idnits 2.17.1
draft-iab-fiftyyears-00.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 (July 8, 2019) is 1754 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2555' is defined on line 1079, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC5540' is defined on line 1101, 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) July 8, 2019
5 Intended status: Informational
6 Expires: January 9, 2020
8 Fifty Years of RFCs
9 draft-iab-fiftyyears-00
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 January 9, 2020.
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. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
68 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
69 Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
70 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
72 1. Introduction
74 The RFC Series began in April 1969 with the publication of "Host
75 Software" by Steve Crocker. The early RFCs were, in fact, requests
76 for comments on ideas and proposals; the goal was to start
77 conversations, rather than to create an archival record of a standard
78 or best practice. This goal changed over time, as the formality of
79 the publication process evolved, and the community consuming the
80 material grew. Today, over 8500 RFCs have been published, ranging
81 across best practice information, experimental protocols,
82 informational material, and, of course, Internet standards. Material
83 is accepted for publication through the IETF, the IAB, the IRTF, and
84 the Independent Submissions stream, each with clear processes on how
85 drafts are submitted and potentially approved for publication as an
86 RFC. Ultimately, the goal of the RFC Series is to provide a
87 canonical source for the material published by the RFC Editor, and to
88 support the preservation of that material in perpetuity.
90 The RFC Editor as a role came a few years after the first RFC was
91 published. The actual date when the term was first used is unknown,
92 but it was formalized by [RFC0902] in July 1984; Jon Postel, the
93 first RFC Editor, defined the role by his actions and later by
94 defining the initial processes surrounding the publication of RFCs.
95 What is certain is that the RFC Editor is responsible for making sure
96 that the editorial quality of the RFCs published is high, and that
97 the archival record of what has been published is maintained.
99 Change does come to the Series, albeit slowly. First, we saw the
100 distribution method change from postal mail to FTP and email. From
101 there, we saw increased guidance for authors on how to write an RFC.
102 The editorial staff went from one person, Jon Postel, to a team of
103 five to seven. The actual editing and publishing work split from the
104 service for registration of protocol code points. The whole RFC
105 Editor structure was reviewed [RFC4844] and refined [RFC5620] and
106 refined again[RFC6635]. And, in the last few years, we have started
107 the process to change the format of the RFC documents themselves.
109 This is evolution, and the Series will continue to adapt in order to
110 meet the needs and expectations of the community of authors,
111 operators, historians, and users of the RFC Series. These changes
112 will be always be balanced against the core mission of the Series: to
113 maintain a strong, stable, archival record of technical
114 specifications, protocols, and other information relevant to the
115 ARPANET and Internet networking communities.
117 There is more to the history of the RFC Series than can be covered in
118 this document. Readers interested in earlier perspectives may find
119 the following RFCs of particular interest that focus on the enormous
120 contributions of Jon Postel, Czar of Socket Numbers [RFC0433] and
121 first RFC Editor:
123 [RFC2441]"Working with Jon, Tribute delivered at UCLA"
125 [RFC2555]"30 Years of RFCs"
127 [RFC5540]"40 Years of RFCs"
129 In this document, the history of the series is viewed through the
130 eyes of several individuals who have been a part of shaping the
131 Series. Narratives of this nature offer a limited perspective on
132 events; there are almost certainly other viewpoints, memories, and
133 perspective on events that are equally valid and would reflect a
134 different history. So, while these retrospectives are enormously
135 valuable and provide an insight to events of the day, they are just
136 one lens on the history of the RFC Series.
138 Steve Crocker, author of RFC 1, offers his thoughts on how and why
139 the Series began. Leslie Daigle, a major influence in the
140 development of the RFC Editor model, offers her thoughts on the
141 change of the RFC Editor to a stronger, contracted function. Nevil
142 Brownlee, Independent Submissions Editor from 2010 through February
143 2018, shares his view on the clarification of the IS and its
144 transition from Bob Braden. As the current RFC Series Editor, I will
145 put my thoughts in on the most recent changes in formalizing the
146 digital preservation of the Series, the process to modernize the
147 format while respecting the need for stability, and my thoughts on
148 the next fifty years of RFCs.
150 This document updates the perspectives offered in RFCs 2555 and 5540.
152 2. Key Moments in RFC History
154 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
155 | Marker | Date | Event |
156 +====================+===========+=================================+
157 | [RFC0001] | 1969 | First RFC published |
158 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
159 | [RFC0114] | 1971 | First distribution of RFCs over |
160 | | | the network |
161 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
162 | [RFC0433] | December | First mention of the Czar of |
163 | | 1972 | Socket Numbers and the proposal |
164 | | | for a formal registry |
165 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
166 | [RFC0690] | June 1975 | Relationship starts between ISI |
167 | | | and the RFC Editor, judging by |
168 | | | Jon Postel's affiliation change |
169 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
170 | [RFC0748] | March | First April 1st RFC |
171 | | 1977 | |
172 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
173 | [IETF1] | January | First Internet Engineering Task |
174 | | 1986 | Force (IETF) meeting |
175 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
176 | [RFC1083] | October | Three stage standards process |
177 | | 1989 | first defined |
178 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
179 | [RFC1122][RFC1123] | December | First major effort to review |
180 | | 1988 | key specifications and write |
181 | | | applicability statements |
182 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
183 | [RFC1150] | March | FYI sub-series started |
184 | | 1990 | |
185 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
186 | [RFC1311] | March | STD sub-series started |
187 | | 1992 | |
188 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
189 | [RFC1818] | August | BCP sub-series started |
190 | | 1995 | |
191 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
192 | [RFC-ONLINE] | (approx) | RFC Online Project to restore |
193 | | 1998-2010 | lost early RFCs |
194 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
195 | [IAB-19880712] | July 1988 | IAB approved the creation of an |
196 | | | Internet Draft series |
197 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
198 | [RFC2441] | 15 | Jon Postel's death |
199 | | October | |
200 | | 1998 | |
201 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
202 | [ISI-to-AMS] | October | Transition starts from ISI to |
203 | | 2009 | Association Management |
204 | | | Solutions (AMS) |
205 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
206 | [RFC4844] | July 2007 | RFC Stream structure |
207 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
208 | [RFC4846] | July 2007 | Formalize the Independent |
209 | | | Submission document stream |
210 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
211 | [RFC5743] | December | Formalize the Internet Research |
212 | | 2009 | Task Force document stream |
213 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
214 | [RFC6360] | August | FYI sub-series ended |
215 | | 2011 | |
216 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
217 | [RFC6410] | October | Two stage standards process |
218 | | 2011 | formalized |
219 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
220 | [RFC6949] | May 2013 | RFC Format change project |
221 | | | started |
222 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
223 | [RFC8153] | April | RFCs no longer printed to paper |
224 | | 2017 | upon publication |
225 +--------------------+-----------+---------------------------------+
227 Table 1: Key Moments in RFC History
229 3. Perspectives
231 3.1. The Origins of RFCs - by Stephen D. Crocker
233 [This is a revision of material included in [RFC1000] August 1987,
234 more than thirty years ago.]
236 The Internet community now includes millions of nodes and billions of
237 users. It owes its beginning to the ARPANET, which was once but a
238 gleam in the eyes of J. C. R. Licklider, Bob Taylor, and Larry
239 Roberts of ARPA. While much of the development proceeded according
240 to plan, the initial design of the protocols and the creation of the
241 RFCs was largely accidental.
243 The procurement of the ARPANET was initiated in the summer of 1968
244 --remember Vietnam, flower children, etc.? There had been prior
245 experiments at various ARPA sites to link together computer systems,
246 but this was the first version to explore packet-switching as a core
247 part of the communication strategy. ("ARPA" didn't become "DARPA"
248 until 1972. It briefly changed back to ARPA in 1993 and then back
249 again to DARPA.) The government's Request for Quotations (RFQ)
250 called for four packet-switching devices, called Interface Message
251 Processors ("IMPs"), to be delivered to four sites in the western
252 part of the United States: University of California, Los Angeles
253 (UCLA); SRI International in Menlo Park, CA; University of
254 California, Santa Barbara; the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
255 These sites, respectively, were running a Scientific Data Systems
256 (SDS) Sigma 7, an SDS 940, an IBM 360/75, and a DEC PDP-10. These
257 machines not only had different operating systems, but even details
258 like character sets and byte sizes varied, and other sites would have
259 further variations.
261 The focus was on the basic movement of data. The precise use of the
262 ARPANET was not spelled out in advance, thus requiring the research
263 community to take some initiative. To stimulate this process, a
264 meeting was called in August 1968 with representatives from the
265 selected sites, chaired by Elmer Shapiro from SRI. Based on
266 Shapiro's notes from that meeting, the attendees were Dave Hopper and
267 Jeff Rulifson from SRI, Glen Culler and Gordon Buck from Santa
268 Barbara, R. Stephenson, C. Stephen Carr and W. Boam from Utah,
269 Vint Cerf and me from UCLA, and a few others from potential future
270 sites.
272 That first meeting was seminal. We had lots of questions. How IMPs
273 and "hosts" (I think that was the first time I was exposed to that
274 term) would be connected? What hosts would say to each other? What
275 applications would be supported? The only concrete answers were
276 remote login as a replacement for dial-up, telephone based
277 interactive terminal access, and file transfer, but we knew the
278 vision had to be larger. We found ourselves imagining all kinds of
279 possibilities -- interactive graphics, cooperating processes,
280 automatic data base query, electronic mail -- but no one knew where
281 to begin. We weren't sure whether there was really room to think
282 hard about these problems; surely someone senior and in charge,
283 likely from the East, would be along by and by to bring the word.
284 But we did come to one conclusion: we ought to meet again. Over the
285 next several months, we met at each of our sites, thereby setting the
286 precedent for regular face to face meetings. We also instantly felt
287 the irony. This new network was supposed to make it possible to work
288 together at a distance, and the first thing we did was schedule a
289 significant amount of travel.
291 Over the next several months, a small, fairly consistent set of
292 graduate students and staff members from the first four sites met.
293 We used the term Network Working Group (NWG) to designate ourselves.
294 This was the same term Elmer Shapiro had used when he convened our
295 first meeting, although it had been used until that point to refer to
296 the principal investigators and ARPA personnel -- senior people who
297 had been planning the network. Our group was junior and disjoint
298 from the prior group, except, of course, that each of us worked for
299 one of the principal investigators.
301 The first few meetings were quite tenuous, primarily because we
302 weren't sure how narrow or expansive our goals should be. We had no
303 official charter or leadership, and it remained unclear, at least to
304 me, whether someone or some group would show up with the official
305 authority and responsibility to take over the problems we were
306 dealing with. Without clear definition of what the host-IMP
307 interface would look like, or even a precise definition of what
308 functions the IMP would provide, we focused on broader ideas. We
309 envisioned the possibility of application specific protocols, with
310 code downloaded to user sites, and we took a crack at designing a
311 language to support this. The first version was known as DEL, for
312 "Decode-Encode Language" and a later version was called NIL, for
313 "Network Interchange Language."
315 In late 1968 Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) in Cambridge, MA won the
316 contract for the IMPs and began work in January 1969. A few of us
317 flew to Boston in the middle of February to meet the BBN crew. The
318 BBN folks, led by Frank Heart, included Bob Kahn, Severo Ornstein,
319 Ben Barker, Will Crowther, Bernie Cosell and Dave Walden. They were
320 organized, professional and focused. Their first concern was how to
321 meet their contract schedule of delivering the first IMP to UCLA at
322 the beginning of September and how to get bits to flow quickly and
323 reliably. The details of the host-IMP interface were not yet firm;
324 the specification came a few months later as BBN Report 1822. In
325 particular, BBN didn't take over our protocol design process, nor did
326 any other source of authority appear. Thus, we doggedly continued
327 debating and designing the protocols.
329 A month later our small NWG met in Utah. As the meeting came toward
330 an end, it became clear to us that we should start writing down our
331 discussions. We had accumulated a few notes on the design of DEL and
332 other matters, and we decided to put them together in a set of notes.
333 We assigned writing chores to each of us, and I took on the
334 additional task of organizing the notes. Though I initiated the
335 RFCs, my role was far less than an editor.. Each of the RFCs were
336 numbered in sequence. The only rule I imposed was the note had to be
337 complete before I assigned a number because I wanted to minimize the
338 number of holes in the sequence.
340 I tried a couple of times to write a note on how the notes would be
341 organized, but I found myself full of trepidation. Would these notes
342 look as if we were asserting authority we didn't have? Would we
343 unintentionally offend whomever the official protocol designers were?
344 Finally, unable to sleep, I wrote the a few humble words. The basic
345 ground rules were that anyone could say anything and that nothing was
346 official. And to emphasize the point, I used Bill Duvall's
347 suggestion and labeled the notes "Request for Comments." I never
348 dreamed these notes would eventually be distributed through the very
349 medium we were discussing in these notes. Talk about Sorcerer's
350 Apprentice!
352 After BBN distributed the specification for the hardware and software
353 interface to the IMPs to the initial ARPANET sites, our attention
354 shifted to low-level matters. The ambitious ideas for automatic
355 downloading of code evaporated. It would be several years before
356 ideas like mobile code, remote procedure calls, ActiveX, JAVA and
357 RESTful interfaces appeared.
359 Over the spring and summer of that year we grappled with the detailed
360 problems of protocol design. Although we had a vision of the vast
361 potential for intercomputer communication, designing usable protocols
362 was another matter. We knew a custom hardware interface and a custom
363 software addition in the operating system was going to be required
364 for anything we designed, and we anticipated these would pose some
365 difficulty at each of the sites. We looked for existing abstractions
366 to use. It would have been convenient if we could have made the
367 network simply look like regular device, e.g. a tape drive, but we
368 knew that wouldn't do. The essence of this network was peer-to-peer
369 cooperation among the machines and the processes running inside them,
370 not a central machine controlling dependent devices. We settled on a
371 virtual bit stream layer as the basic building block for the
372 protocols, but even back then we knew that some applications like
373 voice might need to avoid that layer of software. (Why a virtual bit
374 stream instead of a virtual byte stream? Because each computer had
375 its own notion of how many bits were in a byte. Eight-bit bytes
376 didn't become standard until a few years later.)
378 Over the next two years, we developed, exchanged, and implemented
379 ideas. I took a leave from UCLA in June 1971 to spend time working
380 at ARPA. Jon Postel took over the care and feeding of the RFCs,
381 evolving the process and adding collaborators over the next twenty-
382 seven years.
384 The rapid growth of the network and the working group also led to a
385 large pile of RFCs. When the 100th RFC was in sight, Peggy Karp at
386 MITRE took on the task of indexing them. That seemed like a large
387 task then, and we could have hardly anticipated seeing more than a
388 1000 RFCs several years later, and the evolution toward Internet
389 Drafts yet later.
391 When we first started working on the protocols, the network did not
392 exist. Except for our occasional face-to-face meetings, RFCs were
393 our only means of communication. In [RFC0003], I set the bar as low
394 as possible:
396 The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc.
397 related to the HOST software or other aspect of the network.
398 Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than polished.
399 Philosophical positions without examples or other specifics,
400 specific suggestions or implementation techniques without
401 introductory or background explication, and explicit questions
402 without any attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum
403 length for a NWG note is one sentence.
405 These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two
406 reasons. First, there is a tendency to view a written statement
407 as ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to promote the exchange
408 and discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas.
409 Second, there is a natural hesitancy to publish something
410 unpolished, and we hope to ease this inhibition.
412 Making the RFCs informal was not only a way of encouraging
413 participation; it was also important in making the communication
414 effective. One of the early participants said he was having trouble
415 writing and sending an RFC because his institution wanted to subject
416 them to publication review. These are not "publications," I
417 declared, and the problem went away. Another small detail, handled
418 instinctively and without debate, was the distribution model. Each
419 institution was required to send a copy directly to each of the other
420 handful of participating institutions. Each institution handled
421 internal copies and distribution itself. Submission to a central
422 point for redistribution was not required, so as to minimize delays.
423 SRI's Network Information Center, however, did maintain a central
424 repository of everything and provided an invaluable record.
426 We didn't intentionally set out to challenge the existing standards
427 organizations, but our natural mode of operation yielded some
428 striking results. The RFCs are open in two important respects:
429 anyone can write one for free and anyone get them for free. At the
430 time, virtually everyone in the ARPANET community was sponsored by
431 the government, so there was little competition and no need to use
432 documents as a way of raising money. Of course, as soon as we had
433 email working on the ARPANET, we distributed RFCs electronically.
434 When the ARPANET became just a portion of the Internet, this
435 distribution process became worldwide. The effect of this openness
436 is often overlooked. Students and young professionals all over the
437 world have been able to download the RFCs, learn about the many
438 pieces of technology, and then build the most amazing software. And
439 they still are. [They are also a fantastic resource for historians.]
441 Where will it end? The ARPANET begat the Internet and the underlying
442 technology transitioned from the original host-host protocol to TCP/
443 IP, but the superstructure of protocol layers, community driven
444 protocol design, and the RFCs continued. Through the many changes in
445 physical layer technology - analog copper circuits, digital circuits,
446 fiber and wireless -- resulting in speed increases from thousands to
447 billions of bits per second and a similar increase from thousands to
448 billions of users, this superstructure, including the RFCs has
449 continued to serve the community. All of the computers have changed,
450 as have all of the transmission lines. But the RFCs march on. Maybe
451 I'll write a few words for RFC 10,000.
453 Quite obviously the circumstances have changed. Email and other
454 media are most often used for the immediate exchange of inchoate
455 thoughts. Internet Drafts are the means for exchanging substantial,
456 albeit sometimes speculative content. And RFCs are reserved for
457 fully polished, reviewed, edited and approved specifications.
458 Comments to RFCs are not requested, although usage-related
459 discussions and other commentary on mailing lists often takes place
460 nonetheless. Rather than bemoan the change, I take it as a
461 remarkable example of adaptation. RFCs continue to serve the
462 protocol development community. Indeed, they are the bedrock of a
463 very vibrant and productive process that has fueled and guided the
464 Internet revolution.
466 3.2. The RFC Management and Editing Team - Vint Cerf
468 As Steve Crocker mentions in Section 3.1, Jon Postel assumed the role
469 of RFC manager in 1971 when Steve left UCLA for ARPA. Jon took on
470 this role in addition to his subsequent "numbers Czar"
471 responsibilities. Initially, his focus was largely on assigning RFC
472 numbers to aspiring writers but with time, and as the standardization
473 of the ARPANET and Internet protocols continued apace, he began to
474 serve in an editorial capacity. Moreover, as an accomplished
475 software engineer, he had opinions about technical content in
476 addition to writing style and did not hesitate to exercise editorial
477 discretion as would-be published authors presented their offerings
478 for his scrutiny. As the load increased, he recruited additional
479 "volunteer" talent, most notably Joyce K. Reynolds, a fellow
480 researcher at USC/ISI. Over the ensuing years, he also drafted
481 Robert (Bob) Braden into the team and when Jon unexpectedly passed
482 away in October 1998 (see [RFC2468]), Joyce and Bob undertook to
483 carry on with the RFC work in his stead, adding Sandy Ginoza to the
484 team. During the period when Jon and Joyce worked closely together,
485 Joyce would challenge me to tell which edits had been made by Jon and
486 which by her. I found this impossible, so aligned were they in their
487 editorial sensibilities. Sadly, three of these tireless Internauts
488 have passed on and we have only the product of their joint work and
489 Sandy Ginoza's and others' corporate memory by which to recall
490 history.
492 3.3. Formalizing the RFC Editor Model - Leslie Daigle
494 I was the chair of the Internet Architecture Board, the board
495 responsible for the general oversight of the RFC Series, at a
496 particular inflection point in the evolution of all Internet
497 technology institutions. To understand what we did, and why we had
498 to, let me first paint a broader picture of the arc of these
499 institutions.
501 Like many others who were in decision-making roles in the mid -00's,
502 I wasn't present when the Internet was born. The lore passed down to
503 me was that, out of the group of talented researchers that developed
504 the core specifications and established the direction of the
505 Internet, different individuals stepped up to take on roles necessary
506 to keep the process of specification development organized and open.
507 As the work of specification expanded, those individuals were
508 generally supported by organizations that carried on in the same
509 spirit. This was mostly Jon Postel, managing the allocation and
510 assignment of names and numbers, as well as working as the editor of
511 RFCs, but there were also individuals and institutions supporting the
512 IETF's Secretariat function. By the late 20th century, even this
513 model was wearing thin - the support functions were growing, and
514 organizations didn't have the ability to donate even more resources
515 to run them. In some cases (IANA) there was significant industry and
516 international dependence on the function and its neutrality.
518 The IETF, too, had grown in size, stature, and commercial reliance.
519 This system of institutional pieces "flying in formation" was not
520 providing the kind of contractual regularity or integrated
521 development that the IETF needed. People who hadn't been there as
522 the institutions developed, including IETF decision-makers, didn't
523 innately understand why things "had to be the way they were", and
524 were frustrated when trying to get individual systems updated for new
525 requirements, and better integrated across the spectrum of
526 activities.
528 Internet engineering had expanded beyond the point of being
529 supportable by a loosely-coupled set of organizations of people who
530 had been there since the beginning and knew each other well. New
531 forms of governance and were needed, as well as rationalized funding
532 The IANA function was absorbed into a purpose-built international
533 not-for-profit organization. The IETF stepped up to manage its own
534 organizational destiny, creating the IETF Administrative Support
535 Activity (IASA), and the Secretariat became one of its contracted
536 functions.
538 This left the RFC Editor function as an Internet Society-supported,
539 independent effort.
541 That independent nature was necessary for the historic role of the
542 RFC Series in considering all technical contributions. But, at that
543 inflection point in the Series' history, it needed a new governance
544 and funding model, just as the other Internet technical specification
545 supporting organizations had. Also, the IETF leadership had some
546 concerns it felt needed to addressed in its own technical publication
547 stream. While the RFC Series had been established before there was
548 an IETF, and had historically continued to have documents in it that
549 didn't originate from the IETF, the IETF was its largest and most
550 organized contributor. There was no particular organization of
551 independent contributors. Equally, the funding for the RFC Editor
552 was at that point coming from the Internet Society in the guise of
553 "support for the IETF". For people who hadn't been involved with the
554 institution from the outset, it was pretty easy to perceive the RFC
555 Series uniquely as the IETF's publication series. So, the challenge
556 was to identify and address the IETF's issues, along with governance
557 and funding, without sacrificing the fundamental nature of the RFC
558 Series as a broader-than-IETF publication series.
560 To give a sense of the kinds of tensions that were prevalent, let me
561 share that the one phrase that sticks in my mind from those
562 discussions is: "push to publish". There were those in IETF
563 leadership who felt that it would significantly reduce costs and
564 improve timeliness if an RFC could be published by, literally,
565 pushing a button on a web interface the moment it was approved by the
566 IESG. It would also, they argued, remove the specification issues
567 being introduced by copy-editors that were hired as occasional
568 workers to help with improving publication rates, but who weren't
569 necessarily up to speed on terms of art in technical specifications.
570 (There were some pretty egregious examples of copyeditors introducing
571 changes that significantly changed the technical meaning of the text
572 that I forbear from citing here; let's just say it wasn't strictly a
573 problem of Internet engineers getting uptight about their cheese
574 being moved). While "push to publish" would have addressed those
575 issues, it would not have addressed the loss of clarity from the many
576 significant text improvements copy editors successfully introduced,
577 or the fact that not all RFCs are approved by the IESG.
579 Institutionally, it was clear that the target was to have the RFC
580 Editor function governance within the reach of the Internet technical
581 community (as opposed to any particular private organization),
582 without tying it specifically to the IETF. That was reasonably
583 achievable by ensuring that the resultant pieces were established
584 under the oversight of the IAB (which is, itself, independent of the
585 IETF, even as it is supported by the IASA organization).
587 The IETF worked on a document outlining functional requirements for
588 its technical specification publication. This could have been useful
589 for establishing its own series, but it also was helpful in
590 establishing awareness of the challenges in document publishing (it
591 always looks easy when you haven't thought about it), and also to lay
592 the ground work for dialogue with the RFC Editor. The requirements
593 document was published as [RFC4714], as an Informational RFC that
594 stands today to provide guidance in the editing processes surrounding
595 IETF publications.
597 There was still, however, a certain lack of clarity about
598 responsibilities for making decisions and changes in the RFC Series
599 itself. To that end, I and the IAB worked with the various involved
600 parties to produce [RFC4844]. That document captured the RFC Series
601 mission (for a purpose greater than IETF technical specification
602 publication), as well as the roles and responsibilities of the
603 parties involved. The RFC Editor has responsibility for ensuring the
604 implementation of the mission. The IAB continues to have oversight
605 responsibilities, including policy oversight, which it could act on
606 by changing the person (organization) in the role of RFC Editor. At
607 the same time, operational oversight was migrated to the IASA support
608 function of the IETF (and IAB).
610 The discussions, and the resulting publication of RFC 4844, allowed
611 greater visibility into and commitment to the RFC Series, as a
612 general Internet publication. It also meant that subsequent
613 adjustments could be made, as requirements evolved - the responsible
614 parties are clearly identified.
616 3.4. The Continuation, or Creation, of a Stream - Nevil Brownlee
618 Arguably starting in 2006 with [RFC4714], the IAB and the IETF
619 community spent some time in the mid-2000's evolving the structure of
620 the RFC Series. This work included defining how those groups that
621 published into the RFC Series (initially including the IETF, the IAB
622 [RFC4845], and the Independent Submissions stream [RFC4846], and
623 later growing to include the IRTF [RFC5743]) would handle approving
624 documents to be published as RFCs. In 2009, the IAB published 'RFC
625 Editor (Version 1)' [RFC5620]. In this model, a new role was created
626 within the RFC Editor, the RFC Series Editor (RSE), an individual
627 that would oversee RFC publishing and development, while leaving the
628 process for approving documents for publication outside his or her
629 mandate. While arguably this was a role long filled by people like
630 Jon Postel, Bob Braden, and Joyce Reynolds, RFC 5620 saw the role of
631 RFC Series Editor defined in such a way as to distinctly separate it
632 from that of the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE).
634 Before 2009 the RFC Editor could accept 'Independent' submissions
635 from individuals, and - if he judged they were significant - publish
636 them as RFCs; the Independent Stream was set up to continue that
637 function. From February 2010 through February 2018, I was the
638 Independent Stream Editor (ISE) and I began by reading [RFC4846],
639 then went on to develop the Independent Stream (IS).
641 First I spent several days at the RFC Production Centre at ISI in
642 Marina Del Ray with the RFC Editor (Bob Braden) and Sandy Ginoza and
643 Alice Hagens, so as to learn how RFCs were actually edited and
644 published. All RFCs reach the Production Centre as Internet Drafts;
645 they are copy-edited, until the edited version can be approved by
646 their authors (AUTH48). At any stage authors can check their draft's
647 status in the RFC Editor Database.
649 For the Independent Submissions, Bob kept a journal (a simple ASCII
650 file) of his interactions with authors for every draft, indexed by
651 the draft name. Bob also entered the Independent drafts into the RFC
652 Editor database, so that authors could track their draft's status.
653 After my few days with his team at ISI, he handed me that journal
654 (covering about 30 drafts) over to me and said "now it's over to
655 you!"
657 I began by following in Bob's footsteps, maintaining a journal and
658 tracking each draft's status in the RFC Editor database. My first
659 consideration was that every serious Internet draft submitted needs
660 several careful reviews. If the ISE knows suitable reviewers, he can
661 simply ask them. Otherwise, if the draft relates to an IETF or IRTF
662 Working Group, he can ask ask Working Group chairs or Area Directors
663 to suggest reviewers. As well, the ISE has an Independent
664 Submissions Editorial Board (Ed Board) that he can ask for reviewers.
665 My experience with reviewers was that most of those I approached were
666 happy to help.
668 Most drafts were straightforward, but there were some that needed
669 extra attention. Often a draft requests IANA code points, and for
670 that IANA were always quick to offer help and support. Code points
671 in some IANA Registries require Expert Review - sometimes the
672 interactions with Expert reviewers took quite a long time! Again,
673 sometimes a draft seemed to fit better in the IETF Stream; for these
674 I would suggest that the draft authors try to find an Area Director
675 to sponsor their work as in Individual submission to the IETF Stream.
677 After my first few years as ISE, the IETF Tools Team developed the
678 Data Tracker so that it could keep show draft status, and perform all
679 the 'housekeeping' tasks for all of the streams. At that stage I
680 switched to use the Data Tracker rather than the RFC Editor database.
682 Once a draft has been reviewed, and the authors have revised it in
683 dialogue with their reviewers, the ISE must submit that draft to the
684 IESG for their "Conflict Review" [RFC5742]. Overall, each IS draft
685 benefited from discussions (which were usually simple) with my Ed
686 Board and the IESG. A (very) few drafts were somewhat controversial
687 - for those I was able to work with the IESG to negotiate a suitable
688 'IESG Statement' and/or an 'ISE Statement' to make it clearer why the
689 ISE published the draft.
691 One rather special part of the Independent Stream is the April First
692 drafts. These are humorous RFCs that are never formally posted as
693 drafts and which have no formal review process. The authors must
694 send them directly to the ISE or the RFC Editor. Only a few of them
695 can be published each year; they are reviewed by the ISE and the RSE;
696 Bob Braden's criteria for April First drafts were:
698 They must relate to the Internet (like all drafts)
700 Their readers should reach the end of page two before realizing
701 this is an April First RFC
703 They must actually be funny!
705 April First RFCs have a large following, and feedback from the
706 Internet community on 1 April each year has been enthusiastic and
707 quick!
709 I published 159 Independent Stream RFCs during my eight years as ISE.
710 Over those eight years I worked with, and often met with at IETF
711 meetings, most of their authors. For me that was a very rewarding
712 experience, so I thank all those contributors. Also, I've worked
713 with most of the IESG members during those eight years, that also
714 gave me a lot of helpful interaction. Last, I've always enjoyed
715 working with the RFC Editor, and all the staff of the RFC Production
716 Centre. The IETF (as a whole) is very fortunate to have such an
717 effective team of talented Professional Staff.
719 3.5. A View from Inside the RFC Editor - Sandy Ginoza
721 When I joined ISI, shortly after Jon Postel passed away, the RFC
722 Editor as we know it today (as defined in RFC 5620, and as obsoleted
723 by RFCs 6548 and 6635) did not exist. The RFC Editor functioned as
724 one unit; there was no RSE, Production Center, Publisher, or
725 Independent Submissions Editor. All of these roles were performed by
726 the RFC Editor, which was comprised of four individuals: Bob Braden,
727 Joyce Reynolds, a part-time student programmer, and me.
729 Bob provided high-level guidance and reviewed Independent
730 Submissions. While Bob was a researcher in "Div 7" (Networking) at
731 ISI, ostensibly, the percentage of time he had for the RFC Editor was
732 10%, but he invested much more time to keep the series running. He
733 pitched in where he could, especially when processing times were
734 getting longer; at one point, he even NROFFed a couple of RFCs-to-be.
735 Joyce was a full-time employee, but while continuing to ensure RFCs
736 were published and serve as a User Services Area Director and a
737 keynote speaker about the Internet, she was also temporarily on loan
738 to IANA for 50% of her time while IANA was getting established after
739 separating from ISI. The student programmer performed programming
740 tasks as requested and was, at the time, responsible for parsing
741 MIBs. I was a full-time staffer and had to quickly learn the ropes
742 so RFCs would continue to be published.
744 My primary tasks were to manage the publication queue, format and
745 prepare documents for Joyce's review, carry out AUTH48 once Joyce
746 completed her review, and publish, index, and archive the RFCs (both
747 soft and hard copies).
749 The workload increased significantly over the next few years. As the
750 workload increased, the RFC Editor reacted and slowly grew their
751 staff over time. To understand the team growth, let's first take a
752 look at the publication rates throughout history. The table below
753 shows average annual publication rates during 5-year periods.
755 +-------------+-------------------+
756 | Years | Avg Pubs per Year |
757 +=============+===================+
758 | 1969 - 1972 | 80 |
759 +-------------+-------------------+
760 | 1973 - 1977 | 55 |
761 +-------------+-------------------+
762 | 1978 - 1982 | 20 |
763 +-------------+-------------------+
764 | 1983 - 1987 | 39 |
765 +-------------+-------------------+
766 | 1988 - 1992 | 69 |
767 +-------------+-------------------+
768 | 1993 - 1997 | 171 |
769 +-------------+-------------------+
770 | 1998 - 2002 | 237 |
771 +-------------+-------------------+
772 | 2003 - 2007 | 325 |
773 +-------------+-------------------+
774 | 2008 - 2012 | 333 |
775 +-------------+-------------------+
776 | 2013 - 2017 | 295 |
777 +-------------+-------------------+
779 Table 2: Annual Publication Rates
781 There were significant jumps in the publication rates in the 90s and
782 onward, with the number of publications almost doubling between 1993
783 and 2007. The annual submission count surpassed the 300 mark for the
784 first time in 2004 and reached an all-time high of 385 in 2011. The
785 submission rate did not drop below 300 until 2016 (284).
787 As the submissions grew, the RFC Editor experienced growing pains.
788 Processing times began to increase as the existing staff was unable
789 to keep up with the expanding queue size. In an attempt to reduce
790 the training hump and to avoid permanently hiring staff in case the
791 submission burst was a fluke, ISI brought on temporary copy editors -
792 this way, the staff could easily be resized as needed. However, as
793 Leslie noted, this didn't work very well. The effects of the
794 experiment would be lasting, as this led to a form of the process we
795 have now, where the RFC Editor asks more questions during AUTH/AUTH48
796 and technical changes require approval from the relevant Area
797 Directors or stream managers, depending on the document stream.
798 These changes added to the workload and extended publication times;
799 many often now jokingly refer to AUTH48 as the authors' "48 days",
800 "48 weeks", etc.
802 Because the workload continued to increase (in more ways than just
803 document submissions; tool testing, editorial process changes, and
804 more) and the lessons learned with temporary copy editors, our team
805 grew more permanently. While we had other editors in between, two
806 additions are of particular interest, as they experienced much of the
807 RFC Editor's growing pains, helped work us out of a backlogged state,
808 shaped the RFC Editor function, and are still with the team today:
809 Alice Russo joined the team in 2005 and Megan Ferguson joined us in
810 2007.
812 With the understanding that the record breaking number of submissions
813 was not an anomaly, we made significant upgrades to the
814 infrastructure of the RFC Editor function to facilitate document
815 tracking and reporting. For example, the illustrious "black binder"
816 - an actual 3-ring binder used to track number assignment, a manually
817 edited HTML file for the queue page, and a Rube-Goldberg set of text
818 files and scripts that created queue statistics, all were eventually
819 replaced; an errata system was proposed and implemented; and XML
820 became a newly accepted source file.
822 In 2009, RFC 5620 was published, introducing the initial version of
823 the RFC Editor model we have now. While it was published in 2009, it
824 did not go into effect until 2010, when the RFC Editor project as I
825 knew it was disbanded and divvied up into four pieces: RFC Series
826 Editor (RSE), Independent Submissions Editor (ISE), RFC Production
827 Center (RPC), and Publisher. In addition, the RFC Series Advisory
828 Group (RSAG) was created to "provide expert, informed guidance
829 (chiefly, to the RSE) in matters affecting the RFC Series operation
830 and development."
832 In 2010, the RPC and Publisher contracts were awarded to Association
833 Management Systems (AMS); we started with three existing team members
834 (Alice Russo, Megan Ferguson, and me) and we were pleased to be
835 joined by Lynne Bartholomew, a new colleague to anchor us in the AMS
836 office, and later Rebecca VanRheenen shortly thereafter.
838 I was wary of this model and was especially worried about the hole
839 Bob Braden's departure would create. Luckily for us, Bob Braden
840 provided wise counsel and insight during the transition (and beyond).
841 He gave the staff transitioning to AMS particularly helpful parting
842 words - "keep the RFCs coming" - and that is what we did.
844 AMS embraced the RFC Series and helped us quickly get set up on new
845 servers. The RFC Production Center and Publisher were now part of
846 the AMS family and it was all hands on deck to make sure the
847 transition went smoothly to minimize the impact on document
848 processing.
850 Our focus during transition was to 1) keep the trains running; that
851 is, we wanted to get ourselves up and running with minimal down time
852 and 2) work with the Transitional RSE, the Independent Submissions
853 Editor (Nevil Brownlee), RSAG, and the IAD to better understand and
854 implement the newly defined RFC Editor model.
856 Though some portions of the transition were challenging and lasted
857 longer than expected, the Acting RSE (Olaf Kolkman) officially handed
858 the reins over to the RSE (Heather Flanagan) in 2012. She had to
859 jump in, learn the RFC Editor and IETF culture, and work through a
860 backlog of issues that had been left unattended.
862 Two of the backlogged issues were so old, they were ones someone
863 asked me about at my first IETF: when is the RFC Editor going to
864 allow non-ASCII characters in RFCs, and when will the RFC Editor
865 adopt a more modern publication format.
867 At that time, while we understood the desire to move toward
868 supporting a broader range of character sets and to have more modern
869 outputs, we also routinely received emails from individuals
870 requesting that we send them plain-text files (instead of pointing
871 them to the website) because their Internet access was limited. We
872 also regularly received complaints from rfc-editor.org users whenever
873 something on the site didn't work correctly with their older
874 browsers. In short, we could not advance without leaving a large
875 number of users behind.
877 However, we now find ourselves on the precipice of change. 2019
878 promises to be a BIG year for the RFC Series, as we expect to
879 transition from publishing plaintext, ASCII-only files to publishing
880 multiple file formats (XML, HTML, PDF/A-3, and TXT) that allow both
881 non-ASCII characters and SVG art.
883 Interestingly enough, I find that the RFC Editor has been in an
884 almost constant state of change since I joined the team, even though
885 the goal of the RFC Editor remains the same: to produce archival
886 quality RFCs in a timely manner that are easily accessible for future
887 generations.
889 4. The Next Fifty Years of RFCs
891 As Steve Crocker mentioned, the Series began with a goal of
892 communication over formality, openness over structure. As the
893 Internet has grown and become a pervasive, global construct, we still
894 aim for openness and communication, but recognize that for protocols
895 and other information to support interoperability, there must be
896 points of stability to build from. Small-time app developers to
897 multi-billion dollar companies are on the same footing. Anyone
898 should be able to look back at a point in time and understand what
899 was done, and why.
901 While the informality has given way to increased structure, the
902 openness and solid foundation that the Series provides must continue.
903 With that in mind, what is next for the next fifty years of RFCs?
905 4.1. Preservation
907 The RFC Editor exists to edit, publish, and maintain an archive of
908 documents published in the RFC Series. A proper digital archive,
909 however, is more than just saving RFCs to disk and making sure the
910 disks are backed up; the field of digital preservation has grown and
911 transformed into an industry in and of itself. "Digital Preservation
912 Considerations for the RFC Series" [RFC8153] reviews what a digital
913 archive means today and describes ways to support the archive into
914 the future, and recommends ways for the RFC Editor to take advantage
915 of those organizations that specialize in this field.
917 The future of digital preservation as far as the RFC Series is
918 concerned will mean both finding new partners that can absorb and
919 archive RFCs into a public, maintained digital archive, and reviewing
920 the RFC format to ensure that the published documents are archivable
921 according to whatever the industry best practice is over time.
923 4.2. Evolution of the RFC Format
925 RFCs have been digital documents since very early in the days of the
926 Series. While not always published in US-ASCII, that format has been
927 the canonical format for decades. The fact that this format has
928 lasted through so much evolution and change is remarkable.
930 Unfortunately, the old US-ASCII format does not extend enough to meet
931 the expectations and requirements of users today. The entire field
932 of online document presentation, consumption, and preservation, has
933 in some cases only been invented years after the first RFC was
934 published. While it can (and has) been argued that those newer
935 fields and their tools have not had a chance to stand the test of
936 time, the RFC Series Editor (in consultation with the community)
937 started a concerted effort in 2012 to bring the RFC Series into
938 alignment with a new array of possibilities for preservation and
939 display.
941 Information about the current RFC format project, the reasoning and
942 requirements for the changes underway today, can be found in
943 [RFC7990]. With the advent of these changes, the door has been
944 opened to consider further changes in the future as the
945 specifications for archiving digital material evolves, and as the
946 expectation of web development advances.
948 4.3. Stream Structure
950 In the eyes of many, particularly within the IETF, the RFC Series is
951 synonymous with the IETF. While the Series itself predates the IETF
952 by eighteen years, over time the IETF has become the source of the
953 majority of documents submitted for publication to the RFC Editor.
954 The policies developed for IETF stream drafts tend to apply across
955 all four document streams, and publication-related tools tend to
956 focus on the IETF as the primary audience for their use. It is
957 difficult for people to see how, or even why, there is a distinction
958 between the Series and the IETF.
960 We are in the midst of that question now more than ever. What is the
961 future of the Series? If people cannot tell where the IETF ends and
962 the Series starts, should we consider this an artificial distinction
963 and declare them to be the same entity?
965 Ultimately, this will be something the community decides, and
966 conversations are underway to consider the ramifications of possible
967 changes.
969 5. Conclusion
971 As the Internet evolves, expectations and possibilities evolve, too.
972 Over the next fifty years, the Series will continue to demonstrate a
973 balance between the need to stay true to the original mission of
974 publication and preservation, while also staying relevant to the
975 needs of the authors and consumers of RFCs. The tension in balancing
976 those needs rests on the RFC Editor and the community to resolve. We
977 will not run short of challenges.
979 6. Acknowledgements
981 With many thanks to John Klensin for his feedback and insights on the
982 history of the Series, as someone directly engaged with many of the
983 key people at the time.
985 Additional thanks to members of the RFC Series Advisory group and the
986 Independent Submissions Editorial Board, in particular Scott Bradner,
987 Brian Carpenter, and Adrian Farrel, for their early reviews and input
988 into the sequence of key moments in the history of the Series.
990 7. Informative References
992 [IAB-19880712]
993 IAB, "IAB Minutes 1988-07-12", July 1988,
994 .
997 [IETF1] "First IETF; January 16-17, 1986; San Diego, California",
998 January 1986,
999 .
1002 [ISI-to-AMS]
1003 The IETF Administrative Support Activity, "RFC Production
1004 Center Agreement between Association Management Solutions,
1005 LLC, and the Internet Society", October 2009,
1006 .
1009 [RFC-ONLINE]
1010 RFC Editor, "History of RFC Online Project", February
1011 2010, .
1013 [RFC0001] Crocker, S., "Host Software", RFC 1, DOI 10.17487/RFC0001,
1014 April 1969, .
1016 [RFC0003] Crocker, S.D., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3,
1017 DOI 10.17487/RFC0003, April 1969,
1018 .
1020 [RFC0114] Bhushan, A.K., "File Transfer Protocol", RFC 114,
1021 DOI 10.17487/RFC0114, April 1971,
1022 .
1024 [RFC0433] Postel, J., "Socket number list", RFC 433,
1025 DOI 10.17487/RFC0433, December 1972,
1026 .
1028 [RFC0690] Postel, J., "Comments on the proposed Host/IMP Protocol
1029 changes", RFC 690, DOI 10.17487/RFC0690, June 1975,
1030 .
1032 [RFC0748] Crispin, M.R., "Telnet randomly-lose option", RFC 748,
1033 DOI 10.17487/RFC0748, April 1978,
1034 .
1036 [RFC0902] Reynolds, J.K. and J. Postel, "ARPA Internet Protocol
1037 policy", RFC 902, DOI 10.17487/RFC0902, July 1984,
1038 .
1040 [RFC1000] Reynolds, J.K. and J. Postel, "Request For Comments
1041 reference guide", RFC 1000, DOI 10.17487/RFC1000, August
1042 1987, .
1044 [RFC1083] Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Internet
1045 Activities Board, "IAB official protocol standards",
1046 RFC 1083, DOI 10.17487/RFC1083, December 1988,
1047 .
1049 [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
1050 Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
1051 DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
1052 .
1054 [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
1055 Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123,
1056 DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989,
1057 .
1059 [RFC1150] Malkin, G.S. and J.K. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction
1060 to the FYI Notes", RFC 1150, DOI 10.17487/RFC1150, March
1061 1990, .
1063 [RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
1064 DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992,
1065 .
1067 [RFC1818] Postel, J., Li, T., and Y. Rekhter, "Best Current
1068 Practices", RFC 1818, DOI 10.17487/RFC1818, August 1995,
1069 .
1071 [RFC2441] Cohen, D., "Working with Jon, Tribute delivered at UCLA,
1072 October 30, 1998", RFC 2441, DOI 10.17487/RFC2441,
1073 November 1998, .
1075 [RFC2468] Cerf, V., "I REMEMBER IANA", RFC 2468,
1076 DOI 10.17487/RFC2468, October 1998,
1077 .
1079 [RFC2555] Editor, RFC. and et. al., "30 Years of RFCs", RFC 2555,
1080 DOI 10.17487/RFC2555, April 1999,
1081 .
1083 [RFC4714] Mankin, A. and S. Hayes, "Requirements for IETF Technical
1084 Publication Service", RFC 4714, DOI 10.17487/RFC4714,
1085 October 2006, .
1087 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
1088 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
1089 July 2007, .
1091 [RFC4845] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "Process
1092 for Publication of IAB RFCs", RFC 4845,
1093 DOI 10.17487/RFC4845, July 2007,
1094 .
1096 [RFC4846] Klensin, J., Ed. and D. Thaler, Ed., "Independent
1097 Submissions to the RFC Editor", RFC 4846,
1098 DOI 10.17487/RFC4846, July 2007,
1099 .
1101 [RFC5540] Editor, RFC., "40 Years of RFCs", RFC 5540,
1102 DOI 10.17487/RFC5540, April 2009,
1103 .
1105 [RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
1106 RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
1107 .
1109 [RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
1110 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
1111 BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
1112 .
1114 [RFC5743] Falk, A., "Definition of an Internet Research Task Force
1115 (IRTF) Document Stream", RFC 5743, DOI 10.17487/RFC5743,
1116 December 2009, .
1118 [RFC6360] Housley, R., "Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series", RFC 6360,
1119 DOI 10.17487/RFC6360, August 2011,
1120 .
1122 [RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
1123 Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
1124 DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,
1125 .
1127 [RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
1128 Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
1129 2012, .
1131 [RFC6949] Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
1132 Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949,
1133 DOI 10.17487/RFC6949, May 2013,
1134 .
1136 [RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990,
1137 DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016,
1138 .
1140 [RFC8153] Flanagan, H., "Digital Preservation Considerations for the
1141 RFC Series", RFC 8153, DOI 10.17487/RFC8153, April 2017,
1142 .
1144 Appendix A. Contributors
1146 With many thanks to Steve Crocker, Vint Cerf, Leslie Daigle, Nevil
1147 Brownlee, and Sandy Ginoza for their perspectives on the Series, and
1148 their ongoing support.
1150 Author's Address
1152 Heather Flanagan (editor)
1153 RFC Editor
1155 Email: rse@rfc-editor.org
1156 URI: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220