RPC Wiki

114_github_workshop_followup

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2022-08-08T15:26:51+00:00

IETF 114 GitHub Workshop * Held July 26, 2022, 8-9 AM EDT * Meeting notes * Slides * Session recording Next steps * Hold an experiment similar to RFC 9245. * Hold another workshop after we've completed a couple of more experiments (with both XML and markdown sources). Summary of what participants said

121_stream_managers_meeting

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-11-27T22:25:08+00:00

Stream Managers Meeting at IETF 121 4 Nov 2024, Wicklow MR 1, IETF 121, Dublin Attendees * Jay Daley * Roman Danyliw * Sandy Ginoza * Mirja Kühlewind * Eliot Lear * Jean Mahoney * Colin Perkins * Alexis Rossi * Alice Russo * Robert Sparks

2026stats

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-05-13T18:44:02+00:00

RFC Processing Times May 2026 Figure 1: Average times in EDIT and RFC-EDITOR Figure 2: SLA table Figure 3: Documents entering and exiting the queue ---------- April 2026 Figure 1: Average time for a document to reach AUTH48 Figure 2: SLA table

20250625-stats

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-06-25T15:54:47+00:00

RFC Processing Times (June 2025) Figure 1: Average time for a document to reach AUTH48 Figure 2: SLA table Figure 3: Documents entering and exiting the queue

20250820-stats

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-08-19T23:16:47+00:00

RFC Processing Times (August 2025) Figure 1: Average time for a document to reach AUTH48 Figure 2: SLA table Figure 3: Documents entering and exiting the queue

20250917-stats

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-09-17T17:24:50+00:00

RFC Processing Times (September 2025) Figure 1: Average time for a document to reach AUTH48 Figure 2: SLA table Figure 3: Documents entering and exiting the queue

20251021-stats

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-10-21T15:36:35+00:00

RFC Processing Times (October 2025) Figure 1: Average time for a document to reach AUTH48 Figure 2: SLA table Figure 3: Documents entering and exiting the queue

20251119-stats

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-11-19T17:45:15+00:00

RFC Processing Times (November 2025) Figure 1: Average time for a document to reach AUTH48 Figure 2: SLA table Figure 3: Documents entering and exiting the queue

20251216-stats

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-12-16T19:29:16+00:00

RFC Processing Times (December 2025) Figure 1: Average time for a document to reach AUTH48 Figure 2: SLA table Figure 3: Documents entering and exiting the queue

abbrev_list

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-09-18T17:36:10+00:00

Abbreviations List It is common in technical writing to abbreviate complex technical terms by combining the first letters. The resulting abbreviations are often called acronyms. Editorial guidelines for the RFC series generally require expansion of these abbreviations on first occurrence in a title, in an abstract, or in the body of the document.

current_file_mgmt

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-08-03T16:01:28+00:00

Legacy File Management, Issue Tracking, and Version Control Note that the RPC is moving away from the following process, which had been in place for many years. The RPC is now placing documents in GitHub repos, but editors are still sharing documents and diff files with authors via the legacy file management system.

format_rfcs_iab_stream

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-03-21T07:25:47+00:00

Draft: Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream Below is general guidance about the format for IAB stream documents. This is intended to supplement RFC 7841 and the information at <>. If instructions conflict, those documents have precedence. The use of "Ed." and the Document Header

github_auth48_experiment

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2022-07-20T21:28:59+00:00

Experiment: Using GitHub for AUTH48 Please see github_auth48_experiments for the latest information.

github_auth48_experiments

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-02-16T19:17:07+00:00

Experiments Using GitHub During AUTH48 Introduction This page summarizes the GitHub experiments that the RPC has held for documents going through AUTH48. Please follow the links to see details of the individual experiments. To participate in an experiment, please see

github_experiment_6

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2023-09-13T22:59:05+00:00

GitHub "Experiment 6" Design The following design was discussed at the GitHub Workshop at IETF 114 and followed for experiments held between IETF 114 and IETF 117. The design is based on the experiment with RFC 9245. Note: Although the file format was initially limited to RFCXML, a markdown source file is now also acceptable.

github_exp_2018_feedback

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-04-13T04:30:08+00:00

Feedback from 2018 Experiment: Using GitHub for AUTH48 Please see github_auth48_experiment for context. Feedback from Eric Rescorla (author, RFC 8446) We experimented with using Github for the publication of TLS 1.3. The overall process was that Github was used primarily for feedback: 1. The RFC Editor supplied iterative versions of the XML files. 2. The draft editor put them up on Github (initially as PRs and later just as commits) 3. We used Github's review tool to refine proposed chan…

github_exp_2021_feedback

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2022-07-20T21:31:22+00:00

Feedback on Using GitHub for AUTH48: RFC 8829 Please see github_exp_8829 for context. Feedback from Justin Uberti (author) Summary: This was the first time I've had such a long document go through the AUTH48 process, but from my perspective things worked much better than they would have using email. There were literally almost 100 separate changes to the text during AUTH48 (not sure if this is typical or not for this size of document). Being able to track each of these individually, set…

github_exp_8446

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2022-07-20T21:19:52+00:00

GitHub AUTH48 Experiment: RFC 8446 High-Level Summary * A repo () that was created by the author at the beginning of AUTH48 was used: * Initial file was “Original XML” - the XML submitted to the queue. * Then the AUTH48 XML file was committed.

github_exp_8829

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2022-07-20T21:44:53+00:00

GitHub AUTH48 Experiment: RFC 8829 High-Level Summary * The existing document repo () was used: * The authors committed to a new branch (rfced) the XML files provided at the beginning of AUTH48 (both rfc8829.form.xml and rfc8829.xml but renamed draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep.* to match previous file naming convention).

github_exp_9069

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2022-07-20T21:56:58+00:00

GitHub AUTH48 Experiment: RFC 9069 High-Level Summary Set up very similarly to the experiment for RFC 9131. * RPC created an AUTH48 repo and invited the authors as collaborators. * Each AQ was made into an issue (12 total). * Both editor and author created branches and submitted PRs (10 total) to close issues.

github_exp_9131

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2022-07-20T21:49:25+00:00

GitHub AUTH48 experiment: RFC 9131 High-Level Summary * RPC created an AUTH48 repo and invited the author as a collaborator. * Each AQ was made into an issue (10 total). * Both editor and author created branches and submitted PRs (6 total) to close issues.

github_exp_9245

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2022-07-20T21:43:46+00:00

GitHub AUTH48 experiment: RFC 9245 GitHub repo for RFC 9245 (using markdown) High-Level Summary * Process * forked * suggested updates input as PRs * issues for open questions or comments * inital PRs: * reference updates * header updates * basic editorial updates

github_exp_9345

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2023-07-18T17:46:00+00:00

GitHub AUTH48 experiment: RFC 9345 High-Level Summary * * Original repo: github repo * Based on "Experiment 6" design. * Variance from the design: * markdown rather than RFCXML source Repo setup The RPC did the following: * Forked the author's document repo (forked repos are automatically public; they cannot be made private):

github_exp_9366

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2023-07-12T18:55:18+00:00

GitHub AUTH48 experiment: RFC 9366 High-Level Summary * * Original repo: * Based on "Experiment 6" design * Variance from the experiment design: * Markdown rather than RFCXML Workflow See the readme RPC Lessons Learned * Need to improve documentation for which type of edit to make in which format.

github_exp_9380

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2023-07-12T19:14:29+00:00

GitHub AUTH48 experiment: RFC 9380 High-Level Summary * * Original repo: * Based on "Experiment 6" design. Variance from the design: * Document was 175 pages long * kramdown-rfc rather than RFCXML * Part of a cluster Workflow * See the readme. RPC Lessons Learned

github_exp_9518

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-02-16T16:27:59+00:00

GitHub Experiment 11 - RFC 9518 (draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization) High-Level Summary * RPC forked the author's repo and edited the markdown file using PRs per section (38 total PRs). * Each author query was included as an issue (15 total) - some later became PRs (see next point below).

github_exp_acme_subdomains

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2023-07-12T19:09:08+00:00

GitHub AUTH48 experiment: draft-ietf-acme-subdomains High-Level Summary * Based on "Experiment 6" design * Variance from the experiment design: * Working in the original document repo was requested by the authors, but declined by the RPC. * Experiment was not pursued.

guidance_constructing_refs

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2023-03-07T21:00:52+00:00

Guidance for constructing references in v3 XML RFC references (bibxml aka bibxml-rfcs) Notes: * element: * The anchor attribute (which is used to create the citation tag) of the element should use the following default in bibxml-service entries:

internet-draft-template-repo-instructions

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-10-29T16:43:40+00:00

Using GitHub: Martin Thomson's internet-draft-template repo IETF community member Martin Thomson created a public template in GitHub that many IETFers use to start their GitHub repos for their Internet-Drafts. Prerequisites If you have not already done so, set up

pilot_experiments_markdown_github

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-10-24T20:48:19+00:00

List of early documents processed using markdown and/or github * MD: markdown * GH: github * MD & GH: both I-D Cluster Experiment PE RE Pages Notes draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-14 C430 MD AP 162 draft-ietf-tls-esni-25 C430

pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-05-07T19:24:22+00:00

Final Review Using kramdown-rfc This page provides instructions and information regarding the process for Final Review (formerly called AUTH48) for a document that has been edited in kramdown-rfc. For information on the pilot test, please see “RPC Pilot Test: Editing and Final Review in kramdown-rfc”

pilot_test_kramdown_rfc

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-08-06T19:36:07+00:00

RPC Pilot Test: Editing and Final Review in kramdown-rfc Currently, the RFC Production Center (RPC) only accepts and edits RFCXML files. However, a larger portion of the authoring community is using kramdown-rfc to create their Internet-Drafts. As such, the RPC will offer editing in kramdown-rfc and will pilot test Final Review (formerly called AUTH48) starting 1 September 2025.

rerendering

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-09-24T16:42:04+00:00

Reissuing a Publication Version of an RFC Guidelines Note: The terms “definitive format” and “publication version” are used as defined in Section 1.1 of RFC 9720. As noted in Section 3 of RFC 9720: " The RPC is permitted but not required to reissue publication versions of an RFC, as described in

rfc_files_available

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-04-28T23:48:13+00:00

RFC files available on the website The files listed below are available from rfc-editor.org via various methods. * “Before” means below RFC 8650 (i.e., before the format change). * “After” means RFC 8650 and higher (i.e., after the format change). See [4] for information on the format change.

rfc_metadata_in_the_v3_era

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2023-02-14T17:52:49+00:00

Notes on RFC metadata in the v3 era * New XSD is in place (10 Sept 2019): * rfc-index.txt, .html, .xml (and similar files) are slightly different from before, this is due to: * added new publication formats and source format. * removed file sizes. (Byte count is no longer included as metadata for each

rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-07-01T17:55:21+00:00

RPC Pilot Test: Final Review in GitHub The RFC production Center is modernizing their tools infrastructure and will be using GitHub for version control in 2026 (please see the RPC GitHub roadmap for details). However, before the full solution is rolled out, the RPC intends to offer

rpc_github_roadmap

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-08-20T19:20:47+00:00

RPC GitHub Roadmap Introduction The RPC is currently migrating away from a file system for storing the documents that they are editing and a manual process for creating diffs (for details about this previous system, see the Legacy File Management, Issue Tracking, and Version Control page). The tools modernization plan includes incorporating git and GitHub for version control.

sourcecode-types

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-12-23T18:24:52+00:00

Sourcecode Types This is a list of preferred values for the “type” attribute of the element for use in XML files converted by xml2rfc. Note that this list is not comprehensive and can be expanded. The “type” attribute of specifies the type of the sourcecode as described in

start

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-07-15T21:55:55+00:00

Welcome to the RFC Production Center Wiki For the essentials about the RFC series, please see the RFC Editor website. This wiki is for additional notes from the RFC Production Center (RPC). Author Resources * Abbreviations List * RFC-specific Terms * Sourcecode Types * authors.ietf.org Project Information * GitHub support

stats

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-05-20T22:25:45+00:00

RFC Processing Times (May 2025) Figure 1: Average time for a document to reach AUTH48 Figure 2: SLA table Figure 3: Documents entering and exiting the queue

status-memos

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-05-15T20:25:36+00:00

'Status of This Memo' in RFCs This page shows all permutations of the paragraphs described in RFC 7841 and RFC 9920. See Constructing a Status of This Memo Section in the RFC Style Guide for more information. IETF Stream 1. IETF Standards Track w/ consensus Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has bee…

svg_files

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2022-09-06T21:28:47+00:00

NOTE: This page has been replaced by SVG Samples and Notes from Experience The schema in use for SVG in RFCs is SVG-1.2-RFC.rnc. Please see the FAQ for more information. Examples * RFC 9216 (Figures 1 and 2) * RFC 9115 (Figures 1, 11 - 14) * RFC 9100 (Figure 1) * RFC 9043 (Figures 4 - 17, 22, 23, 29, 30)

terms

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-03-12T21:14:24+00:00

RFC-Specific Terms At the lowest level, clarity of presentation in RFCs requires consistent capitalization, hyphenation, and spelling of terms, both within a single RFC and across related RFCs. In some cases, the rules are provided by English style manuals, but more often they are specific to the Internet field and to RFCs.

v3_feature_usage

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-05-30T00:14:57+00:00

Examples of v3 Features in Use * SVG: * RFC 9967 (Figures 20 and 21) * RFC 9959 (Figure 1) * RFC 9953 (Figure 1) * RFC 9944 (Figures 1 and 2 as well as SVG outside figures) * RFC 9928 (Figures 1-6) * RFC 9921 (Figures 1 and 2) * RFC 9889 (Figures 2-5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 17-22, 24, 25, 27-29, 31)

wgs_changed_area

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-13T14:42:32+00:00

WIT area creation and WGs that changed area Because of the creation of the Web and Internet Transport (WIT) area and the 22 WGs that changed area (per this announcement), the following actions have occurred on rfc-editor.org: * On the RFC search page, search by Area: WIT returns RFCs produced by active WGs that are now part of WIT.

yang-ietf123

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-07-20T09:39:08+00:00

Discussion with the OPs ADs about YANG-Related Topics * YANG formatting * with formatting being a step recommended by draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28, does the RPC need to continue to check the format? To ensure that a module fits into the line limits of an I-D, the command "pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69" should be used.