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