GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8153

Internet Architecture Board (IAB) H. Flanagan Request for Comments: 8153 RFC Editor Category: Informational April 2017 ISSN: 2070-1721

       Digital Preservation Considerations for the RFC Series

Abstract

 The RFC Editor is both the publisher and the archivist for the RFC
 Series.  This document applies specifically to the archivist role of
 the RFC Editor.  It provides guidance on when and how to preserve
 RFCs and describes the tools required to view or re-create RFCs as
 necessary.  This document also highlights gaps in the current process
 and suggests compromises to balance cost with best practice.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
 and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
 provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of the
 Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for
 publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8153.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.

Flanagan Informational [Page 1] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
    1.1. Terminology ................................................4
    1.2. Life Cycle of Digital Preservation .........................4
 2. Updating Policy and Procedure ...................................5
    2.1. Acquisition of Documents ...................................6
    2.2. Ingestion of Documents .....................................6
    2.3. Metadata and Document Registration .........................7
    2.4. Normalization and Standardization of Canonical File
         Structure and Format .......................................9
         2.4.1. 'Best Effort' Data Retention .......................10
         2.4.2. Single Format for Archival Purposes ................11
         2.4.3. Holistic Archiving of the Computing Environment ....12
    2.5. Transformation/Migration to Current Publication Formats ...12
    2.6. System Parameters .........................................13
    2.7. Financial Impact ..........................................13
 3. Recommendations ................................................14
 4. Summary ........................................................15
 5. IANA Considerations ............................................15
 6. Security Considerations ........................................15
 7. Informative References .........................................16
 IAB Members at the Time of Approval ...............................18
 Author's Address ..................................................18

1. Introduction

 The RFC Editor is both the publisher and the archivist for the RFC
 Series, a series of technical specifications and policy documents
 that includes foundational Internet standards [RFC6635] [RFC-SERIES].
 The goal of the RFC Editor is to is to produce clear, consistent, and
 readable documents for the Internet community.  Over time, the RFC
 Editor will use as many modern features, such as hyperlinks and
 content markup, within the document as necessary to convey the
 information the authors intended for their audience.  As the
 archivist, however, the main goal is to preserve both the information
 described and the documents themselves for the indefinite future.  To
 meet both of these goals, the RFC Editor must find the necessary
 balance between the publication needs of today and the archival needs
 of tomorrow, while acknowledging a finite set of resources to
 complete both aspects of the RFC Editor function.
 While many files are created during the editing process, this
 document focuses on the archival needs of the Internet-Drafts (I-Ds)
 that were approved for publication and the RFCs that resulted from
 these I-Ds; I-Ds before they are approved for publication by the
 appropriate stream-approving body are out of scope.

Flanagan Informational [Page 2] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

 To summarize, the key areas of tension between the roles of publisher
 and archivist are:
 o  the desire of the publisher to meet the needs expressed by authors
    who want to use the latest technology (e.g., vector graphics, live
    links, and a rich set of metadata) within their documents; and
 o  the desire of the archivist to support only the simplest format
    for documents possible -- currently held by the Series to be
    plain-text, ASCII-only documents -- so that the tools needed to
    view the documents are equally simple and resistant to changes in
    technology, resulting in a set of documents that will be easier to
    archive for at least the next several decades, if not centuries.
 Through most of the history of the RFC Series, the file format for
 RFCs has been plain text with an ASCII-only character set.  This
 choice offered the simplest format likely to remain available to the
 largest number of consumers and the format most likely to be
 resistant to changes in technology over time.  Increasingly, however,
 consumers and authors are requesting additional features that would
 allow for easy reading on a wider array of devices while retaining
 all the metadata authors intended in their documents.  In 2013, RFC
 6949 ("RFC Series Format Requirements and Future Development")
 captured the high-level requirements for the Series; the fundamental
 issue was that plain-text, ASCII-only documents no longer meet the
 needs of the communities interested in using and producing RFCs
 [RFC6949].
 The assertion that plain-text, ASCII-only documents no longer meet
 the needs of the community suggests that the simple archival process
 maintained by the RFC Editor is also no longer sufficient.  More
 complex tools and file formats require a more complex process to
 ensure that RFCs can be read and rendered far into the future.  This
 document describes the considerations that must inform any changes in
 policy and procedure, and it describes a model for the RFC Series to
 follow when additional formats beyond plain-text, ASCII-only RFCs are
 published.  The functional model that provides the framework for the
 archival process described in this document was derived from the ISO
 Open Archival Information System (OAIS) reference model, defined in
 "Space data and information transfer systems -- Open archival
 information system (OAIS) -- Reference model" [ISO14721].

Flanagan Informational [Page 3] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

1.1. Terminology

 Acquisition: The point at which a document is accepted by the RFC
 Editor for future inclusion into the archive.
 Ingestion: The point at which a digital object is assigned all
 necessary metadata to describe the object and its contents and is
 added to the archive.
 Bitstream preservation: The process of storing and maintaining
 digital objects over time, ensuring that there is no loss or
 corruption of the bits making up those objects.
 Content preservation: The retention of the ability to read, listen,
 or watch a digital file in perpetuity.  Content preservation is not
 about the bits being stored; it is about being able to access and
 present those bits to the user.

1.2. Life Cycle of Digital Preservation

 The basic process for preserving digital information has been
 described by a variety of organizations.  From the Life cycle
 Information For E-Literature (LIFE) project [LIFE] in the United
 Kingdom to the ongoing digital preservation work in the U.S. Library
 of Congress [USLOC], the basic digital preservation process is
 straightforward.  Documents are acquired and processed, metadata is
 recorded, physical media is refreshed, and content is regularly
 checked to see if it is still accessible by interested parties.
 Complexities arise when one considers the need to preserve both the
 bits of the digital objects themselves and the tools with which to
 express those bits in an environment that experiences rapid changes
 in technology.
 For most of the existence of the RFC Series, the digital preservation
 process has been fairly simple, focusing on bitstream preservation
 and relying on paper copies of digital files.
 The current archival process for the RFC Series is as follows:
 1.  Acquisition: The RFC Editor database is updated to indicate an
     I-D has been approved for publication.  At this point, the
     document is taken through the editorial process on the way to
     publication [RFC-PUB].
 2.  Ingestion: The RFC is added to the archive at the time of
     publication.

Flanagan Informational [Page 4] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

 3.  Metadata creation: The details regarding an RFC, including RFC
     number, author, title, abstract, etc., are created at time of
     publication.  Additional metadata in the form of status and
     errata can be added or changed at any time, following the process
     of the originating document stream.
 4.  Bitstream preservation: This part of the process is handled as
     part of the IT system administration; all servers, disks, and
     backup technology are refreshed on a regular cycle.
 5.  Content preservation: All RFCs since January 2010 have been
     printed out on standard office paper at time of publication, and
     the electronic files have been preserved on disk and in backups
     with no particular focus on preserving the entire computing
     environment used to create the electronic documents.  Most RFCs
     prior to January 2010 are also available on paper, but there are
     gaps in the record and issues of ownership around the paper
     copies before that date.
 When the format for RFCs transitions from plain-text, ASCII-only
 files to an XML format with multiple outputs, the overall archival
 process will become more complex.  Additional metadata and some (or
 possibly all) of the computing environment may need to be added to
 the archive.

2. Updating Policy and Procedure

 RFCs are created and published as digital objects.  Unlike paper-
 based publications, a digital collection requires a focus on
 retaining the details of the technology as well as retaining the
 object itself.  Specifically, a digital archive needs to:
 o  consider the inherent instability of digital media,
 o  plan for a relatively short path to technological obsolescence,
 o  schedule regular media updates,
 o  apply predefined criteria for technology evaluation, and
 o  ensure the continued authenticity and integrity of documents
    through any changes in technology.
 As the custodian and canonical source of RFCs and associated errata,
 the RFC Editor must consider how to ensure the availability and
 integrity of this document series far into the future and determine
 whether the focus must be on bitstream preservation, content
 preservation, or both.

Flanagan Informational [Page 5] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

 The RFC Editor has several advantages in acting as the digital
 archivist for the Series.  Since the RFC Editor is the publisher as
 well as the archivist, the RFC Editor controls the format of the
 material and the process for adding that material to an archive and
 can add any additional metadata considered necessary.  External
 material, while a major consideration for more general archives, is
 no longer accepted by the RFC Editor.  (See "Internet Archaeology:
 Documents from Early History" [RFC-HISTORY] for the list of non-RFC
 digital objects held by the RFC Editor.)
 This document describes several different preservation models that
 may fit the needs of the Series and raises several points for
 community consideration.  Specifically, this document covers
 information on:
 o  Acquisition of documents
 o  Ingestion of documents
 o  Metadata and document registration
 o  Normalization and standardization of canonical file structure and
    format
 o  Transformation/migration to current publication formats
 o  Content and computing environment preservation
 o  System parameters
 o  Financial impact

2.1. Acquisition of Documents

 The acquisition process for documents intended for the archive starts
 with the submission of an approved I-D for publication.  During the
 editorial process, information such as the document metadata is
 finalized prior to publication.  However, the initial I-D as
 submitted and the RFC produced from it do not formally enter the
 archive until the time of publication, which is considered the point
 of ingestion from an archival perspective.

2.2. Ingestion of Documents

 Once an RFC is published, the canonical format is considered
 immutable.  At this point, the RFC Production Center, one of the
 internal roles within the RFC Editor, assigns the document metadata
 that an archivist needs to identify the unique object.

Flanagan Informational [Page 6] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

 In the case of RFCs, the metadata assigned to a document at the time
 of publication includes:
 o  the RFC number
 o  ISSN
 o  publication date
 o  Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
 Additional metadata, such as author name, is assigned earlier in the
 document creation process, but it is subject to change up to the
 point of publication.  More information on metadata is available in
 Section 2.3 ("Metadata and Document Registration").
 In terms of deciding what to accept in the archive -- a major
 question for most archives and yet a simple one for the RFC Series --
 the RFC Editor accepts documents that are approved for publication by
 the approving body of one of the document streams: the IETF, IAB,
 IRTF, or Independent Submission streams [RFC7841].  Each document
 stream has defined processes on when and how I-Ds are approved and
 submitted to the RFC Editor for publication.  The RFC Editor does not
 select documents for publication and archiving; the RFC Editor edits
 and publishes documents approved for publication by the document
 streams.
 The RFC Editor holds no copyright on I-Ds or RFCs.  As per the IETF
 Trust Legal Provisions [TLP], the copyright for RFCs is held by the
 authors and the IETF Trust.  At any point in time, the current
 entities providing RFC Editor services must be able to release the
 archive of RFCs to the IETF Trust.
 Note: The RFC Editor is currently only responsible for RFCs; any
 associated datasets or other research data is not considered within
 the RFC Editor's mandate at this time; therefore, no consideration to
 the archival requirements of such datasets is covered in this
 document.

2.3. Metadata and Document Registration

 Metadata is data about data.  In the field of digital archiving, this
 is the data that clearly identifies every aspect of a document, from
 its identifier (i.e., the RFC number and the I-D draft string) to the
 size and file format of the document and more.  Metadata is stored in
 a central registry that records information on exactly what is being

Flanagan Informational [Page 7] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

 preserved and where it is located, information on authenticity and
 provenance, and details on the hardware and/or software needed to
 view or create the documents.
 The RFC Editor maintains this registry in the form of a database that
 includes all metadata available for documents being edited and for
 published RFCs.  This database feeds the search engine on the RFC
 Editor website and the info pages available for every RFC (e.g.,
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc####).
 Following is the current list of metadata presented in the RFC info
 pages:
 o  RFC number
 o  Canonical URI
 o  Title
 o  Status
 o  Updates (if applicable)
 o  Updated by (if applicable)
 o  Obsoletes (if applicable)
 o  Obsoleted by (if applicable)
 o  Authors
 o  Stream
 o  Abstract
 o  Content-Type
 o  Character Set
 o  ISSN
 o  Publication date
 o  Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
 The following metadata will be added in the future:
 o  Publication format URIs

Flanagan Informational [Page 8] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

 Info pages also include links to errata, IPR searches, and both
 plain-text and XML citation files.
 In terms of best practice, all documents used as normative references
 within an RFC would also be stored in the archive.  While this is
 done automatically when the normative reference is another RFC (the
 usual case), retaining a copy of third-party documents is considered
 out of scope for the RFC Editor.  As the digital archive industry
 stabilizes, services such as Perma.cc [PERMACC] may be a reasonable
 compromise.  These services provide a permanent URI and image capture
 of online documents, with a goal of buffering against URI and online
 availability changes.

2.4. Normalization and Standardization of Canonical File Structure and

    Format
 The normalization process is perhaps the most technically critical
 part of digital archiving.  The purpose is content preservation --
 making sure the data accepted for archiving are in the most stable
 and easily accessed formats possible for the long-term future and
 require the least amount of re-engineering and emulation of
 environments in order to view the document in the future.
 Normalization is about enabling long-term access to the information
 within a document.
 Over the history of the RFC Series, documents have been submitted for
 publication in a variety of formats, including paper for the earliest
 RFCs.  Today, the majority of RFCs are available in both a canonical
 plain-text format and PDF format.  For exceptions, see the RFC Online
 Project [RFC-ONLINE].
 Currently, all RFCs are printed out to paper and stored at time of
 publication.  This has been a reasonable backup plan for several
 decades.  With few of the features one might expect from a digital
 document format (such as links, metadata within the document, and
 line drawings), plain-text files do not lose much, if any,
 information when printed out to paper.  However, as the published
 formats change (see RFC 6949), printing to paper provides less value
 as much of the metadata that is an intrinsic yet invisible part of
 the rendered document will be lost in such printing.  With that in
 mind, the focus needs to change to preserving the new file formats
 electronically.
 While each RFC today is printed to paper and all electronic versions
 stored on multiple hard drives, no particular effort is made to
 ensure copies of the software used to render or read the canonical

Flanagan Informational [Page 9] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

 plain-text RFC are also archived.  The RFC Editor has several choices
 on how to adapt to the need to archive a more complex set of data and
 follow best practice as defined by the digital archive community:
 o  a simplified bitstream preservation model that focuses on standard
    "best effort" data-retention practices, which rely on backups,
    upgrades, and regular equipment change to preserve the data.  This
    model assumes that emulators may be built when needed if the
    formats used go out of common use (a significant part of the model
    currently followed by the RFC Editor).
 o  a content preservation model that focuses on one publication
    format as the version most likely to be viewable and provide all
    necessary metadata in the future.  This is a viable option
    considering that PDF/A-3 [PDF], one of the intended publication
    formats, was designed for this type of archiving.
 o  a complex bitstream and content preservation model that focuses on
    archiving the canonical XML and the entire computing environment
    required to create, view and render all outputs from that file.
    This is the "best practice" from an archivist's perspective.
 Those options are listed in order of least to greatest complexity and
 expense.  More detail on each option is described below.

2.4.1. 'Best Effort' Data Retention

 When dealing with very simple data structures such as plain-text,
 ASCII-only files, the experience of the RFC Series suggests that for
 the last few decades, hardware and operating system changes have had
 minimal impact on the document files being stored.  While a complete
 failure of an operating system migration corrupted the dataset in the
 past, that situation represents a somewhat different problem than the
 tools themselves changing such that plain-text files are not easily
 read with existing technology.  Given that the basic plain-text
 format and ASCII encoding remain in common use, the standard
 protections against file corruption and data loss, such as disk
 mirroring, off-site backups, and periodic restoration testing, will
 continue to provide access to the entirety of the RFC Series for the
 foreseeable future.  As has been pointed out, both in this document
 and in broader community discussion, that is not sufficient for
 complex formats such as XML, HTML, PDF, or other proprietary formats
 offered by today's large IT companies.  The risk of technological
 change resulting in the file formats mentioned being deprecated or
 changed without backwards compatibility is fairly high when looking
 decades or centuries into the future.

Flanagan Informational [Page 10] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

 It is recommended that this model of archiving the RFC Series cease
 to be the primary model after the plain-text, ASCII-only format is no
 longer the canonical format.  Best effort data retention is a
 necessary but not sufficient level of effort for preserving a digital
 archive.  For more guidance on how to define best effort data
 retention, the section on "Media and Formats, Summary
 Recommendations" in the 2009 version of the Digital Preservation
 Handbook [DPC2009] provides useful and concrete information.

2.4.2. Single Format for Archival Purposes

 If preserving the information described by a document, rather than
 the document itself, is the primary purpose of an archive, then
 focusing efforts on a single file format is a reasonable option.
 Some well-supported archival tooling projects follow this route, such
 as Archivematica [ARCHIVEMATICA].  By selecting a feature-rich yet
 fundamentally stable file format for documents, an organization may
 avoid expensive whole-environment reconstruction in order to view the
 document.  The PDF/A formats were designed to be an archival format
 for electronic documents, and PDF/A-3 is one of the options intended
 for publication as the RFC Series moves from a plain-text canonical
 format to an XML canonical format with multiple publication formats.
 A PDF/A-3 file can be produced that embeds the XML from which the
 PDF/A-3 file was created; this allows for both original and rendered
 document validation if one has the correct tools available to see the
 source of the PDF/A-3 file [RFC7995].  The XML is not otherwise
 visible when viewing the PDF/A-3 file through typical PDF reader
 software.
 When looking at the need to archive RFCs in a resource-limited
 environment, a content-preservation-only model has merit, but it is
 not without risks.  First, PDF/A-3 will not be the canonical format;
 it is intended to be one of the rendered outputs.  It may contain
 rendering bugs that were not intended to be in the document.  Second,
 while the various PDF/A formats were designed to be archival, they
 have not been put to the test of time to determine if they will
 actually live up to the design goals.
 This is a valid option to consider, but the risks, priorities, and
 costs must be discussed by the community before a decision is made to
 follow this path.  The best option may be to combine this with one of
 the other methods of archiving described in this document to help
 minimize both risk and cost.

Flanagan Informational [Page 11] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

2.4.3. Holistic Archiving of the Computing Environment

 Preserving everything published by the RFC Editor in order to have a
 permanent record of information, standards, and best practice is
 arguably the whole point of being an archival series.  One can argue
 that it is not only about the information described in an RFC, it is
 also about supporting Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and
 retaining the history of the Internet.  In following this model,
 however, one must consider the complexity of the archival environment
 as matching, and possibly exceeding, the complexity of the file
 formats being preserved.
 Consider a future where XML has been obsoleted for half a century,
 HTML5 was a format used three to four human generations ago, and PDF/
 A-3 is no longer supported by any existing company's reading
 software.  For RFCs that were produced with XML as their canonical
 format, an archive must not only hold the data, it must also hold the
 entire computing environment that allows the data to be rendered and
 viewed.  Operating systems and hardware on which those OSs can run,
 each major version of each piece of software used or relied upon
 during the publication of an RFC, browsers and readers for HTML, PDF,
 and any other publication format must be preserved in some fashion.
 This is considered best practice when archiving digital documents.
 This is also the most expensive method, and the cost only increases
 over time as more and more instances of the computing environment
 must be preserved over the lifetime of the Series.
 This is a valid option to consider, but the sheer scope of resources
 required suggests that this must be discussed by the community before
 a decision is made.  Pursuing this may require an entirely different
 paradigm for the RFC Editor from what has been considered in the
 past; expanding the scope and resources for the RFC Editor, finding a
 third party to take over the responsibilities of archiving, or some
 other option may be necessary.

2.5. Transformation/Migration to Current Publication Formats

 Because normalization is a complex subject, it is important to
 consider how to mitigate the risk of failure of the normalization
 process.
 The RFC Editor is responsible for making RFCs available to the
 Internet community.  The canonical version of an RFC does not change
 once published; any formats officially rendered from the canonical
 version, however, may change.  One way to mitigate the need to
 preserve the entire computing environment for an RFC, including web
 browsers and PDF readers, would be to take advantage of the non-
 canonical nature of the publication formats and re-render them from

Flanagan Informational [Page 12] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

 the canonical source at the point that browser or reader technology
 has changed sufficiently to make RFCs largely unavailable to 'modern'
 tools.
 For example, the RFC Editor may develop the practice of annually
 reviewing the tools needed to view the publication formats created by
 the RFC Editor to determine whether or not the current common and
 popular reader technologies (i.e., web browsers, PDF viewers,
 e-readers) can view the existing publication formats.  During that
 review, the RFC Editor would work with the community to determine if
 the current publication formats meet the needs of the community and
 whether any should be retired or added to improve the availability of
 information to the community at that time.

2.6. System Parameters

 While the industry best practice on the backup and restoration of
 data is not sufficient as a long-term archival solution, it is still
 a necessary part of keeping the Series available now and into the
 future.  In the past, nearly 800 RFCs had to be manually transcribed
 from paper back to electronic format due to a failed server migration
 and insufficient backups.
 The underlying servers hosting the tools, database, RFCs, and errata
 are the physical link in the archival environment.  While such
 systems cannot and should not remain static and unchanging, there
 must be clear documentation regarding the environment, in particular,
 the storage, backups, and recovery processes for all RFC-related
 material.  The documentation must include information on the refresh
 cycle for the physical storage and backup media and describe a
 regular cycle of data restoration and/or migration testing.

2.7. Financial Impact

 Having a policy regarding digital archiving provides input into the
 budget process.  The main costs associated with digital archives come
 from the complexity and quantity of the material being archived, as
 described in Section 2.4 on normalization.
 Estimating potential costs and providing figures are outside of the
 scope of this document, but it should be noted that costs are a major
 factor when determining what level of archival practice an
 organization will follow.
 For more information on potential business plans and cost modeling
 for digital preservation, see the "Business cases, benefits, costs,
 and impact" section of the Digital Preservation Handbook [DPC].

Flanagan Informational [Page 13] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

3. Recommendations

 Given the need to balance cost and complexity with retention of
 information for historic, legal, and informational purposes,
 preservation efforts should focus on the XML canonical format files,
 the PDF/A-3 format files, the xml2rfc tool and its documentation, and
 at least two PDF reader applications capable of extracting the
 embedded XML.  Care should be taken that the software being included
 in this archive has a provision for free copies for backup or
 archival purposes.  All other formats and the overall computing
 environment should be stored as described in "best effort" data
 retention (Section 2.4.1), which should in turn be described in the
 appropriate vendor contract for the RFC Publisher.
 Particular preservation efforts should be made by:
 o  choosing a format designed for archiving RFCs (PDF/A-3 as
    indicated by [RFC7995])
 o  embedding the canonical XML format within the PDF/A-3 file for
    RFCs
 o  retaining a copy of the plain-text or XML file submitted for
    approved I-Ds
 o  retaining all major versions of the tools and their associated
    documentation used to acquire and ingest an RFC
 o  retaining the final XML file as well as the PDF/A-3 file with the
    embedded XML
 o  retaining at least two software reader applications to ensure the
    PDF/A-3 and XML files can be viewed in the future
 o  partnering with other digital archives around the world to mirror
    copies of the target data
 In order to control costs and focus the archiving effort on the
 entire content of an RFC, including the metadata and other features
 embedded within each RFC published in more than just plain text,
 printing each RFC to paper upon publication is no longer reasonable.
 Proper data storage and mirrored copies of RFCs provide more
 efficient and effective copies in case of catastrophic failure of the
 existing archive of material.
 Particular focus should be given to finding partners that specialize
 in digital preservation to ingest RFCs.  Ideally, they will ingest
 all material associated with an RFC, including all metadata, digital

Flanagan Informational [Page 14] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

 signatures, and the approved I-D that was submitted to the RFC
 Editor.  The possibilities and options should be discussed with each
 archival partner; at minimum, they must ingest copies of RFCs as they
 are published, with the basic metadata associated with each document.
 Preservation efforts should be reviewed and validated through a
 biennial audit that will verify that the targeted content and all its
 associated metadata can be read with existing tools.  The full
 process from acquisition to ingestion should be reviewed to ensure
 that best current practice is being followed from the perspective of
 the digital archive community.  Since the overall model for the
 digital archive maintained by the RFC Editor follows the OAIS
 reference model, the associated audit guidelines should also be
 followed.  While the RFC Editor does not seek to be recognized as
 'OAIS-compliant' at this time, use of the ISO standard "Space data
 and information transfer systems -- Audit and certification of
 trustworthy digital repositories" [ISO16363] would provide a solid,
 accepted method for structuring an audit for this digital archive.

4. Summary

 The RFC Series is worth archiving.  It contains the history of the
 early Internet, as well as some of the key standards for Internet
 technology and best practice today.  Who knows what the community
 will create in the future?  There are many ways to preserve the
 Series, from relying on preservation of the bits, to focusing on a
 single file format, to preserving the entire computing environment.
 Each possibility, or permutations of them, involves risks and
 requires varying levels of resources.  The goal of this document is
 to describe the possibilities and associated risks so that the
 community can come to an informed decision regarding what it is
 willing to see supported far into the future.

5. IANA Considerations

 This document does not require any IANA actions.

6. Security Considerations

 This document assumes that the origination of RFCs via the RFC Editor
 is secure and trusted.  With that assumption, the activities
 discussed in this document do not affect the security of the
 Internet.

Flanagan Informational [Page 15] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

7. Informative References

 [ARCHIVEMATICA]
            "Archivematica", <https://www.archivematica.org/wiki/
            Main_Page>.
 [DPC]      Digital Preservation Coalition, "Digital Preservation
            Handbook", 2015, <http://dpconline.org/handbook>.
 [DPC2009]  Digital Preservation Coalition, "Digital Preservation
            Handbook", 2009, <http://www.dpconline.org/docman/digital-
            preservation-handbook/304-digital-preservation-handbook-
            media-and-formats>.
 [ISO14721] International Organization for Standardization, "Space
            data and information transfer systems -- Open archival
            information system (OAIS) -- Reference model",
            ISO 14721:2012, 2012.
 [ISO16363] International Organization for Standardization, "Space
            data and information transfer systems -- Audit and
            certification of trustworthy digital repositories",
            ISO 16363:2012, 2012.
 [LIFE]     Hole, B., "LIFE^3: Predictive Costing of Digital
            Preservation", July 2010,
            <http://www.life.ac.uk/3/docs/Hole_pasig_v1.pdf>.
 [PDF]      International Organization for Standardization, "Document
            management -- Electronic document file format for long-
            term preservation -- Part 3: Use of ISO 32000-1 with
            support for embedded files (PDF/A-3)", ISO 19005-3:2012,
            2012.
 [PERMACC]  "Perma.cc", <http://perma.cc/>.
 [RFC-HISTORY]
            RFC Editor, "Internet Archaeology: Documents from Early
            History", <http://www.rfc-editor.org/history.html>.
 [RFC-ONLINE]
            RFC Editor, "History of RFC Online Project",
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-online-2000.html>.
 [RFC-PUB]  RFC Editor, "Publication Process",
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess.html>.

Flanagan Informational [Page 16] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

 [RFC-SERIES]
            RFC Editor, "About Us",
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/RFCoverview.html>.
 [RFC6635]  Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
            Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
            2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
 [RFC6949]  Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
            Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6949, May 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6949>.
 [RFC7841]  Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed.,
            "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7841>.
 [RFC7995]  Hansen, T., Ed., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF Format
            for RFCs", RFC 7995, DOI 10.17487/RFC7995, December 2016,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7995>.
 [TLP]      IETF Trust, "Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)",
            <https://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html>.
 [USLOC]    LeFurgy, B., "Life Cycle Models for Digital Stewardship",
            February 2012,
            <http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/02/
            life-cycle-models-for-digital-stewardship/>.

Flanagan Informational [Page 17] RFC 8153 Digital Preservation April 2017

IAB Members at the Time of Approval

 The IAB members at the time this document was approved were (in
 alphabetical order):
    Jari Arkko
    Ralph Droms
    Ted Hardie
    Joe Hildebrand
    Lee Howard
    Erik Nordmark
    Robert Sparks
    Andrew Sullivan
    Dave Thaler
    Martin Thomson
    Brian Trammell
    Suzanne Woolf

Author's Address

 Heather Flanagan
 RFC Editor
 Email: rse@rfc-editor.org
 URI:   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220

Flanagan Informational [Page 18]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc8153.txt · Last modified: 2017/04/20 00:09 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki