Initial specifications import

.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+_book
+node_modules

1/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+# RFC 1/C4
+
+The Collective Code Construction Contract (C4) is an evolution of the github.com [Fork + Pull Model](http://help.github.com/send-pull-requests/), aimed at providing an optimal collaboration model for free software projects. This is revision 2 of the C4 specification and deprecates RFC 22.
+
+* Name: rfc.unprotocols.org/1 (1/C4)
+* Editor: Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com>
+* State: stable
+
+## License
+
+Copyright (c) 2009-2016 Pieter Hintjens.
+
+This Specification is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+
+This Specification is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses.
+
+## Language
+
+The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119).
+
+## Goals
+
+C4 is meant to provide a reusable optimal collaboration model for open source software projects. It has these specific goals:
+
+* To maximize the scale and diversity of the community around a project, by reducing the friction for new Contributors and creating a scaled participation model with strong positive feedbacks;
+
+* To relieve dependencies on key individuals by separating different skill sets so that there is a larger pool of competence in any required domain;
+
+* To allow the project to develop faster and more accurately, by increasing the diversity of the decision making process;
+
+* To support the natural life cycle of project versions from experimental through to stable, by allowing safe experimentation, rapid failure, and isolation of stable code;
+
+* To reduce the internal complexity of project repositories, thus making it easier for Contributors to participate and reducing the scope for error;
+
+* To enforce collective ownership of the project, which increases economic incentive to Contributors and reduces the risk of hijack by hostile entities.
+
+## Design
+
+### Preliminaries
+
+* The project SHALL use the git distributed revision control system.
+
+* The project SHALL be hosted on github.com or equivalent, herein called the "Platform".
+
+* The project SHALL use the Platform issue tracker.
+
+* The project SHOULD have clearly documented guidelines for code style.
+
+* A "Contributor" is a person who wishes to provide a patch, being a set of commits that solve some clearly identified problem.
+
+* A "Maintainer" is a person who merges patches to the project. Maintainers are not developers; their job is to enforce process.
+
+* Contributors SHALL NOT have commit access to the repository unless they are also Maintainers.
+
+* Maintainers SHALL have commit access to the repository.
+
+* Everyone, without distinction or discrimination, SHALL have an equal right to become a Contributor under the terms of this contract.
+
+### Licensing and Ownership
+
+* The project SHALL use a share-alike license such as the MPLv2, or a GPLv3 variant thereof (GPL, LGPL, AGPL).
+
+* All contributions to the project source code ("patches") SHALL use the same license as the project.
+
+* All patches are owned by their authors. There SHALL NOT be any copyright assignment process.
+
+* Each Contributor SHALL be responsible for identifying themselves in the project Contributor list.
+
+### Patch Requirements
+
+* Maintainers and Contributors MUST have a Platform account and SHOULD use their real names or a well-known alias.
+
+* A patch SHOULD be a minimal and accurate answer to exactly one identified and agreed problem.
+
+* A patch MUST adhere to the code style guidelines of the project if these are defined.
+
+* A patch MUST adhere to the "Evolution of Public Contracts" guidelines defined below.
+
+* A patch SHALL NOT include non-trivial code from other projects unless the Contributor is the original author of that code.
+
+* A patch MUST compile cleanly and pass project self-tests on at least the principle target platform.
+
+* A patch commit message MUST consist of a single short (less than 50 characters) line stating the problem ("Problem: ...") being solved, followed by a blank line and then the proposed solution ("Solution: ...").
+
+* A "Correct Patch" is one that satisfies the above requirements.
+
+### Development Process
+
+* Change on the project SHALL be governed by the pattern of accurately identifying problems and applying minimal, accurate solutions to these problems.
+
+* To request changes, a user SHOULD log an issue on the project Platform issue tracker.
+
+* The user or Contributor SHOULD write the issue by describing the problem they face or observe.
+
+* The user or Contributor SHOULD seek consensus on the accuracy of their observation, and the value of solving the problem.
+
+* Users SHALL NOT log feature requests, ideas, suggestions, or any solutions to problems that are not explicitly documented and provable.
+
+* Thus, the release history of the project SHALL be a list of meaningful issues logged and solved.
+
+* To work on an issue, a Contributor SHALL fork the project repository and then work on their forked repository.
+
+* To submit a patch, a Contributor SHALL create a Platform pull request back to the project.
+
+* A Contributor SHALL NOT commit changes directly to the project.
+
+* If the Platform implements pull requests as issues, a Contributor MAY directly send a pull request without logging a separate issue.
+
+* To discuss a patch, people MAY comment on the Platform pull request, on the commit, or elsewhere.
+
+* To accept or reject a patch, a Maintainer SHALL use the Platform interface.
+
+* Maintainers SHOULD NOT merge their own patches except in exceptional cases, such as non-responsiveness from other Maintainers for an extended period (more than 1-2 days).
+
+* Maintainers SHALL NOT make value judgments on correct patches.
+
+* Maintainers SHALL merge correct patches from other Contributors rapidly.
+
+* Maintainers MAY merge incorrect patches from other Contributors with the goals of (a) ending fruitless discussions, (b) capturing toxic patches in the historical record, (c) engaging with the Contributor on improving their patch quality.
+
+* The user who created an issue SHOULD close the issue after checking the patch is successful.
+
+* Any Contributor who has value judgments on a patch SHOULD express these via their own patches.
+
+* Maintainers SHOULD close user issues that are left open without action for an uncomfortable period of time.
+
+### Branches and Releases
+
+* The project SHALL have one branch ("master") that always holds the latest in-progress version and SHOULD always build.
+
+* The project SHALL NOT use topic branches for any reason. Personal forks MAY use topic branches.
+
+* To make a stable release a Maintainer shall tag the repository. Stable releases SHALL always be released from the repository master.
+
+### Evolution of Public Contracts
+
+* All Public Contracts (APIs or protocols) SHALL be documented.
+
+* All Public Contracts SHOULD have space for extensibility and experimentation.
+
+* A patch that modifies a stable Public Contract SHOULD not break existing applications unless there is overriding consensus on the value of doing this.
+
+* A patch that introduces new features SHOULD do so using new names (a new contract).
+
+* New contracts SHOULD be marked as "draft" until they are stable and used by real users.
+
+* Old contracts SHOULD be deprecated in a systematic fashion by marking them as "deprecated" and replacing them with new contracts as needed.
+
+* When sufficient time has passed, old deprecated contracts SHOULD be removed.
+
+* Old names SHALL NOT be reused by new contracts.
+
+### Project Administration
+
+* The project founders SHALL act as Administrators to manage the set of project Maintainers.
+
+* The Administrators SHALL ensure their own succession over time by promoting the most effective Maintainers.
+
+* A new Contributor who makes correct patches, who clearly understands the project goals, and the process SHOULD be invited to become a Maintainer.
+
+* Administrators SHOULD remove Maintainers who are inactive for an extended period of time, or who repeatedly fail to apply this process accurately.
+
+* Administrators SHOULD block or ban "bad actors" who cause stress and pain to others in the project. This should be done after public discussion, with a chance for all parties to speak. A bad actor is someone who repeatedly ignores the rules and culture of the project, who is needlessly argumentative or hostile, or who is offensive, and who is unable to self-correct their behavior when asked to do so by others.
+
+## Further Reading
+
+* [Argyris' Models 1 and 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Argyris) - the goals of C4 are consistent with Argyris' Model 2.
+
+* [Toyota Kata](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Kata) - covering the Improvement Kata (fixing problems one at a time) and the Coaching Kata (helping others to learn the Improvement Kata).

2/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+# RFC 2/COSS - Consensus Oriented Specification System
+
+
+This document describes a consensus-oriented specification system (COSS) for building interoperable technical specifications.  COSS is based on a lightweight editorial process that seeks to engage the widest possible range of interested parties and move rapidly to consensus through working code.
+
+* Name: rfc.unprotocols.org/2 (2/COSS)
+* Editor: Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com>
+* Contributors: André Rebentisch <andre@openstandards.de>, "Alberto Barrionuevo" <abarrio@opentia.es>, Chris Puttick <chris.puttick@thehumanjourney.net>
+* State: draft
+
+## License
+
+
+Copyright (c) 2008-09 the Editor and Contributors.
+
+This Specification is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+
+This Specification is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses.
+
+## Change Process
+
+
+This document is governed by the [http://www.digistan.org/spec:1/COSS Consensus-Oriented Specification System] (COSS).
+
+## Language
+
+
+The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119)
+
+## Goals
+
+
+The primary goal of COSS is to facilitate the process of writing, proving, and improving new technical specifications.  A "technical specification" defines a protocol, a process, an API, a use of language, a methodology, or any other aspect of a technical environment that can usefully be documented for the purposes of technical or social interoperability.
+
+COSS is intended to above all be economical and rapid, so that it is useful to small teams with little time to spend on more formal processes.
+
+Principles:
+
+* We aim for rough consensus and running code.
+* Specifications are small pieces, made by small teams.
+* Specifications should have a clearly responsible editor.
+* The process should be visible, objective, and accessible to anyone.
+* The process should clearly separate experiments from solutions.
+* The process should allow deprecation of old specifications.
+
+Specifications should take minutes to explain, hours to design, days to write, weeks to prove, months to become mature, and years to replace.
+
+Specifications have no special status except that accorded by the community.
+
+## Architecture
+
+
+COSS is designed around fast, easy to use communications tools.  Primarily, COSS uses a wiki model for editing and publishing specifications texts.
+
+* The *domain* is the conservancy for a set of specifications in a certain area.
+* Each domain is implemented as an Internet domain, hosting a wiki and optionally other communications tools.
+* Each specification is a set of wiki pages, together with comments, attached files, and other resources.
+* Important specifications may also exist as subdomains, i.e. child wikis.
+
+Individuals can become members of the domain by completing the necessary legal clearance.  The copyright, patent, and trademark policies of the domain must be clarified in an Intellectual Property policy that applies to the domain.
+
+Specifications exist as multiple pages, one page per version of the specification (see "Branching and Merging", below), which may be assigned URIs that include an incremental number.  Thus, we refer to a specification by specifying its domain, number, and short name.  New versions of the same specification will have new numbers.  The syntax for a specification reference is:
+
+
+    <domain>/spec:<number>/<shortname>
+
+
+For example, this specification is **rfc.unprotocols.org/spec:1/COSS**.  The short form **1/COSS** may be used when referring to the specification from other specifications in the same domain.
+
+Every specification (including branches) carries a different number.  Lower numbers indicate more mature specifications, higher numbers indicate more experimental specifications.
+
+## COSS Lifecycle
+
+
+Every specification has an independent lifecycle that documents clearly its current status.
+
+A specification has six possible states that reflect its maturity and contractual weight:
+
+![Lifecycle diagram](coss-lg.png)
+
+### Raw Specifications
+All new specifications are **raw** specifications. Changes to raw specifications can be unilateral and arbitrary. Those seeking to implement a raw specification should ask for it to be made a draft specification. Raw specifications have no contractual weight.
+
+### Draft Specifications
+
+When raw specifications can be demonstrated, they become **draft** specifications. Changes to draft specifications should be done in consultation with users. Draft specifications are contracts between the editors and implementers.
+
+### Stable Specifications
+When draft specifications are used by third parties, they become **stable** specifications. Changes to stable specifications should be restricted to errata and clarifications. Stable specifications are contracts between editors, implementers, and end-users.
+
+### Legacy Specifications
+
+When stable specifications are replaced by newer draft specifications, they become **legacy** specifications. Legacy specifications should not be changed except to indicate their replacements, if any. Legacy specifications are contracts between editors, implementers and end-users.
+
+### Retired Specifications
+
+When legacy specifications are no longer used in products, they become **retired** specifications. Retired specifications are part of the historical record. They should not be changed except to indicate their replacements, if any. Retired specifications have no contractual weight.
+
+### Deleted Specifications
+When raw or draft specifications are abandoned, they become **deleted** specifications. To change a deleted specification, the editor should first make it a raw specification again. Deleted specifications have no contractual weight.
+
+Raw and draft specifications SHOULD BE considered abandoned if they are not changed or used within a period of 3-6 months for raw and 9-18 months for draft specifications.
+
+## Editorial control
+
+
+A specification has a single responsible editor, who is the only person that can edit the text and change its status.  A specification may also have additional contributors who work through the editor.  The editor is responsible for accurately maintaining the state of specifications and for handling all comments on the specification.
+
+## Branching and Merging
+
+
+Any member of the domain MAY branch a specification at any point.  This is done by copying the existing text, and creating a new specification with the same name and content, but a new number.  The ability to branch a specification is necessary in these circumstances:
+
+* To change the responsible editor for a specification, with or without the cooperation of the current responsible editor.
+* To rejuvenate a specification that is stable but needs functional changes.  This is the proper way to make a new version of a specification that is in stable or deprecated status.
+* To resolve disputes between different technical opinions.
+
+The responsible editor of a branched specification is the person who makes the branch.
+
+Branches, including added contributions, are derived works and thus licensed under the same terms as the original specification.  This means that contributors are guaranteed the right to merge changes made in branches back into their original specifications.
+
+Technically speaking, a branch is a *different* specification, even if it carries the same name.  Branches have no special status except that accorded by the community.
+
+## Conflict resolution
+
+
+COSS resolves natural conflicts between teams and vendors by allowing anyone to define a new specification.  There is no editorial control process except that practised by the editor of a new specification.  The administrators of a domain (moderators) may choose to interfere in editorial conflicts, and may suspend or ban individuals for behaviour they consider inappropriate.
+
+## Conventions
+
+
+Where possible editors and contributors are encouraged to:
+
+* Refer to and build on existing work when possible, especially IETF specifications.
+* Contribute to existing specifications rather than reinvent their own.
+* Use collaborative branching and merging as a tool for experimentation.

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+# Introduction
+
+Unprotocols RFC is a repository for universal, cross-project protocols used in
+software development, ranging from workflow to technical ones.
+
+It has started as a new home for C4 and COSS protocols to elevate their prominence and articulate their usefulness outside of the original projects'
+boundaries. More protocols are welcome to join this project.
+
+You can start contributing by sending a pull request to https://github.com/unprotocols/rfc on GitHub.
+
+
+## Guidelines
+
+* A specification SHOULD be created and modified by pull requests according to [RFC 1/C4](1/README.md)
+* Specification lifecycle SHOULD follow the lifecycle defined in [RFC 2/COSS](2/README.md)
+* Specification SHOULD use GPL v3 or a later version of the license
+* Specification SHOULD use [RFC 2119](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119) key words.
+* Non-cosmetic changes are allowed only on Raw and Draft specifications.

SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# Summary
+
+* [Introduction](README.md)
+* Raw
+* Draft
+  * [2/COSS](2/README.md)
+* Stable
+  * [1/C4](1/README.md)
+* Legacy
+* Retired
+* Deleted

book.js

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+module.exports = {
+    title: 'Unprotocols RFCs',
+    gitbook: '3.0.0-pre.15'
+};