Session Date/Time: 21 May 2025 19:00

RPC

Summary

This document summarizes the first RPC community call. The meeting aimed to introduce the RFC Production Center (RPC) team, discuss strategic transformations identified during an April retreat, provide a snapshot of current document work in the queue, and share relevant statistics. Key discussions centered on improving productivity through specialization, author input via an intake form, tooling enhancements, and the impact of RFCXML features on the RPC's workload. The team also provided updates on specific documents with unique challenges and shared queue processing statistics.

Key Discussion Points

Meeting Logistics:
- Initial technical issues were encountered by some attendees (difficulty finding meeting link via data tracker, connection issues, browser compatibility). Suggestions included trying different browsers.
RPC Team Introductions: The RPC team members introduced themselves and their roles.
Strategic Transformations (Overview):
- Productivity and Process Efficiency:
  - Shift from Generalist to Specialist Editors: The RPC is moving from a model where one editor handles many tasks per document to a specialist model (e.g., document intake/formatting, citation checking). Specialists for source code validation and accessibility are being considered.
  - Author Intake Form: The RPC aims to gather more document-specific information directly from authors upon document submission. Concerns were raised regarding stream-specific differences (IETF, IAB, Independent streams), the need to involve working group chairs, and the timing of information capture (ideally integrated with Doc Shepherd write-ups). The potential for a source-controlled form was noted.
  - Consolidating Editing Notes: Efforts are underway to consolidate editing notes from various sources into a single system, with the upcoming "Purple" queue management software expected to facilitate this, including pre-queue notes and visibility for authors/chairs where appropriate.
  - Returning Unready Documents: The RPC seeks to clarify and document the process for returning documents that are not yet ready for final editing, rather than spending excessive time on them.
- Tooling Transforms:
  - Draft Forge: Development is underway for Draft Forge, a VS Code-based editor to automate validation checks (e.g., capitalization, hyphenation, RFC/BCP 14 terms) and integrate with GitHub.
  - Style Consistency vs. Author Discretion: A concern was raised about Draft Forge potentially enforcing a global style, overriding long-standing author discretion. The RPC clarified that Draft Forge would highlight inconsistencies for author review rather than imposing style.
  - AD Notifications: Notifications to Area Directors (ADs) will transition from email to an AD dashboard within the Purple system.
- Community Requirements:
  - Shifting Validation Tasks: The RPC is exploring whether some validation tasks (e.g., Yang, MIBs, XML, ABNF source code validation), currently performed by the RPC, could be expected from authors in the future. There was strong feedback that technical correctness checks should be performed by authors as early as possible.
  - RFCXML V3 Features and Workload: The move to RFCXML V3 and its increased features (e.g., postal address formatting, expanded elements/attributes) has added to the RPC workload. A discussion ensued about the trade-off between RFCXML feature flexibility and the RPC's resource impact. A sense of those present suggested the need for a broader community conversation on the balance between author control over document formatting and the resources required from the RPC, potentially considering a more focused feature set.
Queue Snapshot:
- Individual editors provided updates on their active documents, documents in Author-48hr (O48) review, and those ready for publication.
- Expedited Documents: Formal requests from IASG were received to expedite SIPCORE and STIR working group documents for ATIS referencing.
- Bidirectional Text Issues: RFC 9676 had complex issues with Hebrew characters and right-to-left/left-to-right text within elements, requiring document acknowledgment of potential display variations across applications.
- SVG/Non-ASCII/ABNF Challenges: Several documents (e.g., 9770, 9788) are presenting challenges with SVG figures (misalignment, cut-offs in PDF), non-ASCII characters, and ABNF, requiring author consultation.
Statistics:
- Current average processing time from "edit state" to Author-48hr (O48) is approximately 11.5 weeks.
- Q1 of the current year saw a high volume of document pages entering the edit queue, pushing the RPC into "Tier Three" of its Service Level Agreement (SLA) workload, indicating a need to renegotiate expected processing times.
- The RPC is working on transforming its SLA metrics for better community relevance, especially given the added workload from XML formatting.
Meeting Format Feedback: Attendees expressed appreciation for the community call format and suggested that detailed queue reports might be consolidated into separate notes rather than read aloud during the meeting.

Decisions and Action Items

Decision: RPC will proceed with manual experimentation of the author intake form to gather feedback and refine questions before pursuing full automation.
Decision: Monthly RPC community calls will continue, with ongoing strategic transform discussions prioritized.
Action Item: RPC to consider stream-specific requirements for the intake form and explore integration with existing upstream processes like the Doc Shepherd review template or ISG ballot notes.
Action Item: RPC to continue internal discussions and gather community input on the scope and impact of RFCXML features, balancing author flexibility with RPC workload and resources.

Next Steps

Continue the discussion on strategic transformations, particularly regarding RFCXML features and community requirements, in upcoming monthly calls.
Further develop and deploy Draft Forge as a tool for both RPC editors and authors.
Conduct manual experimentation with the author intake form, gather feedback, and refine questions.
Work on refining SLA metrics to better reflect RPC workload and communicate processing times to the community.