Internet-Draft RFC Change Policy February 2024
Carpenter Expires 29 August 2024 [Page]
Intended Status:
B. E. Carpenter
Univ. of Auckland

Policy Considerations for Changes to RFCs


This document clarifies the policy framework for changes to RFC formats and associated tool chains.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Status information for this document may be found at

Discussion of this document takes place on the RSWG Working Group mailing list (, which is archived at

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 August 2024.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The scope of work of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is set by [RFC9280]. In particular, Section 3 states that policies drafted by the RSWG "might include, but are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series."

This definition is not explicit about the level of detail in document formats. Specifically, do technical details of the markup language, graphics formats, and internationalized character sets lie within the policy remit of RSWG, or are they the responsibility of the RFC Production Center and the IETF LLC tool support team?

The purpose of the present document is to resolve this question.

2. Policy Considerations

High level issues, such as what markup is used for documents (currently XML2RFCv3), what graphics format (current a subset of SVG), and what publication formats are used (currently plain UTF-8 text, HTML, and PDF/A) are policy matters in the purview of the RSWG, with approval by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). Similarly, how to manage changes in these formats is clearly a policy matter.

Technical details, for example of the XML2RFC vocabulary and of the SVG subset, need to be agreed as the result of a consensus process that includes the tools team, the RPC, and the wider community. The best existing venue for forming such a consensus is the RSWG, with approval by the RSAB. Since the RSWG was formed and announced as a policy working group, it is strongly recommended that such technical details should be developed by one or more designated RSWG design teams, as foreseen in Section of [RFC9280]. The resulting technical documents will be remitted to the RSWG and processed as if they were policy documents.

Practical issues about the range of tools provided for authors, for readers and for the RPC's own use, and when and how such tools are implemented and updated, are operational matters in the purview of the RPC and of IETF LLC.

3. IANA Considerations

No IANA actions are needed.

4. Security Considerations

This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.

5. Acknowledgements

Useful comments were received from ...

6. Informative References

Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)", RFC 9280, DOI 10.17487/RFC9280, , <>.

Appendix A. Change Log [RFC Editor: please remove]

A.1. Draft-00

  • Original version

Author's Address

Brian E. Carpenter
The University of Auckland
School of Computer Science
The University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland 1142
New Zealand