Hello all, This year was focused on editorial policy development, modernization of the RFC Editor site, accessibility improvements, and long-term preservation of RFC-related resources. A summary of this work follows, along with some observations about the efficacy of the current Editorial Stream model (which I would love feedback on!).
Thanks, Alexis # Editorial Policy Development Two Editorial Stream drafts progressed over the course of the year: * Updates to RFC 9280 (RFC Editor Model v3): I coauthored a draft with Paul Hoffman to clarify policy implementation responsibilities and other issues in RFC 9280. The draft was approved in October by the RSAB, the IESG, and the IAB, and sent to the RPC for editing. (draft-hoffman-rfc9280-updates) * SVGs in RFCs: I coauthored a draft with Martin Thomson, Nevil Brownlee, and Jean Mahoney to obsolete RFC 7996 and replace it with a policy-only document. The goal of this work is to decouple policy from implementation details, enabling greater flexibility for the RPC and making the creation and inclusion of SVG graphics easier for RFC authors. This draft was approved by the RSAB, and is currently in AUTH48. (draft-rossi-svgsinrfcs) # RFC-Editor.org Modernization Another major area of work was the ongoing redesign and modernization of the rfc-editor.org website. The overarching goal of the site updates is to make the site more friendly for RFC readers by clarifying/simplifying the site, improving search, implementing new interactive features, and improving accessibility. Early in the year, I worked with the RPC to draft and refine updated site content geared to RFC readers, and incorporating SEO guidance that will hopefully improve search visibility for the site. A preview of the redesigned site was shared with the community during a virtual call over the summer, and the RPC gathered further feedback at IETF 124 in Montreal, where attendees were invited to interact with the new site at the RPC desk. I am also leading design discussions for future interactive features intended to improve usability, engagement, and accessibility (via a grant from ICANN). # SVG Accessibility Guidance Once draft-rossi-svgsinrfcs is published as an RFC, the RPC will be able to update its support and guidance for ensuring the accessibility of SVG graphics in RFCs. Implementing these changes will require coordination by the RPC with the Tools Team, as well as updates to documentation and training materials. I have worked with the RPC to support project planning for these changes and am assisting with the development of author-facing documentation on creating accessible SVG graphics for RFCs. This work supports broader accessibility goals and helps authors produce documents that are usable by a wide range of readers, including those who rely on assistive technologies. # Web Archiving and Preservation I continued ongoing work related to web archiving and digital preservation: * Completed annual crawls of the RFC Editor, IETF, IAB, and IRTF web sites. * Maintained an ongoing workflow to archive external references (“outlinks”) cited in newly published RFCs, ensuring their availability via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. * Ran a targeted recrawl of all DOI-based RFC outlinks to address previously identified crawling issues. During this work, I identified a recurring problem with broken CiteSeerX DOI references and reported the issue to the RPC for consideration in future editorial practices. # External RFC Archiving Partnerships The RFC Series is backed up via formal archiving agreements with the Computer History Museum and the National Library of Sweden, as well as several informal external archives that independently maintain up-to-date copies of RFCs. During a review this year, I verified that these informal archives remain active, as does the Computer History Museum. I was unable to confirm whether the National Library of Sweden continues to archive RFCs; while I confirmed archiving activity with them in 2023, several subsequent attempts to contact them have not received a response. It may be appropriate to consider identifying an additional formal archiving partner to strengthen redundancy, although given the number of other informal archives this is not an urgent task. # Observations on the Editorial Stream Process The current RSWG + RSAB model has sent 3 documents to the RPC in the past 3 years, and one more is currently nearing conclusion in the working group. This pace has accelerated over time, as most of these documents are from the past year, but it still seems like a slow pace for relatively straightforward documents. Participation in the RSWG is typically limited to a small number of active contributors, and we’ve seen relatively long lags during those discussions. Additionally, Last Call requests for broader community input have generally not resulted in significant additional participation. This may indicate a lack of controversy over these documents, and/or a lack of wider community interest in Editorial policy. I wasn’t present for the conversations preceding the creation of this new Editorial Stream model, so there may be concerns or goals I’m not aware of (except as they’re reflected in 9280 or this github repo [1]). However, I think it may be time to consider whether the Editorial Stream process should be adjusted to improve timeliness. For example, I think the IAB’s document process (expert board combined with community review) may be a useful model to consider. I am interested in community feedback on whether you think the current model is working well and, if not, what changes might improve efficiency and/or participation. Please feel free to share on list, or with me directly. [1] https://github.com/rfcseries-wg/new-topics/issues
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
