Session Date/Time: 17 Sep 2025 21:00

RPC

Summary

This RPC community call covered updates on the intake form, the new support for Cramdown RFC as a submission format, and a significant discussion on the GitHub roadmap, particularly regarding its implementation timeline and scope. Participants debated the balance between the RPC's long-term internal process modernization and the community's desire for faster, incremental GitHub integration for author interaction. Updates were also provided on RFCXML vocabulary management, SVG artwork guidance, and general RPC tooling, followed by brief editor work updates.

Key Discussion Points

Intake Form Updates:
- Authors are responding to the intake questionnaire within 4 days on average, with over half responding within a day.
- The RPC plans to fine-tune some questions based on feedback.
- The O48 archive mailing list is now ceased for these threads, with archives available for perusal.
Cramdown RFC as a Submission Format:
- Starting September 1st, the RPC began accepting Cramdown RFC files as source, limited to five documents per month initially to fine-tune editing processes. Nine documents are currently in the queue for this format.
- The process involves a two-step approval: authors review content changes in the Markdown file, then review the converted RFC XML and its outputs.
- Discussion on Final Markdown File Availability:
  - A participant (Paul) questioned whether the final Markdown files would be moved to the innotes directory long-term or disappear.
  - The RPC stated the files would be available but not necessarily linked on the RFC info page with the same status as official RFC outputs (XML, PDF, text).
  - Several participants (J., Richard) expressed a desire for public availability, advocating for an "open by default" approach, even if not given official RFC status.
  - A suggestion was made for these files to be available on the Data Tracker website, rather than the RFC Editor website, as they are primarily for authors and not direct consumers of the RFC. A sense of those present indicated support for making the files publicly accessible, with Data Tracker as a potential hosting location, without conferring RFC status.
GitHub Roadmap:
- The RPC plans to use Git and GitHub for version control and as an optional O48 review tool.
- Visibility of Repos: The current plan is a new public repo per document. There was discussion about controlling interactions (comments, pull requests) on public repos to collaborators only; GitHub's moderation settings can achieve this.
- "Formatting" vs. "Content" for PRs: Participants clarified that any change made in the source file (e.g., Markdown) is considered content, while changes resulting from conversion to RFC XML are considered formatting. This simplifies constructing pull requests.
- Timeline and Scope Debate:
  - The RPC stated full GitHub integration (including tool support for repo creation, automated interactions) would not roll out to production until necessary tooling is in place, citing current system age, infrastructure rewrite, and temporary fixes being discarded. An estimated timeline of about a year was mentioned due to significant ongoing internal RPC tool modernization (the highest priority for developers) and a hard deadline of RFC 10k.
  - Participants (Eric, Richard) expressed frustration with the timeline, suggesting a simpler, faster "bolt-on" approach for author interaction during O48, where authors use GitHub PRs to replace email-based feedback. They argued this could be operationalized quickly without requiring full RPC internal process integration immediately.
  - RPC representatives (Robert, Paul) countered that such an interim solution would add significant manual overhead for RPC staff, compromise internal process consistency, and delay the long-term, integrated solution.
  - The IETF LLC Executive Director (Jay) clarified that this is the appropriate forum to discuss RPC work prioritization, but cautioned against micromanagement of internal processes.
  - Paul noted that while GitHub integration is desired, it's not a "need" for the majority of RFCs, and RPC's internal consistency and stability remain high priorities. Survey data from 2024 indicated 43% of authors liked the current process, 13% asked for GitHub, and the rest had other suggestions.
RFCXML Vocabulary:
- Responsibility for the RFCXML vocabulary is shifting to the RPC from RSWG.
- The RPC will begin looking at open issues (e.g., normalization, accessibility, bug fixes) and will solicit input on the RFC Interest mailing list.
- A participant (John) raised concerns that authoring-specific features, not directly impacting final publication, have been dismissed in the past. An RPC editor (Jay) offered to discuss these specific points further offline.
SVG Artwork Guidance: The RPC is working on revised guidance.
Tooling Updates: The RPC tools team is developing a new queue management system, a new external website, and new editing tools.

Decisions and Action Items

The RPC will accept Cramdown RFC files as a source format, with an initial limit of five documents per month.
The RPC will make final Markdown files available publicly, with Data Tracker identified as a potential hosting location. These files will not carry the same status as published RFC outputs (XML, PDF, text).
Richard to send his proposal for an interim, author-facing GitHub "bolt-on" solution to the RFC Interest mailing list for broader community discussion.
Jay and John will coordinate offline to discuss specific concerns regarding RFCXML features for authoring.
The RPC will explore hosting Markdown files and consider directory structures for the new website.

Next Steps

The RPC will update the GitHub roadmap by the end of the month.
The RPC will begin soliciting input on RFCXML vocabulary issues via the RFC Interest mailing list.
The RPC will continue its internal tool modernization efforts, aiming for full GitHub integration as part of the long-term plan.
Richard's proposal on the RFC Interest list is expected to generate further discussion on the GitHub integration timeline and scope.