significantly over the next few years. As the
749 workload increased, the RFC Editor reacted and slowly grew their
750 staff over time. To understand the team growth, let's first take a
751 look at the publication rates throughout history. The table below
752 shows average annual publication rates during 5-year periods.
754 +-------------+-------------------+
755 | Years | Avg Pubs per Year |
756 +=============+===================+
757 | 1969 - 1972 | 80 |
758 +-------------+-------------------+
759 | 1973 - 1977 | 55 |
760 +-------------+-------------------+
761 | 1978 - 1982 | 20 |
762 +-------------+-------------------+
763 | 1983 - 1987 | 39 |
764 +-------------+-------------------+
765 | 1988 - 1992 | 69 |
766 +-------------+-------------------+
767 | 1993 - 1997 | 171 |
768 +-------------+-------------------+
769 | 1998 - 2002 | 237 |
770 +-------------+-------------------+
771 | 2003 - 2007 | 325 |
772 +-------------+-------------------+
773 | 2008 - 2012 | 333 |
774 +-------------+-------------------+
775 | 2013 - 2017 | 295 |
776 +-------------+-------------------+
778 Table 2: Annual Publication Rates
780 There were significant jumps in the publication rates in the 90s and
781 onward, with the number of publications almost doubling between 1993
782 and 2007. The annual submission count surpassed the 300 mark for the
783 first time in 2004 and reached an all-time high of 385 in 2011. The
784 submission rate did not drop below 300 until 2016 (284).
786 As the submissions grew, the RFC Editor experienced growing pains.
787 Processing times began to increase as the existing staff was unable
788 to keep up with the expanding queue size. In an attempt to reduce
789 the training hump and to avoid permanently hiring staff in case the
790 submission burst was a fluke, ISI brought on temporary copy editors -
791 this way, the staff could easily be resized as needed. However, as
792 Leslie noted, this didn't work very well. The effects of the
793 experiment would be lasting, as this led to a form of the process we
794 have now, where the RFC Editor asks more questions during AUTH/AUTH48
795 and technical changes require approval from the relevant Area
796 Directors or stream managers, depending on the document stream.
797 These changes added to the workload and extended publication times;
798 many often now jokingly refer to AUTH48 as the authors' "48 days",
799 "48 weeks", etc.
801 Because the workload continued to increase (in more ways than just
802 document submissions; tool testing, editorial process changes, and
803 more) and the lessons learned with temporary copy editors, our team
804 grew more permanently. While we had other editors in between, two
805 additions are of particular interest, as they experienced much of the
806 RFC Editor's growing pains, helped work us out of a backlogged state,
807 shaped the RFC Editor function, and are still with the team today:
808 Alice Russo joined the team in 2005 and Megan Ferguson joined us in
809 2007.
811 With the understanding that the record breaking number of submissions
812 was not an anomaly, we made significant upgrades to the
813 infrastructure of the RFC Editor function to facilitate document
814 tracking and reporting. For example, the illustrious "black binder"
815 - an actual 3-ring binder used to track number assignment, a manually
816 edited HTML file for the queue page, and a Rube-Goldberg set of text
817 files and scripts that created queue statistics, all were eventually
818 replaced; an errata system was proposed and implemented; and XML
819 became a newly accepted source file.
821 In 2009, RFC 5620 was published, introducing the initial version of
822 the RFC Editor model we have now. While it was published in 2009, it
823 did not go into effect until 2010, when the RFC Editor project as I
824 knew it was disbanded and divvied up into four pieces: RFC Series
825 Editor (RSE), Independent Submissions Editor (ISE), RFC Production
826 Center (RPC), and Publisher. In addition, the RFC Series Advisory
827 Group (RSAG) was created to "provide expert, informed guidance
828 (chiefly, to the RSE) in matters affecting the RFC Series operation
829 and development."
831 In 2010, the RPC and Publisher contracts were awarded to Association
832 Management Systems (AMS); we started with three existing team members
833 (Alice Russo, Megan Ferguson, and me) and we were pleased to be
834 joined by Lynne Bartholomew, a new colleague to anchor us in the AMS
835 office, and later Rebecca VanRheenen shortly thereafter.
837 I was wary of this model and was especially worried about the hole
838 Bob Braden's departure would create. Luckily for us, Bob Braden
839 provided wise counsel and insight during the transition (and beyond).
840 He gave the staff transitioning to AMS particularly helpful parting
841 words - "keep the RFCs coming" - and that is what we did.
843 AMS embraced the RFC Series and helped us quickly get set up on new
844 servers. The RFC Production Center and Publisher were now part of
845 the AMS family and it was all hands on deck to make sure the
846 transition went smoothly to minimize the impact on document
847 processing.
849 Our focus during transition was to 1) keep the trains running; that
850 is, we wanted to get ourselves up and running with minimal down time
851 and 2) work with the Transitional RSE, the Independent Submissions
852 Editor (Nevil Brownlee), RSAG, and the IAD to better understand and
853 implement the newly defined RFC Editor model.
855 Though some portions of the transition were challenging and lasted
856 longer than expected, the Acting RSE (Olaf Kolkman) officially handed
857 the reins over to the RSE (Heather Flanagan) in 2012. She had to
858 jump in, learn the RFC Editor and IETF culture, and work through a
859 backlog of issues that had been left unattended.
861 Two of the backlogged issues were so old, they were ones someone
862 asked me about at my first IETF: when is the RFC Editor going to
863 allow non-ASCII characters in RFCs, and when will the RFC Editor
864 adopt a more modern publication format.
866 At that time, while we understood the desire to move toward
867 supporting a broader range of character sets and to have more modern
868 outputs, we also routinely received emails from individuals
869 requesting that we send them plain-text files (instead of pointing
870 them to the website) because their Internet access was limited. We
871 also regularly received complaints from rfc-editor.org users whenever
872 something on the site didn't work correctly with their older
873 browsers. In short, we could not advance without leaving a large
874 number of users behind.
876 However, we now find ourselves on the precipice of change. 2019
877 promises to be a BIG year for the RFC Series, as we expect to
878 transition from publishing plaintext, ASCII-only files to publishing
879 multiple file formats (XML, HTML, PDF/A-3, and TXT) that allow both
880 non-ASCII characters and SVG art.
882 Interestingly enough, I find that the RFC Editor has been in an
883 almost constant state of change since I joined the team, even though
884 the goal of the RFC Editor remains the same: to produce archival
885 quality RFCs in a timely manner that are easily accessible for future
886 generations.
888 4. The Next Fifty Years of RFCs
890 As Steve Crocker mentioned, the Series began with a goal of
891 communication over formality, openness over structure. As the
892 Internet has grown and become a pervasive, global construct, we still
893 aim for openness and communication, but recognize that for protocols
894 and other information to support interoperability, there must be
895 points of stability to build from. Small-time app developers to
896 multi-billion dollar companies are on the same footing. Anyone
897 should be able to look back at a point in time and understand what
898 was done, and why.
900 While the informality has given way to increased structure, the
901 openness and solid foundation that the Series provides must continue.
902 With that in mind, what is next for the next fifty years of RFCs?
904 4.1. Preservation
906 The RFC Editor exists to edit, publish, and maintain an archive of
907 documents published in the RFC Series. A proper digital archive,
908 however, is more than just saving RFCs to disk and making sure the
909 disks are backed up; the field of digital preservation has grown and
910 transformed into an industry in and of itself. "Digital Preservation
911 Considerations for the RFC Series" [RFC8153] reviews what a digital
912 archive means today and describes ways to support the archive into
913 the future, and recommends ways for the RFC Editor to take advantage
914 of those organizations that specialize in this field.
916 The future of digital preservation as far as the RFC Series is
917 concerned will mean both finding new partners that can absorb and
918 archive RFCs into a public, maintained digital archive, and reviewing
919 the RFC format to ensure that the published documents are archivable
920 according to whatever the industry best practice is over time.
922 4.2. Evolution of the RFC Format
924 RFCs have been digital documents since very early in the days of the
925 Series. While not always published in US-ASCII, that format has been
926 the canonical format for decades. The fact that this format has
927 lasted through so much evolution and change is remarkable.
929 Unfortunately, the old US-ASCII format does not extend enough to meet
930 the expectations and requirements of users today. The entire field
931 of online document presentation, consumption, and preservation, has
932 in some cases only been invented years after the first RFC was
933 published. While it can (and has) been argued that those newer
934 fields and their tools have not had a chance to stand the test of
935 time, the RFC Series Editor (in consultation with the community)
936 started a concerted effort in 2012 to bring the RFC Series into
937 alignment with a new array of possibilities for preservation and
938 display.
940 Information about the current RFC format project, the reasoning and
941 requirements for the changes underway today, can be found in
942 [RFC7990]. With the advent of these changes, the door has been
943 opened to consider further changes in the future as the
944 specifications for archiving digital material evolves, and as the
945 expectation of web development advances.
947 4.3. Stream Structure
949 In the eyes of many, particularly within the IETF, the RFC Series is
950 synonymous with the IETF. While the Series itself predates the IETF
951 by eighteen years, over time the IETF has become the source of the
952 majority of documents submitted for publication to the RFC Editor.
953 The policies developed for IETF stream drafts tend to apply across
954 all four document streams, and publication-related tools tend to
955 focus on the IETF as the primary audience for their use. It is
956 difficult for people to see how, or even why, there is a distinction
957 between the Series and the IETF.
959 We are in the midst of that question now more than ever. What is the
960 future of the Series? If people cannot tell where the IETF ends and
961 the Series starts, should we consider this an artificial distinction
962 and declare them to be the same entity?
964 Ultimately, this will be something the community decides, and
965 conversations are underway to consider the ramifications of possible
966 changes.
968 5. Conclusion
970 As the Internet evolves, expectations and possibilities evolve, too.
971 Over the next fifty years, the Series will continue to demonstrate a
972 balance between the need to stay true to the original mission of
973 publication and preservation, while also staying relevant to the
974 needs of the authors and consumers of RFCs. The tension in balancing
975 those needs rests on the RFC Editor and the community to resolve. We
976 will not run short of challenges.
978 6. Informative References
980 [IAB-19880712]
981 IAB, "IAB Minutes 1988-07-12", July 1988,
982 .
985 [IETF1] "First IETF; January 16-17, 1986; San Diego, California",
986 January 1986,
987 .
990 [ISI-to-AMS]
991 The IETF Administrative Support Activity, "RFC Production
992 Center Agreement between Association Management Solutions,
993 LLC, and the Internet Society", October 2009,
994 .
997 [RFC-ONLINE]
998 RFC Editor, "History of RFC Online Project", February
999 2010, .
1001 [RFC0001] Crocker, S., "Host Software", RFC 1, DOI 10.17487/RFC0001,
1002 April 1969, .
1004 [RFC0003] Crocker, S.D., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3,
1005 DOI 10.17487/RFC0003, April 1969,
1006 .
1008 [RFC0114] Bhushan, A.K., "File Transfer Protocol", RFC 114,
1009 DOI 10.17487/RFC0114, April 1971,
1010 .
1012 [RFC0433] Postel, J., "Socket number list", RFC 433,
1013 DOI 10.17487/RFC0433, December 1972,
1014 .
1016 [RFC0690] Postel, J., "Comments on the proposed Host/IMP Protocol
1017 changes", RFC 690, DOI 10.17487/RFC0690, June 1975,
1018 .
1020 [RFC0748] Crispin, M.R., "Telnet randomly-lose option", RFC 748,
1021 DOI 10.17487/RFC0748, April 1978,
1022 .
1024 [RFC0902] Reynolds, J.K. and J. Postel, "ARPA Internet Protocol
1025 policy", RFC 902, DOI 10.17487/RFC0902, July 1984,
1026 .
1028 [RFC1000] Reynolds, J.K. and J. Postel, "Request For Comments
1029 reference guide", RFC 1000, DOI 10.17487/RFC1000, August
1030 1987, .
1032 [RFC1083] Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Internet
1033 Activities Board, "IAB official protocol standards",
1034 RFC 1083, DOI 10.17487/RFC1083, December 1988,
1035 .
1037 [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
1038 Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
1039 DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
1040 .
1042 [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
1043 Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123,
1044 DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989,
1045 .
1047 [RFC1150] Malkin, G.S. and J.K. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction
1048 to the FYI Notes", RFC 1150, DOI 10.17487/RFC1150, March
1049 1990, .
1051 [RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
1052 DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992,
1053 .
1055 [RFC1818] Postel, J., Li, T., and Y. Rekhter, "Best Current
1056 Practices", RFC 1818, DOI 10.17487/RFC1818, August 1995,
1057 .
1059 [RFC2441] Cohen, D., "Working with Jon, Tribute delivered at UCLA,
1060 October 30, 1998", RFC 2441, DOI 10.17487/RFC2441,
1061 November 1998, .
1063 [RFC2468] Cerf, V., "I REMEMBER IANA", RFC 2468,
1064 DOI 10.17487/RFC2468, October 1998,
1065 .
1067 [RFC2555] Editor, RFC. and et. al., "30 Years of RFCs", RFC 2555,
1068 DOI 10.17487/RFC2555, April 1999,
1069 .
1071 [RFC4714] Mankin, A. and S. Hayes, "Requirements for IETF Technical
1072 Publication Service", RFC 4714, DOI 10.17487/RFC4714,
1073 October 2006, .
1075 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
1076 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
1077 July 2007, .
1079 [RFC4845] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "Process
1080 for Publication of IAB RFCs", RFC 4845,
1081 DOI 10.17487/RFC4845, July 2007,
1082 .
1084 [RFC4846] Klensin, J., Ed. and D. Thaler, Ed., "Independent
1085 Submissions to the RFC Editor", RFC 4846,
1086 DOI 10.17487/RFC4846, July 2007,
1087 .
1089 [RFC5540] Editor, RFC., "40 Years of RFCs", RFC 5540,
1090 DOI 10.17487/RFC5540, April 2009,
1091 .
1093 [RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
1094 RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
1095 .
1097 [RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
1098 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
1099 BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
1100 .
1102 [RFC5743] Falk, A., "Definition of an Internet Research Task Force
1103 (IRTF) Document Stream", RFC 5743, DOI 10.17487/RFC5743,
1104 December 2009, .
1106 [RFC6360] Housley, R., "Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series", RFC 6360,
1107 DOI 10.17487/RFC6360, August 2011,
1108 .
1110 [RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
1111 Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
1112 DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,
1113 .
1115 [RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
1116 Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
1117 2012, .
1119 [RFC6949] Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
1120 Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949,
1121 DOI 10.17487/RFC6949, May 2013,
1122 .
1124 [RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990,
1125 DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016,
1126 .
1128 [RFC8153] Flanagan, H., "Digital Preservation Considerations for the
1129 RFC Series", RFC 8153, DOI 10.17487/RFC8153, April 2017,
1130 .
1132 Appendix A. Contributors
1134 With many thanks to Steve Crocker, Vint Cerf, Leslie Daigle, Nevil
1135 Brownlee, and Sandy Ginoza for their perspectives on the Series, and
1136 their ongoing support.
1138 Author's Address
1140 Heather Flanagan (editor)
1141 RFC Editor
1143 Email: rse@rfc-editor.org
1144 URI: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220