start
This is an old revision of the document!
Table of Contents
Immediate Priorities (in order)
The RSE Project List
Small-sized projects (1-6 months from start)
| Priority | Handle | Brief Description | Target start |
|---|---|---|---|
| C | 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 |
Medium-sized projects (6-18 months from start of project)
| Priority | Handle | Brief Description | Target start |
|---|---|---|---|
| C | AUTH48 changes | can we improve efficiency of AUTH48 process by potentially clarifying policy and implementing new tools to streamline the process? | |
| B | Errata process review | submitting errata and citing errata is non-trivial and the overall process around the errata service needs to be reviewed | January 2015 |
| C | Scholarly indexing | RFC are not indexed in online indexes such as: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar | May 2013 |
| C | 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 Library Updates | Formalize RFC Editor support of the citation library | |
| C | EU-ISA | Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations (ISA) and the RFC Series | |
| C | RFC Source Code Repository | Research issues around the creation of a source code repository for the RFC Series |
Large-sized projects (18+ months)
| Priority | Handle | Brief Description | Target start |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | RFC Format | Determine the future of images, character encoding, and archival format | March 2012 |
| B | EFL Author support | Work with RPC, community to find ways to support EFL authors more effectively | ongoing |
| B | Infrastructure/Data Accessibility | Review the overall architecture behind the editing and publication process for the RFC Editor, and refactor the environment | January 2016 |
Potential projects (to be discussed and prioritized)
| 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) | |
| Outsourcing XML review | Should the review of the XML file be outsourced? | |
| Understanding the role of metadata in digital preservation | Review of digital preservation policy and existing RFC metadata | |
| Search response improvements | Providing additional context to search returns, e.g. pointers to WG | |
| Create an experimental space for RFC formats or features | Consider having a place to test new formats or features for RFCs |
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 |
| 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) |
| 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 |
| Style Manual RFC | Update of current accepted practice to be published as a new RFC | revised style guide approved for publication April 2014 |
| Style Manual web | Creation of proto-policies, guidelines, and flexible pages | |
| Digital Preservation Policy | Review of archival process and policy for the Series | |
| DOI assignment | DOI assignments have been requested for RFCs as a way to improve the scholarly reputation of the Series | DOIs added April 2015 |
| RFC Editor website | update content, look and feel to the RFC Editor website. | New site published October 2015 |
| Statistics and Metrics | automating stats reporting | moved into production in July 2016 |
| Digital Signatures | digitally signing RFCs | project shelved due to concerns re: revocation October 2016 |
| 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 digital storage industry trends
start.1510369127.txt.gz · Last modified: (external edit)