**NOTE: This wiki is an archive of RFC Series Editor (RSE) pages created from 2012-2019.\\ For current information, please see the [[https://www.rfc-editor.org|RFC Editor website]] or [[https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki|RPC wiki]].** --------------------------- ==== Priorities for 2019 (in order) ==== - [[rfcformat|RFC Format]] - [[fifty|Fifty Years of RFCs]] - [[stylemanualrfc|2019 Update of Style Manual RFC]] - [[outreach|Develop an outreach plan]] - Clarify issues around Streams and Statuses - [[satsurvey|Customer Satisfaction Survey experiment]] - Revise SLA (possibly a 2020 item) ==== The RSE Project List ==== === Small-sized projects (1-6 months from start) === ^ Priority ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^ | C | [[acronym|Acronym review]] | The current list of approved acronyms (one that do not need to be expanded in RFC) needs to be reviewed and brought up to date or entirely discarded | | | A | [[fifty|Fifty Years of RFCs]] | RFC to document and other announcements in relation to the fiftieth anniversary of RFC 1 | September 2018 | === Medium-sized projects (6-18 months from start of project) === ^ Priority ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^ | A | [[auth48|AUTH48 changes]] | can we improve efficiency of AUTH48 process by potentially clarifying policy and implementing new tools to streamline the process? | | | B | [[errata|Errata process review]] | submitting errata and citing errata is non-trivial and the overall process around the errata service needs to be reviewed | | | C | [[scholarindex|Scholarly indexing]] | RFC are not indexed in online indexes such as: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore | | | C | [[shortlivedref|Short-lived references]] | some references might not be long-lived enough from an archival perspective, and as a result, the RFC Editor may need to keep an archival copy; need to understand potential copyright and distribution issues (work in progress on this, prior to RSE appointment) | | | B | [[citation|Citation Library Updates]] | Formalize RFC Editor support of the citation library | | | A | [[satsurvey|Customer Satisfaction Survey experiment]] | Develop a new survey process to evaluate the RPC | | === Large-sized projects (18+ months) === ^ Priority ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^ | A | [[rfcformat|RFC Format]] | Determine the future of images, character encoding, and archival format | March 2012 | | B | [[EFL|EFL Author support]] | Work with RPC, community to find ways to support EFL authors more effectively | ongoing | | B | [[rfced-infrastructure|Infrastructure/Data Accessibility]] | Review the overall architecture behind the editing and publication process for the RFC Editor, and refactor the environment | ongoing | | B | [[outreach|Outreach]] | Create an outreach plan for the RFC Editor | ongoing | ==== Potential projects (to be discussed and prioritized) ==== | | [[updating-ref|References as metadata]] | Discuss with RPC, community potential value/cost of turning RFC references in to metadata that would be periodically updated (without republishing the RFC) | | | [[xml-outsource|Outsourcing XML review]] | Should the review of the XML file be outsourced? | | | [[metadata-preservation|Understanding the role of metadata in digital preservation]] | Review of digital preservation policy and existing RFC metadata | | | [[context-search|Search response improvements ]] | Providing additional context to search returns, e.g., pointers to WG | | | [[exp-RFC|Create an experimental space for RFC formats or features ]] | Consider having a place to test new formats or features for RFCs | | | [[code|RFC Source Code Repository]] | Research issues around the creation of a source code repository for the RFC Series | | | | [[EU-ICT|EU-ISA]] | Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations (ISA) and the RFC Series | | ==== Completed Projects/Tasks ==== ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Notes ^ | ISSN | what would it take to change the metadata recorded in an ISSN to move it from Publisher - IETF Trust to RFC Editor; is this a significant enough change to require the ISSN to change, and if so, what are the consequences to that change, are there financial/reputational costs? Is this a necessary change? | ISSN updated 8-March-2012 | | Derivitive Works Clause | bug in the publication of an unknown number of RFC; make sure bug is on record, process is updated for a visual check that RFC do not publish with mutually exclusive derivitive clause language (ie RFC 5728), and determine how many RFC this impacts. | impacts only 1 RFC | | Copyright| update the info on the copyright page | Page updated 14-Feb-2012 | | Author Overload | guidance required on number and categories of contributors to an RFC. | Policy doc withdrawn | | [[newstream|New Stream]] | Determine the criteria and process for adding a new stream to the RFC Series | Proposal submitted by the ISE to have new stream docs go through the Independent Submissions stream (see wiki page) | | [[rfcpublisher|Review of RFC Publisher function]] | the RFC Publisher must be a self-contained entity, capable of being moved independent of Production Center; find out where the tools and processes exist that interfere with that independence. | Documentation prepared and reviewed at IETF 88 | | [[stylemanualrfc|Style Manual RFC]] | Update of current accepted practice to be published as a new RFC | revised style guide approved for publication April 2014 | | [[stylemanualweb|Style Manual web]] | Creation of proto-policies, guidelines, and flexible pages | | | [[scholarindex|Scholarly indexing]] | RFC are now properly indexed in Google Scholar | August 2014 | | [[DOI|DOI assignment]] | DOI assignments have been requested for RFCs as a way to improve the scholarly reputation of the Series | DOIs added April 2015 | | [[website|RFC Editor website]] | update content, look and feel to the RFC Editor website. | New site published October 2015 | | [[stats|Statistics and Metrics]] | automating stats reporting | moved into production in July 2016| | [[dig-sig|Digital Signatures]] | digitally signing RFCs | project shelved due to concerns re: revocation October 2016 | | [[dig-arc-pol|Digital Archive Policy]] | develop framework for how to handle digital preservation | two partnerships (National Library of Sweden, Computer History Museum) in place; RFC 8153 published | ==== Other Information ==== * Tracking [[digstorage|digital storage]] industry trends * [[author_id|Identifiers for authors]]