RFC 7990
RFC Format Framework
RFC 7990: RFC Format Framework 🎀
okay so this one is by H. Flanagan from the RFC Editor team, published for the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) in December 2016. It's Informational, which means it's not a standard, and it's ISSN 2070-1721 if you want to look it up 🌸 The title block doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so it's standing on its own, no drama 💅
Abstract
so the big plan is to make RFCs easier to read while keeping them archivable forever 📚 The canonical format is moving from plain-text ASCII to XML, using the xml2rfc version 3 vocabulary, and every other publication format gets rendered from that base document ✨ Obviously this makes life more complicated for authors, readers, and the publisher 😭 This doc is the framework: it explains the problem, maps out the documents that spell out the specific requirements, and describes the transition plan 🗺️
Status of This Memo
this is not an Internet Standards Track spec. It's just published for info 🦋
It's a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and it holds info the IAB thought was worth keeping on the permanent record. It reflects the IAB's consensus. Anything the IAB approves for publication can't be a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, see Section 2 of RFC 7841 for the details 💜
For the current status, any errata, and how to send feedback, check http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7990 🔥
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved 💖
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stand on the publication date. Please actually read those, bestie, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this doc 🧾
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Overview of the Decision-Making Process . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Key Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Canonical Format Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. XML for RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Publication Format Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. HTML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. PDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.3. Plain Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.4. Potential Future Publication Formats . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.4.1. EPUB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Figures and Artwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. SVG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Content and Page Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Non-ASCII Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Style Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.3. CSS Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Transition Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Statement of Work and RFP for Tool Development . . . . . 10
10.2. Testing and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.3. Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
IAB Members at the Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161. Introduction ✨
so "RFC Series Format Requirements and Future Development" [RFC6949] talks about why we need to make things like author names and artwork look better in RFCs, and how RFCs should display properly on all kinds of devices 📱 After talking with communities like the IETF, the RFC Series Editor decided to explore changing the format of the Series [XML-ANNOUNCE] 🫶 This document is the framework that explains the problems being solved, and it sums up the documents written so far that capture the specific requirements for each part of the format change 🌈
Key changes to how RFCs get published are highlighted here, and the transition plan, which moves the Series from plain text, ASCII-only to the new formats, is described on the rfc-interest mailing list [RFC-INTEREST] 💌
This document is about producing RFCs, focusing on the published formats. It doesn't touch how each stream develops and reviews its submissions, specifically how Internet-Drafts get written. I-Ds have a similar pile of issues, but dealing with those is up to each document stream 🍓
The details here are expected to change based on what people learn while building the new publication toolsets. Revised docs will come out capturing those changes as the toolsets get finished. Other implementers must not expect those changes to stay backwards compatible with what's in this document. so don't get too attached, bestie 😭
2. Problem Statement 🌍
there are nearly three billion people on the Internet [ISTATS], and people from at least 45 countries have shown up to IETF meetings regularly over the last five years 🤯 The Internet is global now, and even though things have changed a lot since the first RFCs, the Series is still super important for defining protocols, standards, best practices, and more for this network that keeps growing 💜 To make RFCs easy to view for as many people as possible, on a huge range of devices, while respecting the different authors and reference materials and still honoring the archival side of things, it's time to loosen up the super strict format of the RFC Series 🦋
All changes to the format of the RFC Series must be made with thought for the needs of a wide range of communities over a long stretch of time. The people who matter here include existing authors and implementers, lawyers who argue about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), educators, managers, and policymakers who need to know what to put in potential Request for Proposals (RFPs) for their organizations 💅 Today's immediate needs have to be balanced against long-term archival storage, and that's a real juggling act 🎪
3. Terminology 📖
this doc uses terminology from RFC 6949, repeated below for convenience 🎀
ASCII: the 7-bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange, a coded character set defined in ANSI X3.4-1986 [ASCII] 🔤
Canonical format: the authorized, recognized, accepted, and archived version of the document 👑
Metadata: info attached to a document that describes things like its structure, or the elements inside it, such as its topic or author 🏷️
Publication format: the display and distribution format you read or print once publication is done ✨
Reflowable text: text that automatically wraps onto the next line when the reader changes the margins, whether by resizing the window or changing the font size 🌸
Revisable format: the format that supplies the info for converting into a Publication format. The RFC Editor uses or creates it 🛠️
Submission format: the format submitted to the RFC Editor for editorial revision and publication 📝
to be continued in Part 2 💖🦋
4. Overview of the Decision-Making Process ✨
okay so the RFC format update was NOT a solo project 🫶 requirements, use cases, concerns, and suggestions were collected from the communities of interest at every stage. input came in through the rfc-interest mailing list and in several face-to-face sessions at IETF meetings. the RFC Series team also had regular chats with the Chairs of the IETF, IRTF, IAB, and IAOC, plus the Independent Stream Editor, to talk through high-level stream requirements. status updates went out during the IETF Technical Plenary and at Format BoFs or IAB sessions at several IETF meetings [IETF84] [IETF85] [IETF88] [IETF89] [IETF90]. so basically everyone got a say 💅
the output from the first year of talking about the RFC format was published as RFC 6949, which gave us the first solid documentation of the requirements for the Series 📜 RFC 6949 is a product of the IAB stream (following the process described in "Process for Publication of IAB RFCs" [RFC4845]). all of the RFCs that informed the format update work came from that same stream too, iykyk 🧚
once those high-level requirements were published, the RFC Series Editor (RSE) pulled together an RFC Format Design Team to start working out the details and build the code for the new and changed formats 🎀 the team talked about ditching the existing xml2rfc vocabulary, but xml2rfc already had a super strong support base in the community and no clear win from switching to other XML vocabularies or schemas. so the call was to build on the xml2rfc version 2 (xml2rfc v2) [RFC7749] model as the base for the new format environment 🌸 part of that discussion also led to dropping the XML document type definition (DTD) in favor of a Regular Language for XML Next General (RELAX NG) model using a defined vocabulary. the biweekly calls were limited to Design Team members, BUT the decisions the team documented were reviewed in public through requests for feedback on the rfc-interest mailing list, so nothing was secret-squirrel 🙈 several of the Design Team's documents, including the ones on xml2rfc v2 [RFC7749] and v3 [RFC7991] and the SVG profile [RFC7996], went through an early GenART review [GEN-ART] before heading to the IAB stream for acceptance ✨
the IETF community gave the bulk of the input, but the team also went looking for an even broader audience 👑 informal chats happened with folks at several International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publisher events [STM], and there were presentations at technical conferences like the TERENA Networking Conference 2014 [TNC2014] and NORDUnet 2014 [NDN2014] 🌈
subpoena stuff was a big deal too 🥺 to respond to concerns about responding to subpoenas and to understand the legal side, advice was requested from the IETF Trust legal team on which format or formats would be considered reasonable when responding to a subpoena request for an RFC.
the team also asked other standards development organizations (SDOs) for input 🦋 a bunch of them don't offer plain-text documents at all, and some offer more than one format for their standards. so informal input was sought from them about their experience supporting one or more non-plain-text formats for their standards.
the whole process was reviewed regularly with the RFC Series Oversight Committee [RSOC], and the IAB and IESG got regular updates too 💜 they gave support and input the entire way through, bestie.
and when consensus wasn't reached, the RSE made the final calls, following the guidance in "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)" [RFC6635] ⭐
5. Key Changes 🌸
the biggest vibe shift is this: the RFC format is moving OUT of being solely ASCII plain text 💖 instead, it's moving to a canonical format that holds all the info needed to render a document into a whole bunch of publication formats. the RFC Editor is going to be responsible for way more than the plain-text file and the PDF-from-text format made at publication time. they'll be creating several different formats so the community's different needs all get met 🫶
the final XML file produced by the RFC Editor is the canonical format for RFCs. it's the lowest common denominator that holds ALL the information meant for an RFC 🔥 PDF/A-3 will be the publication format offered in response to subpoenas for RFCs published through this new process, and it's being developed with long-term archival storage in mind 📚 HTML is the focus for the most flexible set of features, including JavaScript that points to errata and other metadata ✨ plain text will keep being offered where practicable, to support existing tool chains and the people who just prefer reading RFCs that way 🍓
6. Canonical Format Documents 🎀
6.1. XML for RFCs 💅
key points about the XML format, bestie:
- the canonical format for RFCs is XML using the xml2rfc version 3 (xml2rfc v3) vocabulary. the XML file must contain all the info needed to render a variety of formats, and any question about what was intended in the publication gets answered from this file ✨
- authors can submit documents using the xml2rfc v2 vocabulary, but the final publication gets converted to the xml2rfc v3 vocabulary 🦋
- SVG is supported and gets embedded in the final XML file 🌈
- sections, paragraphs, figures, and tables will get automatically generated identifiers in the final XML file 🔢
- the final XML file won't contain any xml2rfc v3 vocabulary elements or attributes that have been marked deprecated 🙅♀️
- no more DTD! the grammar gets defined using RELAX NG [RNC] 💜
- the final XML file will contain, verbatim, the appropriate boilerplate that applies at publication time, as specified by RFC 7841 [RFC7841] or its successors 📜
- the final XML is self-contained with all the info known at publication time 🫧 for example, anything that references externally defined input gets expanded. that covers all uses of xinclude,
srcattributes (like in<artwork>or<sourcecode>elements), include-like processing instructions, and externally defined entities 🧚 - the final XML won't contain comments or processing instructions 🤐
- the final XML won't contain
srcattributes for<artwork>or<sourcecode>elements 🙈
[RFC7749] describes the xml2rfc v2 vocabulary. it was in wide use at the time of writing, but this vocabulary hadn't been formally documented until RFC 7749 came out 📖 to make things simpler for authors and add features, the current vocabulary had to be fully described first, so the team could see what needed to change. RFC 7749 will be obsoleted by [RFC7991] 💀
[RFC7991] describes the xml2rfc v3 vocabulary 🎀 the design goals were to make the vocabulary more intuitive for authors and to expand the features to support the changes being made to the publication process. it obsoletes RFC 7749 ✨
7. Publication Format Documents 🌷
7.1. HTML 🌐
[RFC7992] describes the semantic HTML that the RFC Editor will produce from the xml2rfc v3 files 💖
key points about the HTML output:
- the HTML gets rendered from the XML file. it is NOT derived from the plain-text publication format 🙅♀️
- the body of the document uses a subset of HTML 🎀 the documents include Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) for default visual presentation, which a local CSS file can overwrite 💅
- SVG is supported and gets included in the HTML file 🦋
- text will be reflowable 🌊
- JavaScript is supported on a limited basis. it's not allowed to overwrite or change any text in the rendered HTML 🔒 it may, on a limited basis, add text that gives post-publication metadata or pointers, if warranted. all of that added text will be clearly marked as additional 🏷️
7.2. PDF 📄
[RFC7995] describes the tags and profiles that will be used to create the new PDF format, covering both the internal structure and the visible layout of the file 🧾 it also reviews the different versions of PDF and recommends which PDF standard should apply to RFCs 💜
key points about the PDF output:
- the PDF file gets rendered from the XML file. it is NOT derived from the plain-text publication format 🚫
- the PDF publication format conforms to the PDF/A-3 standard and embeds the canonical XML source 🗃️
- the PDF will look more like the HTML publication format than the plain-text one ✨
- the PDF will include a rich set of tags and metadata inside the document 🏷️
- SVG is supported and gets included in the PDF file 🌈
7.3. Plain Text 🍓
[RFC7994] describes the details of the plain-text format, and it focuses especially on what's changing from the existing plain-text output 👀
key points about the plain-text output:
- the plain-text document will no longer be the canonical version of an RFC 💫
- the plain-text format will be UTF-8 encoded, so non-ASCII characters will be allowed 🌍
- a Byte Order Mark (BOM) will be added at the start of each file 🔖
- widow and orphan control [TYPOGRAPHY] will NOT be a priority for the developers building the rendering code for the plain-text publication format 🤷♀️
- authors may choose to have pointers to line art in other publication formats in place of ASCII art in the .txt file 🎨
- an unpaginated plain-text file will be created 📃
- running headers and footers will not be used 🙅♀️
7.4. Potential Future Publication Formats 🔮
7.4.1. EPUB 📚
this format is meant for ebook readers, and it'll be available for RFCs once the requirements have been defined 🧸 no document on this topic is available yet, so stay tuned, bestie 💜
8. Figures and Artwork 🖼️
8.1. SVG 🎨
[RFC7996] describes the profile for SVG line art. SVG is an XML-based vocabulary for creating line drawings, and SVG information gets embedded within the canonical XML at publication time ✨
9. Content and Page Layout 📐
9.1. Non-ASCII Characters 🌏
moving outside the ASCII range of characters has security and readability implications, so it's a whole thing 🥹 [RFC7997] focuses on exactly where and how non-ASCII characters may be used in an RFC, with the goal of keeping documents as secure and readable as possible, given the info that needs to be expressed 🔐
9.2. Style Guide 🖊️
the RFC Style Guide [RFC7322] got revised to remove as much page formatting info as possible, and it focuses instead on grammar, structure, and content of RFCs 💅 some of the recommended changes did inform the XML v3 vocabulary, though ✨
9.3. CSS Requirements 🎀
[RFC7993] describes how the CSS classes mentioned in "HyperText Markup Language Request for Comments Format" should be used to create an accessible and responsive design for the HTML format ♿ it's giving inclusive design, periodt 🌈
10. Transition Plan 🦋
10.1. Statement of Work and RFP for Tool Development ✨
Okay so, the existing tools for making RFCs need a glow-up, and we also need brand-new ones to handle the updated format 💅. Once the requirements-gathering work described in the documents earlier in this one is mostly done, the Tools Development Team of the IETF is going to team up with the RSE to write Statements of Work (SoWs) 📝. Those SoWs get reviewed inside the Tools Development Team and the Tools Management Committee first, and then they go out for a public comment period. After that, the SoWs get attached to an RFP and posted through the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) bid process [IASA-RFP].
Once bids are in, reviewed, and a winner is awarded, coding begins 🧑💻🔥
10.2. Testing and Transition 🧪
This part is giving experiment era 🔬. While drafts are going through the I-D review and approval process, authors and stream-approving bodies get to pick which ones run through the proposed new publication process 🎀. After those documents are approved for publication, the RFC Editor processes them with xml2rfc v2 and, at the same time, tests the selected I-Ds with the xml2rfc v3 process and tools 🌈. The final RFCs published during this stretch keep being plain text and stay immutable once they're out, but the feedback loop is still super necessary to get testing going. These early tests are mainly hunting for problems with the proposed xml2rfc v3 vocabulary that lead to badly formed publication formats, plus anything that gets in the way of proper review of submitted documents 🔍.
Feedback will keep driving regular iteration of the basic code and the XML vocabulary 🔁. The RFC Production Center (RPC) can't be spending all its time on testing and quality assurance (QA), since its top priority is editing and publishing documents 📚. So community help is needed to keep this stage moving 🫶. A mailing list and an experimental source directory on the RFC Editor website will be set up for community members who want to help with detailed review of the XML and the publication formats 💜. Editorial checks of the publication formats by the community are out of scope. The focus is QA of each available output, checking for inconsistencies across formats 🔎.
The whole point of the testing phase is to work with the community to find and fix bugs in the process and the code before producing canonical, immutable XML. It also collects extra feedback on how usable the new publication formats are 💖.
Any changes to the document review process, up to and including AUTH48, will happen together with the community and the stream-approving bodies as everyone learns more about the features and outputs of the new publication tools 🦋. Defining those processes is out of scope for this document.
Success is measured by closing every bug that the RPC and the Tools Development Team flag as fatal, plus reaching rough consensus with the community that the XML vocabulary and the final output files are ready for publication ✅. The actual rendering engine can go through more review and iteration, since the publication formats can be republished as needed 🌸.
Authors are not required to submit their approved drafts to the RFC Editor in XML, though they are strongly encouraged to do it 🙈. Plain text will also stay an option for the foreseeable future. Just know that documents submitted as plain text cannot include features like SVG artwork 🎨. If it's needed for basic processing and later rendering into the approved output formats, the RPC will generate an XML file itself 🛠️.
Here's the known risk at this stage: it's hard to quantify how many resources the RPC will need 😬. This phase means the RPC has to support both the old and new publication processes for at least six months, which is a lot. It could also get confusing for consumers of RFCs, because some documents published during this time come with a full set of outputs while older documents only have plain text 📖. Publication might be delayed, too, if new bugs turn up that have to be fixed before files can be converted into the canonical format and its associated publication formats 🐢.
10.3. Completion 🎉
Authors can submit XML (preferred) or plain-text files 💅. XML files submitted for publication will be converted to canonical XML format and published with all available publication formats 🌈. Every author is expected to review the final documents, consistent with the evolving procedures for reviewing documents 👀.
Success for this phase means the RSE and the IAOC have a solid understanding of the costs and resources needed for long-term support of the new format model 💰.
11. Security Considerations 🔐
Okay, this one is serious, bestie 😭. Changing the format for RFCs means modifying a whole lot of components all the way through to publication. Understanding those changes, and what they mean for the entire tool chain, is critical. The goal is to avoid unintended bugs that would let text get changed without anyone meaning to 🚨. And those unintended text changes could corrupt a standard, a practice, or some other critical piece of information about a protocol 💀.
12. References 📚
12.1. Normative References
[RFC6949] Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6949, May 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6949>.
[RFC7749] Reschke, J., "The "xml2rfc" Version 2 Vocabulary",
RFC 7749, DOI 10.17487/RFC7749, February 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7749>.
[RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.
[RFC7992] Hildebrand, J., Ed. and P. Hoffman, "HTML Format for
RFCs", RFC 7992, DOI 10.17487/RFC7992, December 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC7993] Flanagan, H., "Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Requirements
for RFCs", RFC 7993, DOI 10.17487/RFC7993, December 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7993>.
[RFC7994] Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs",
RFC 7994, DOI 10.17487/RFC7994, December 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7994>.
[RFC7995] Hansen, T., Ed., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF Format
for RFCs", RFC 7995, DOI 10.17487/RFC7995, December 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7995>.
[RFC7996] Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC",
RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7996>.
[RFC7997] Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in
RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7997>.12.2. Informative References
[RFC4845] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "Process
for Publication of IAB RFCs", RFC 4845,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4845, July 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4845>.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
[RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.
[RFC7841] Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed.,
"RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7841>.
[ASCII] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character
Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1986, 1986.
[GEN-ART] IETF, "General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)",
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/gen-art.html>.
[IASA-RFP] IETF Administrative Support Activity, "RFPs and RFIs",
<http://iaoc.ietf.org/rfps-rfis.html>.
[IETF84] Flanagan, H., "IETF 84 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
July 2012,
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/rfcform.html>.
[IETF85] Flanagan, H., "IETF 85 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
November 2012,
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/rfcform.html>.
[IETF88] Flanagan, H., "IETF 88 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
November 2013,
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/rfcform.html>.
[IETF89] Flanagan, H., "IETF 89 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
March 2014,
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/rfcform.html>.
[IETF90] Flanagan, H., "IETF 90 Proceedings: RFC Format (rfcform)",
July 2014,
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/rfcform.html>.
[ISTATS] "Internet Live Stats",
<http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/>.
[NDN2014] "28th NORDUnet Conference 2014", 2014,
<https://events.nordu.net/display/NORDU2014/
BoF%27s+and+side+meetings>.
[RFC-INTEREST]
RFC Editor, "rfc-interest -- A list for discussion of the
RFC series and RFC Editor functions.",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/
rfc-interest>.
[RNC] Clark, J., "RELAX NG Compact Syntax", OASIS , November
2002, <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/
compact-20021121.html>.
[RSOC] IAB, "RFC Editor Program: The RSOC",
<http://www.iab.org/activities/programs/
rfc-editor-program/>.
[TNC2014] Flanagan, H., "IETF Update - 'What's Hot?' - RFC Update",
2014, <https://tnc2014.terena.org/core/presentation/84>.
[STM] STM, "The global voice of scholarly publishing",
<http://www.stm-assoc.org/>.
[TYPOGRAPHY]
Butterick, M., "Butterick's Practical Typography",
<http://practicaltypography.com/
widow-and-orphan-control.html>.
[XML-ANNOUNCE]
Flanagan, H., "Subject: [rfc-i] Direction of the RFC
Format Development effort", message to the rfc-interest
mailing list, May 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/
2013-May/005584.html>.IAB Members at the Time of Approval 🌟
The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in alphabetical order):
- Jari Arkko
- Ralph Droms
- Ted Hardie
- Joe Hildebrand
- Russ Housley
- Lee Howard
- Erik Nordmark
- Robert Sparks
- Andrew Sullivan
- Dave Thaler
- Martin Thomson
- Brian Trammell
- Suzanne Woolf
Acknowledgements 🫶
With huge thanks to the RFC Format Design Team for making this transition a success: Nevil Brownlee (ISE), Tony Hansen, Joe Hildebrand, Paul Hoffman, Ted Lemon, Julian Reschke, Adam Roach, Alice Russo, Robert Sparks (Tools Team liaison), and Dave Thaler 👑.
Author's Address 💌
Heather Flanagan
RFC Editor
Email: rse@rfc-editor.org
URI: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc7990 2016-12
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms