path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7990.txt

Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                            H. Flanagan
Request for Comments: 7990                                    RFC Editor
Category: Informational                                    December 2016
ISSN: 2070-1721


                          RFC Format Framework

Abstract

   In order to improve the readability of RFCs while supporting their
   archivability, the canonical format of the RFC Series will be
   transitioning from plain-text ASCII to XML using the xml2rfc version
   3 vocabulary; different publication formats will be rendered from
   that base document.  With these changes comes an increase in
   complexity for authors, consumers, and the publisher of RFCs.  This
   document serves as the framework that provides the problem statement,
   lays out a road map of the documents that capture the specific
   requirements, and describes the transition plan.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
   and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
   provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of the
   Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for
   publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   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) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.




Flanagan                      Informational                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16



















Flanagan                      Informational                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


1.  Introduction

   "RFC Series Format Requirements and Future Development" [RFC6949]
   discusses the need to improve the display of items such as author
   names and artwork in RFCs as well as the need to improve the ability
   of RFCs to be displayed properly on various devices.  Based on the
   discussions with communities of interest, such as the IETF, the RFC
   Series Editor decided to explore a change to the format of the Series
   [XML-ANNOUNCE].  This document serves as the framework that describes
   the problems being solved and summarizes the documents created to-
   date that capture the specific requirements for each aspect of the
   change in format.

   Key changes to the publication of RFCs are highlighted, and a
   transition plan that will take the Series from a plain text, ASCII-
   only format to the new formats is described on the rfc-interest
   mailing list [RFC-INTEREST].

   This document is concerned with the production of RFCs, focusing on
   the published formats.  It does not address any changes to the
   processes each stream uses to develop and review their submissions
   (specifically, how Internet-Drafts will be developed).  While I-Ds
   have a similar set of issues and concerns, directly addressing those
   issues for I-Ds will be discussed within each document stream.

   The details described in this document are expected to change based
   on experience gained in implementing the new publication toolsets.
   Revised documents will be published capturing those changes as the
   toolsets are completed.  Other implementers must not expect those
   changes to remain backwards compatible with the details described in
   this document.

2.  Problem Statement

   There are nearly three billion people connected to the Internet
   [ISTATS] and individuals from at least 45 countries have regularly
   attended IETF meetings over the last five years.  The Internet is now
   global, and while the world has changed from when the first RFCs were
   published, the Series remains critical to defining protocols,
   standards, best practices, and more for this global network that
   continues to grow.  In order to make RFCs easily viewable to the
   largest number of people possible, across a wide array of devices,
   and to respect the diversity of authors and reference materials while
   still recognizing the archival aspects of the Series, it is time to
   update the tightly prescribed format of the RFC Series.






Flanagan                      Informational                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


   All changes to the format of the RFC Series must be made with
   consideration to the requirements of a wide set of communities over
   an extended length of time.  Examples of the preferences and specific
   needs are those of existing authors and implementers, lawyers that
   argue Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), educators, managers, and
   policymakers that need to know what to list in potential Request for
   Proposals (RFPs) for their organizations.  The immediate needs of
   today's communities must be balanced with the needs for long-term
   archival storage.

3.  Terminology

   This document uses terminology from RFC 6949, repeated below for
   convenience.

      ASCII: Coded Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for
      Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986 [ASCII]

      Canonical format: the authorized, recognized, accepted, and
      archived version of the document

      Metadata: information associated with a document so as to provide,
      for example, definitions of its structure, or of elements within
      the document such as its topic or author

      Publication format: display and distribution format as it may be
      read or printed after the publication process has completed

      Reflowable text: text that automatically wraps to the next line in
      a document as the user moves the margins of the text, either by
      resizing the window or changing the font size

      Revisable format: the format that will provide the information for
      conversion into a Publication format; it is used or created by the
      RFC Editor

      Submission format: the format submitted to the RFC Editor for
      editorial revision and publication

4.  Overview of the Decision-Making Process

   Requirements, use cases, concerns, and suggestions were collected
   from the communities of interest at every stage of the project to
   update the RFC format.  Input was received through the rfc-interest
   mailing list, as well as in several face-to-face sessions at IETF
   meetings.  Regular conversations were held with the Chairs of the
   IETF, IRTF, IAB, and IAOC as well as the Independent Stream Editor to
   discuss high-level stream requirements.  Updates regarding the status



Flanagan                      Informational                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


   of the project were provided to the IETF community during the IETF
   Technical Plenary as well as Format BoFs or IAB sessions at several
   IETF meetings [IETF84] [IETF85] [IETF88] [IETF89] [IETF90].

   The output from the first year of discussion on the topic of RFC
   format was published as RFC 6949, which provided the first solid
   documentation on 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]).  This is also the
   case with all of the RFCs that informed the format update work.

   After the high-level requirements were published, the RFC Series
   Editor (RSE) brought together an RFC Format Design Team to start
   working out the necessary details to develop the code needed to
   create new and changed formats.  The Design Team discussed moving
   away from the existing xml2rfc vocabulary, but with such a strong
   existing support base within the community and no clear value with
   other XML vocabularies or schemas, the decision was made to work with
   the xml2rfc version 2 (xml2rfc v2) [RFC7749] model and use it as the
   base for the new format environment.  Part of this discussion
   included a decision to stop using an XML document type definition
   (DTD) in favor of a Regular Language for XML Next General (RELAX NG)
   model using a defined vocabulary.  While the biweekly calls for this
   team were limited to Design Team members, review of the decisions as
   documented in the documents produced by this team was done publicly
   through requests for feedback on the rfc-interest mailing list.
   Several of the documents produced by the Design Team, including those
   on xml2rfc v2 [RFC7749] and v3 [RFC7991] and the SVG profile
   [RFC7996], were sent through an early GenART review [GEN-ART] before
   starting the process to be accepted by the IAB stream.

   While the IETF community provided the majority of input on the
   process, additional outreach opportunities were sought to gain input
   from an even broader audience.  Informal discussions were held with
   participants at several International Association of Scientific,
   Technical, and Medical Publisher events [STM], and presentations made
   at technical conferences such as the TERENA Networking Conference
   2014 [TNC2014] and NORDUnet 2014 [NDN2014].

   In order to respond to concerns regarding responses to subpoenas and
   to understand the legal requirements, advice was requested from the
   IETF Trust legal team regarding what format or formats would be
   considered reasonable when responding to a subpoena request for an
   RFC.

   Given that several other standards development organizations (SDOs)
   do not offer plain-text documents, and in fact may offer more than
   one format for their standards, informal input was sought from them



Flanagan                      Informational                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


   regarding their experience with supporting one or more non-plain-text
   formats for their standards.

   Finally, the entire process was reviewed regularly with the RFC
   Series Oversight Committee [RSOC] and regular updates provided to the
   IAB and IESG.  They have offered support and input throughout the
   process.

   Where consensus was not reached during the process, the RSE made any
   necessary final decisions, as per the guidance in "RFC Editor Model
   (Version 2)" [RFC6635].

5.  Key Changes

   At the highest level, the changes being made to the RFC format
   involve breaking away from solely ASCII plain text and moving to a
   canonical format that includes all the information required for
   rendering a document into a wide variety of publication formats.  The
   RFC Editor will become responsible for more than just the plain-text
   file and the PDF-from-text format created at time of publication; the
   RFC Editor will be creating several different formats in order to
   meet the diverse requirements of the community.

   The final XML file produced by the RFC Editor will be considered the
   canonical format for RFCs; it is the lowest common denominator that
   holds all the information intended for an RFC.  PDF/A-3 will be the
   publication format offered in response to subpoenas for RFCs
   published through this new process and will be developed with an eye
   towards long-term archival storage.  HTML will be the focus of
   providing the most flexible set of features for an RFC, including
   JavaScript to provide pointers to errata and other metadata.  Plain
   text will continue to be offered in order to support existing tool
   chains, where practicable, and the individuals who prefer to read
   RFCs in this format.

6.  Canonical Format Documents

6.1.  XML for RFCs

   Key points regarding the XML format:

   o  The canonical format for RFCs is XML using the xml2rfc version 3
      (xml2rfc v3) vocabulary.  The XML file must contain all
      information necessary to render a variety of formats; any question
      about what was intended in the publication will be answered from
      this format.





Flanagan                      Informational                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


   o  Authors may submit documents using the xml2rfc v2 vocabulary, but
      the final publication will be converted to use the xml2rfc v3
      vocabulary.

   o  SVG is supported and will be embedded in the final XML file.

   o  There will be automatically generated identifiers for sections,
      paragraphs, figures, and tables in the final XML file.

   o  The XML file will not contain any xml2rfc v3 vocabulary elements
      or attributes that have been marked deprecated.

   o  A DTD will no longer be used.  The grammar will be defined using
      RELAX NG [RNC].

   o  The final XML file will contain, verbatim, the appropriate
      boilerplate as applicable at time of publication specified by RFC
      7841 [RFC7841] or its successors.

   o  The final XML will be self-contained with all the information
      known at publication time.  For instance, all features that
      reference externally defined input will be expanded.  This
      includes all uses of xinclude, src attributes (such as in
      <artwork> or <sourcecode> elements), include-like processing
      instructions, and externally defined entities.

   o  The final XML will not contain comments or processing
      instructions.

   o  The final XML will not contain src attributes for <artwork> or
      <sourcecode> elements.

   [RFC7749] describes the xml2rfc v2 vocabulary.  While in wide use at
   the time of writing, this vocabulary had not been formally documented
   prior to the publication of RFC 7749.  In order to understand what
   needed to change in the vocabulary to allow for a more simple
   experience and additional features for authors, the current
   vocabulary needed to be fully described.  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 in the publication
   process.  It obsoletes RFC 7749.







Flanagan                      Informational                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


7.  Publication Format Documents

7.1.  HTML

   [RFC7992] describes the semantic HTML that will be produced by the
   RFC Editor from the xml2rfc v3 files.

   Key points regarding the HTML output:

   o  The HTML will be rendered from the XML file; it will not be
      derived from the plain-text publication format.

   o  The body of the document will use a subset of HTML.  The documents
      will include Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) for default visual
      presentation; it can be overwritten by a local CSS file.

   o  SVG is supported and will be included in the HTML file.

   o  Text will be reflowable.

   o  JavaScript will be supported on a limited basis.  It will not be
      permitted to overwrite or change any text present in the rendered
      HTML.  It may, on a limited basis, add text that provides post-
      publication metadata or pointers, if warranted.  All such 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, including both the internal structure and the
   visible layout of the file.  A review of the different versions of
   PDF is offered, with a recommendation of what PDF standard should
   apply to RFCs.

   Key points regarding the PDF output:

   o  The PDF file will be rendered from the XML file; it will not be
      derived from the plain-text publication format.

   o  The PDF publication format will conform to the PDF/A-3 standard
      and will embed the canonical XML source.

   o  The PDF will look more like the HTML publication format than the
      plain-text publication format.

   o  The PDF will include a rich set of tags and metadata within the
      document.




Flanagan                      Informational                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


   o  SVG is supported and will be included in the PDF file.

7.3.  Plain Text

   [RFC7994] describes the details of the plain-text format; in
   particular, it focuses on what is changing from the existing plain-
   text output.

   Key points regarding the plain-text output:

   o  The plain-text document will no longer be the canonical version of
      an RFC.

   o  The plain-text format will be UTF-8 encoded; non-ASCII characters
      will be allowed.

   o  A Byte Order Mark (BOM) will be added at the start of each file.

   o  Widow and orphan control [TYPOGRAPHY] for the plain-text
      publication format will not have priority for the developers
      creating the rendering code.

   o  Authors may choose to have pointers to line art in other
      publication formats in place of ASCII art in the .txt file.

   o  An unpaginated plain-text file will be created.

   o  Running headers and footers will not be used.

7.4.  Potential Future Publication Formats

7.4.1.  EPUB

   This format is intended for use by ebook readers and will be
   available for RFCs after the requirements have been defined.  No
   document on this topic is currently available.

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; SVG information will be
   embedded within the canonical XML at the time of publication.







Flanagan                      Informational                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


9.  Content and Page Layout

9.1.  Non-ASCII Characters

   There are security and readability implications to moving outside the
   ASCII range of characters.  [RFC7997] focuses on exactly where and
   how non-ASCII characters may be used in an RFC, with an eye towards
   keeping the documents as secure and readable as possible, given the
   information that needs to be expressed.

9.2.  Style Guide

   The RFC Style Guide [RFC7322] was revised to remove as much page
   formatting information as possible, focusing instead on grammar,
   structure, and content of RFCs.  Some of the changes recommended,
   however, informed the XML v3 vocabulary.

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.

10.  Transition Plan

10.1.  Statement of Work and RFP for Tool Development

   Existing tools for the creation of RFCs will need to be updated, and
   new tools created, to implement the updated format.  As the
   requirements-gathering effort, described in the various documents
   described earlier in this document, finishes the bulk of the work,
   the Tools Development Team of the IETF will work with the RSE to
   develop Statements of Work (SoWs).  Those SoWs will first be reviewed
   within the Tools Development Team and the Tools Management Committee,
   and it will then go out for a public comment period.  After public
   review, the SoWs will be attached to an RFP and posted as per the
   IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) bid process [IASA-RFP].

   Once bids have been received, reviewed, and awarded, coding will
   begin.

10.2.  Testing and Transition

   During the I-D review and approval process, authors and stream-
   approving bodies will select drafts to run through the proposed new
   publication process.  The RFC Editor will process these documents
   after they have been approved for publication using xml2rfc v2 and
   will simultaneously test the selected I-Ds with the xml2rfc v3



Flanagan                      Informational                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


   process and tools.  While the final RFCs published during this time
   will continue as plain text and immutable once published, the
   feedback process is necessary to bootstrap initial testing.  These
   early tests will target finding issues with the proposed xml2rfc v3
   vocabulary that result in poorly formed publication formats as well
   as issues that prevent proper review of submitted documents.

   Feedback will result in regular iteration of the basic code and XML
   vocabulary.  In order to limit the amount of time the RFC Production
   Center (RPC) spends on testing and quality assurance (QA), their
   priority will be to edit and publish documents; therefore, community
   assistance will be necessary to help move this stage along.  A
   mailing list and experimental source directory on the RFC Editor
   website will be created for community members willing to assist in
   the detailed review of the XML and publication formats.  Editorial
   checks of the publication formats by the community are out of scope;
   the focus will be the QA of each available output, checking for
   inconsistencies across formats.

   The purpose of the testing phase is to work with the community to
   identify and fix bugs in the process and the code before producing
   canonical, immutable XML, and to collect additional feedback on the
   usability of the new publication formats.

   Any modifications to the document review process, up to and including
   AUTH48, will happen with the community and the stream-approving
   bodies as we learn more about the features and outputs of the new
   publication tools.  Defining those processes is out of scope for this
   document.

   Success will be measured by the closure of all bugs identified by the
   RPC and the Tools Development Team as fatal in addition to reaching
   rough consensus with the community on the readiness of the XML
   vocabulary and final output files for publication.  The actual
   rendering engine can go through further review and iteration, as the
   publication formats may be republished as needed.

   Authors are not required to submit their approved drafts to the RFC
   Editor in an XML format, though they are strongly encouraged to do
   so; plain text will also remain an option for the foreseeable future.
   However, documents submitted as plain text cannot include such
   features as SVG artwork.  The RPC will generate an XML file if
   necessary for basic processing and subsequent rendering into the
   approved output formats.

   A known risk at this point of the transition is the difficulty in
   quantifying the resources required from the RPC.  This phase will
   require more work on the part of the RPC to support both old and new



Flanagan                      Informational                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


   publication processes for at least six months.  There is potential
   for confusion as consumers of RFCs find some documents published at
   this time with a full set of outputs, while older documents only have
   plain text.  There may be a delay in publication as new bugs are
   found that must be fixed before the files can be converted into the
   canonical format and associated publication formats.

10.3.  Completion

   Authors may submit XML (preferred) or plain-text files.  The XML
   files submitted for publication will be converted to canonical XML
   format and published with all available publication formats.  All
   authors will be expected to review the final documents as consistent
   with the evolving procedures for reviewing documents.

   Success for this phase will be measured by a solid understanding by
   the RSE and the IAOC of the necessary costs and resources required
   for long-term support of the new format model.

11.  Security Considerations

   Changing the format for RFCs involves modifying a great number of
   components to publication.  Understanding those changes and the
   implications for the entire tool chain is critical so as to avoid
   unintended bugs that would allow unintended changes to text.
   Unintended changes to text could in turn corrupt a standard,
   practice, or 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>.



Flanagan                      Informational                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


   [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>.





Flanagan                      Informational                    [Page 13]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


   [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>.





Flanagan                      Informational                    [Page 14]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


   [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 many thanks to the RFC Format Design Team for their efforts in
   making this transition successful: 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.











Flanagan                      Informational                    [Page 15]
^L
RFC 7990                  RFC Format Framework             December 2016


Author's Address

   Heather Flanagan
   RFC Editor

   Email: rse@rfc-editor.org
   URI:   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220












































Flanagan                      Informational                    [Page 16]
^L