newtrk D. Otis Internet-Draft Trend Micro Expires: January 2, 2006 july 2005 XML structure for Set of RFC Descriptors draft-otis-newtrk-rfc-set-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Abstract With many RFC updates resulting in differing RFC designations, this creates difficulty when determining which RFCs are significant for use within a particular endeavour. Grouping RFC into sets that embody a specific endeavour would permit a stable reference for those interested in discovering the related details at a later date. To provide current information related to the detailed adoption of the endeavour, encompassed by the set of RFCs, a formulaic html link will retrieve information stored in an IETF managed Status database. It is also hoped the RFC Errata information will be made available in Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft SRD july 2005 the same manner. This document proposes developing an Extensible Markup Language (XML) structure to define a set of RFCs related to a specific endeavour. The set would be limited to RFCs that are inter-related and describe an isolated function. The set should not attempt to encompass diverse applications which utilize a broad range of separable functions. The intent of this document is to provide an optimal means for locating relevant information made increasingly difficult with a growing number or RFCs, updates, and corrections. The expectation in this effort is that any RFC not found within some "set of RFCs" is no longer relevant to any current endeavour. Being within a "set of RFCs" does not infer any designation, other than an RFC within the set is useful for some current endeavour. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. SRD Identification and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. XML Conversion Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. The srd element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. The title element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. The description element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. The srdDate element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. The docs element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. The core element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. The extensions element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11. The guidance element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12. The obsoletes element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 13. The experimental element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 14. The companion element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 15. Example HTML Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 16. Example RSS Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 18.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 18.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 12 Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft SRD july 2005 1. Introduction The IETF has produced a large number of RFC documents. These documents often are inter-related and may also emerge as a succession of attempts. The large and often rapidly changing documents that follow hundreds of separate endeavours has caused RFC designators defined in [RFC2026] and [RFC1311] to poorly reflect current usage. Rather than revisiting this designation process, it is hoped that by providing a coherent organization using sets of documents, along with relevant inter-operational information contained within a Status database, reliance upon RFC designators can be reduced. This could either spur better maintenance of the RFC designator approach, or perhaps the designator process could become supplanted by the set of RFCs Status database. This draft does not wish to predict how this will develop, but simply outlines an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary approach for a more comprehensible organization of documents. If this set descriptor strategy proves untenable or unuseful, it can be dropped, as it makes no other changes to current procedures. 2. SRD Identification and References This document proposes that a new document series called Set of RFC Descriptors ("SRD"). These documents are comprised of Extensible Markup Language, XML [W3C.REC-xml-20040204], structures used for generating HTML, RSS, and plain-text outputs that link together the related RFCs. The SRD documents would be managed under the direction of the IESG, where they would also establish procedures for updating the relevant SRD Status database, and hopefully include overview of the RFC Editor's Errata database. Rather than publishing simple pointers in indexes as, e.g., the STD series, this document proposes that SRDs be created to encompass all useful RFCs. This document also proposes a version of the SRDs be used in the initial development process, to allow an overview of Work-In-Progess, WIP, which may involve an extended work and approval time period. The SRD is identified by a combination of name and number in the form of {srd-name.serial-number}. As a general rule, when an HTML or database link excludes the serial, version, or iteration number, through the use of scripts, it will automatically reference the current document. This auto-generated link is to simplify link maintenance and to stabilize the SRD structures. The name for each SRD is unique. To utilize the infrastructure supporting database references for Status and Errata, an SRD being modified and not yet approved, will include a prefix to indicate this effort represents WIP. The WIP SRD is identified by a prefix added. The prefix used for an Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft SRD july 2005 RFC-Set, while it is being modified, would be {'X''-''-'}. If this document was modifying {foobar.2} by the working group 'newtrk', the first iteration would be {X0-newtrk-foobar.2}. When the document becomes accepted at some point, it would become {foobar.3}. The 'newtrk' represents a group identifier or possibly the name of an individual. This group identifier permits simultaneous WIP SRD documents to be pending for approval. Normally, an SRD is not allowed to reference an Internet- Draft, but there would be an exception made for a WIP SRD. The WIP SRD can not receive approval until all referenced Internet-Drafts have also been accepted and replaced as RFCs. To establish comprehensive coverage of RFCs with the SRD XML documents, script generated relationships could automatically generate rough versions of these documents. These automatically generated documents would be given to the most relevant working group, or a special working group dedicated to the task of making needed corrections. Upon completion of this effort, only those RFCs deemed currently unused should be excluded from being found within some SRD document. Once SRD documents are established, the Working Group chair is responsible for ensuring the WIP version of all affected SRD documents accompany an Internet-Draft submitted to the Area Director for IESG action. The WIP SRD and the Internet-Draft would be considered together through all review stages. Of course, all referenced Internet-Draft acceptance must precede WIP SRD acceptance. 3. XML Conversion Considerations XML and XSLT structures are used to create HTML, RSS, and Plain-Text outputs for establishing stable hyper-link references. It is expected that as information is added to the Errata Database, the related HTML pages are regenerated to provide a means to intelligently include an Errata link, in the case where such errata information becomes available. When there are empty or missing elements within the SRD document, those elements are automatically excluded from the HTML page as well. The intent is to ensure a minimum amount of information is presented. This proposal is attempting to follow a similar process defined in [RFC2629] and assumes the reader is familiar with this document. The SRD XML declaration begins with a reference to the DTD, XSLT [W3C.REC-xslt-19991116], processing options, and the "srd" element: Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft SRD july 2005 ... The XML declaration and the following two lines of reference information should be treated as opaque strings and nothing should follow the "" tag. Make sure that all elements are properly matched and nested. 4. The srd element The "" tag at the beginning of the document, with a "wip" attribute, produces an interim working draft that may include references to Internet-Drafts. However, when this attribute is removed by the RFC editor, a final SRD document is produced. At a minimum, the "set" attribute should be present which indicates both the set name and version. In the case of a WIP SRD, this version number would be of the current SRD being modified. The other attribute is "wip" which specifies both the current iteration and the name of the entity making a change, as required when adding or modifying an RFC. The srd information includes a sequence of elements being the title, description, srdDate, doc, core, extensions, guidance, obsoletes, experimental, and companion. The Status database will provide a reference to an accountable entity for the SRD, where this is not included within the srd itself. XML SRD XML structure for example SRDs. 2005-07-16T19:20:30+01:00 http://www.ietf.org/ Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft SRD july 2005 5. The title element Title describes the entire RFC set. The title element represents the title for the entire SRD set. This supplements the simple label used as a set reference. 6. The description element Description more fully describes the entire RFC set. Description should be only a few sentences describing the RFC set. 7. The srdDate element YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssTZD The srdDate element provides the date when the RFC set was accepted for publishing. The format for the date is specified as a complete date plus hours, minutes and seconds as specified in Date and Time Formats [W3C.NOTE-datetime-19980827]. The 'T' between DD and hh is a character used to separate date and time information. The "TZD" represents the Time Zone Designator ('Z' or +hh:mm or -hh:mm). 8. The docs element http://www.ietf.org/ The docs element provides the base used to reference related documents. Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft SRD july 2005 9. The core element The core element includes a list of references elements for RFCs as defined for use with [RFC2629]. These RFCs encompass the basic definitions. For WIP SRDs, a reference to an Internet-Draft would take the form: 10. The extensions element The extension element includes a list of references elements for RFCs as defined for use with [RFC2629]. These RFCs encompass optional enhancements to the basic definitions. 11. The guidance element The guidance element includes a list of references elements for RFCs as defined for use with [RFC2629]. These RFCs encompass advice related to the deployment of the RFCs within the set. 12. The obsoletes element The obsoletes element includes a list of references elements for RFCs as defined for use with [RFC2629]. These RFCs encompass RFCs which have been replaced by the RFCs within the set. 13. The experimental element Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft SRD july 2005 The obsoletes element includes a list of references elements for RFCs as defined for use with [RFC2629]. These RFCs encompass RFCs which are deemed experimental and relate to either core or extension RFCs. 14. The companion element The companion element includes a list of references elements for SRDs using the same structure as defined for use with [RFC2629]. These RFCs encompass optional enhancements to the basic definitions. 15. Example HTML Page SRD Simple Mail Transfer Protocol:xxxx, SMTP

Set of RFC Descriptors

Simple Mail Transfer Protocol:xxxx, SMTP, STD10; Status

RFC2821 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, SMTP Errata

Extensions
RFC3463 Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
RFC3848 ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration
RFC1652 SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIME transport
RFC1870 SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
RFC2920 SMTP Service Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft SRD july 2005 Extension for Command Pipelining
RFC2034 SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes
RFC2554 SMTP Service Extension for Authentication
RFC3207 SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over Transport Layer Security
RFC3030 SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of Large and Binary MIME Messages Errata

Experimental
RFC1830 SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of Large and Binary MIME Messages
RFC1845 SMTP Service Extension for Checkpoint/Restart

Related SRD
SRD-SMTP-DSN SMTP Delivery Status Notifications (DSN)
SRD-SMTP-SPAM SMTP and SPAM (SMTP-SPAM)
On-demand relay, delivery, and alternatives to TURN
16. Example RSS Feed SRD List http://www.ietf.org/ Set of RFC Descriptors. en-us, Tue, 10 Jun 2005 04:00:00 GMT Tue, 10 Jun 2005 09:41:01 GMT http://www.ietf.org/srd/ IETF Editor 2.0 editor@ietf.org Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 9] Internet-Draft SRD july 2005 webmaster@www.ietf.org SRD Simple Mail Transfer Protocol:xxxx, SMTP http://www.ietf.org/srd/srd-smtp.html Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, SMTP href="http:// www.ietf.org/srd/srd-smtp-xxxx.html">SMTP;. Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:39:21 GMT http://www.ietf.org/srd/srd-smtp-xxxx.html#item01 SRD POP/IMAP Authentication with CRAM-MD5:xxxx, CRAM-MD5</ title> <link>http://www.ietf.org/srd/srd-cram-md5.html</link> <description>POP/IMAP Authentication with CRAM-MD5, SMTP href="http://www.ietf.org/srd/srd-cram-md5-xxxx.html">CRAM-MD5</ a>;.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:39:21 GMT</pubDate> <guid>http://www.ietf.org/srd/srd-cram-md5-xxxx.html#item01</guid> </item> ... </channel> </rss> 17. Security Considerations This document specifies an administrative procedure for the IETF and hence does not raise any new issues about the security of the Internet. However, the availability of the type of document described here may provide a convenient mechanism and repository of vulnerabilities and other issues that are discovered after RFCs are issued, but that do not justify updating (or for which resources are not available to update) the relevant RFC. Having an obvious place to look for those notifications and discussions for relevant documents might enhance overall security somewhat. 18. References 18.1 Normative References [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, June 1999. [W3C.NOTE-datetime-19980827] Wolf, M. and C. Wicksteed, "Date and Time Formats", W3C NOTE NOTE-datetime-19980827, August 1998. [W3C.REC-xml-20040204] Yergeau, F., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Bray, T., Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 10] Internet-Draft SRD july 2005 and E. Maler, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Third Edition)", W3C REC REC-xml-20040204, February 2004. [W3C.REC-xslt-19991116] Clark, J., "XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 1.0", W3C REC REC-xslt-19991116, November 1999. 18.2 Informative References [RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, March 1992. [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. Author's Address Douglas Otis Trend Micro 1737 North First Street, Suite 680 San Jose, CA 95112 USA Phone: +1.408.453.6277 Email: doug_otis@trendmicro.com Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 11] Internet-Draft SRD july 2005 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Otis Expires January 2, 2006 [Page 12]