Ethical aspects of RFC authorship
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-00

RSWG                                                     B. E. Carpenter
Internet-Draft                                         Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational                             11 April 2026
Expires: 13 October 2026

                   Ethical aspects of RFC authorship
                draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-00

Abstract

   This document describes guidelines for assigning authorship in RFC
   documents, and guidelines for disclosing the use of artificial
   intelligence during document preparation.  It also discusses the
   related issues of acknowledgements, editors and contributors.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-
   ethics/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the RSWG Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:rswg@rfc-editor.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rswg/.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 October 2026.

Carpenter                Expires 13 October 2026                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                   April 2026

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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 (https://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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction and Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  General Aspects of Authorship Ethics  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  List of Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Revised or Replacement Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Other Exceptions and Discussions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Artificial Intelligence Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Intellectual Property Rights  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   13. Change log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   14. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction and Scope

   Questions sometimes come up about who should be listed as the
   author(s) of an RFC, who should be listed as editors or contributors,
   and what acknowledgements are appropriate.  Additionally, questions
   arise about the use of artificial intelligence tools during the
   drafting of future RFCs.

   The policy guidelines below address these questions and are
   applicable to all RFC streams as defined in in [RFC7841], [RFC9920]
   and any streams defined in future.  However, each stream may specify
   its own authorship policies and requirements in addition to those
   described here.

   _Open issue:_ In case of conflict, the stream's policy will prevail
   over this document.

Carpenter                Expires 13 October 2026                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                   April 2026

   The guidelines are intended to be compatible with the RFC Editor's
   style guide [RFC7322] and with an earlier RFC Editor authorship
   policy: RFCED-policy (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-
   interest/SHM7dHZd_S1a-CkW2JCBvxdKmcs/).

   For the IETF stream, there is an existing IESG statement on Internet
   Draft Authorship: IESG-policy (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
   statement-iesg-iesg-statement-on-internet-draft-authorship-
   20210510/).  For the IRTF stream, Section 4 of [RFC9775] covers this
   topic.

   _Open issue:_ Are there items in this draft that should be left as
   operational choices for the RPC, i.e., they are not really policy
   issues?

2.  General Aspects of Authorship Ethics

   There are some quite general aspects of the ethics of professional
   authorship of academic or technical documents that naturally apply to
   RFCs.  This is not the place for a detailed discussion of authorship
   ethics, but the most important points are

   *  Factual accuracy.

   *  Avoidance of misleading or obfuscating statements.

   *  Avoidance of misleading omissions.

   *  Balance between opposing arguments, when relevant.

   *  Careful acknowledgement and citation of sources and references.

   *  Avoidance of unacknowledged plagiarism.

   Factual accuracy includes accuracy about who wrote the document: only
   people who made a real contribution should be listed as authors or
   contributors.

   Other aspects are that personal or business considerations should not
   affect accuracy and balance, and any hidden conflicts of interest
   should be documented.  Corrections, clarifications and retractions
   should be made promptly when needed.

Carpenter                Expires 13 October 2026                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                   April 2026

   Many academic journals and universities have published policies about
   authorship.  Two examples from medical science are ICMJE
   (https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-
   responsibilities/) and NIH (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/
   PMC7821455/).  The IEEE also has clear guidance: IEEE-ethics
   (https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/IEEE-
   Author-Ethics-Guidelines.pdf).

   Some organisations have adopted strict policies about the use of
   artificial intelligence (AI) during document preparation.  Again the
   IEEE is an example: IEEE-AI
   (https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/become-an-ieee-journal-
   author/publishing-ethics/guidelines-and-policies/submission-and-peer-
   review-policies/#ai-generated-content).

   However, the Internet community that contributes to the RFC series
   has some peculiarities.  Perhaps the most important is that we
   generally encourage the free flow of ideas and their re-use in fresh
   documents.  Sometimes that means that small or large sections of text
   are copied from one document into another, and subsequently changed
   as the discussion evolves.  In the world at large that is considered
   to be plagiarism.  In an RFC, we generally consider it to be normal
   business as long as due acknowledgement is given.  We also consider
   the use of complex software tools during the preparation of a
   document to be normal practice.

3.  Authors

   Authors are people who have made a substantial creative contribution
   to the document.  Normally this means writing text or drawing
   diagrams.  Occasionally, with the consent of the other authors, it
   means making some other substantial creative contribution to the
   document, for example by writing a software implementation as part of
   the design process.  It is a matter of judgement whether a person who
   simply makes a key intellectual contribution should rank as an
   author.

   People who did not make any such substantial contribution should not
   be listed as authors.  Funding support, professional reputation,
   managerial or supervisory status, and CV embellishment are
   irrelevant.  It is also worth noting that in an RFC, authorship by an
   employee does not automatically imply endorsement by the employer.
   Therefore, authors should not be added just because of who they work
   for.

   There are quite a few subjective judgements to be made about whether
   a contribution is substantial enough to count as authorship.  What
   fraction of new or corrected text counts?  Is a particular brilliant

Carpenter                Expires 13 October 2026                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                   April 2026

   idea enough?  Should the author of a previous trail-blazing document
   be invited to join?  Should someone who promised to contribute
   significantly, but only contributed fragments, be removed?  It is
   hard to give definite guidelines for such cases.

   In normal circumstances, people should never be listed as authors
   without their explicit permission.  In case of doubt, the person
   submitting the draft should check with each listed author in advance
   to avoid any misunderstandings.  If an author wishes to withdraw,
   this should be honoured, although the person may then be listed as a
   contributor or be mentioned in the acknowledgements.

   The practical impact is that the authors will be listed as such on
   the front page, and in public bibliographies, if the document becomes
   an RFC.

4.  Contributors

   Contributors are people who made smaller creative contributions to
   the document than the authors, for example providing initial ideas
   that others have transformed into publishable text, or drafting only
   a few paragraphs.

   People who did not make any such contribution should not be listed as
   contributors.  People should not normally be listed as contributors
   without their explicit permission.

   The dividing line between contributors and authors is a matter of
   judgement and cannot be rigidly defined.  However, the RFC Editor's
   policy is to query any document that has more than five listed
   authors.  Any list of more than five authors will need to be
   negotiated if the document is approved for publication as an RFC.

5.  Editors

   When a document has a large number of contributors and potential
   authors, it may be appropriate to designate one or two people as both
   "Authors" and "Editors" and list the others as contributors.  The
   editors will indeed do the actual work of editing the document on
   behalf of the community.  The practical impact of this is that the
   editors will be listed as such on the front page, and in public
   bibliographies, if the document becomes an RFC.

   In some cases, it may be appropriate to retain a list of authors of
   which one or two are designated as editors.  What matters is "truth
   in advertising": the people involved should all feel happy that the
   designations of editors, authors and contributors are fair and
   accurate.

Carpenter                Expires 13 October 2026                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                   April 2026

   Historically, RFC streams have chosen to retain the word "Author" in
   most cases, with the formal designation of editors being exceptional.
   Some standards development organizations always remove individual
   authorship when a document is formally adopted.  This is not done for
   RFCs, but in a few instances, RFCs have been published with "IAB" or
   "IAB and IESG" listed as authors, with editors credited as such,
   e.g., [RFC4089].

6.  List of Acknowledgements

   Acknowledgements should be given to people who have made significant
   creative contributions smaller than those from the authors and
   contributors, or to people who have made useful comments, provided
   critical reviews, or otherwise contributed significantly to the
   development of the document.  If text or ideas have been adopted from
   other written sources, including RFCs and drafts, clearly a reference
   is an ethical requirement, but an acknowledgement might also be
   appropriate.

   Acknowledgements may also be given to people or organizations that
   have given material support and assistance, but this should not
   include the authors' regular employers unless there are exceptional
   circumstances.

   An acknowledgement should be written as a description of a fact.  It
   does not and should not signify that the person acknowledged agrees
   with or supports the document.  In general, people who do not wish to
   be listed as an author or a contributor, but have in fact made a
   significant contribution, should be given an acknowledgement.  In
   unusual circumstances, acknowledgements of contributions have
   specifically indicated that the contributor does not support the
   document as posted.  Language such as the following might be used:

      Thanks to <insert names> for their valuable comments and help
      during the development of this document, even though they did not
      fully agree with the WG's conclusion.

   When in doubt, it is usually better to include an acknowledgement
   than to omit it.

7.  Revised or Replacement Documents

   A common occurrence is that an RFC from some years ago requires
   updating.  This is often done by people who were not the original
   authors.  The question then arises of whether to list the original
   authors on the "bis" draft, even if they are long gone from active
   participation.

Carpenter                Expires 13 October 2026                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                   April 2026

   When an RFC is drafted by one or more new people but reuses
   significant amounts of text from one or more earlier RFCs, a
   situation arises that often requires thought and careful handling.
   The criteria above suggest that the authors of the original documents
   should continue to be listed as authors.  After all, there is rarely
   any question that the earlier publications constitute "a substantial
   creative contribution" to the revised document.  However, there are
   no guarantees that the prior authors will want to be listed as
   authors of the new draft and take on whatever responsibilities that
   implies.  Ideally, those assembling the newer version will consult
   with the authors of the previous ones and make mutually acceptable
   arrangements, but, especially when that is not feasible, sensitivity
   to all possible issues will be needed.

8.  Other Exceptions and Discussions

   It goes without saying that normally nobody should be listed as an
   author, contributor or editor against their will.  Ideally, the
   parties involved will agree among themselves, or defer to the
   judgement of the relevant RFC stream manager(s).  However, we need
   flexibility to deal with unusual cases, such as these:

   *  As noted above, an acknowledgement is a statement of fact (the
      person contributed to the discussion).  In some cases it may be
      included even if the person acknowledged objects, for example if
      they made a suggestion that might later be viewed as prior art.

   *  Generalising the point made in Section 7, an earlier author or
      contributor may deserve to be listed, even if they cannot be
      contacted when a document is updated after a long interval.  Each
      such case needs to be considered on its merits.

   *  In particular, an author or contributor might be deceased.

9.  Artificial Intelligence Tools

   Authors will use various editing programs and other tools for
   document preparation, and in general these do not raise any ethical
   concerns.  For example, if tables, graphs or diagrams are generated
   using a specialized software program, this is of no concern.  If
   formal notation is verified by specialized software, this is also of
   no concern.

   If an AI tool is used for document preparation, the following
   guidelines apply:

   *  The authors or editors remain entirely responsible for any content
      generated by AI.

Carpenter                Expires 13 October 2026                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                   April 2026

   *  The authors or editors remain entirely responsible for all
      intellectual property matters.

   *  If a substantial part of the document was created by AI this
      should be disclosed clearly in the Acknowledgements section.

   *  The authors or editors must verify that no unacceptable plagiarism
      has been performed by the AI.  If material has been copied from
      earlier RFCs or drafts by the AI, as mentioned in Section 7, this
      must be clearly acknowledged.

   *  If, on the other hand, AI usage has been limited to improving
      English grammar, translating from a draft in another language, or
      other purely editorial uses, disclosure is not necessary.

10.  Intellectual Property Rights

   This document does not discuss intellectual property rights (IPR) and
   in no way preempts or alters the various RFC streams' rules and
   requirements concerning IPR.  In particular some of the ethical
   guidelines above might be mandatory requirements under those rules.
   All authors are strongly advised to be familiar with the applicable
   rules.

   It is worth noting that if a document includes complete
   acknowledgements and references, it will be much simpler to clarify
   its status as possible prior art in years to come.

   Copyright in RFCs is governed by the IETF document [BCP78], the IETF
   Trust/IPMC's Legal Provisions, and applicable national and
   international law.

   The word "contributor" used in this draft might not mean the same
   thing as the word "Contributor" used in the IETF document [BCP79].
   That BCP and the specific rules of the relevant RFC stream should be
   consulted by anyone concerned about requirements for disclosure of
   IPR.

11.  Security Considerations

   None, really.

12.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

Carpenter                Expires 13 October 2026                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                   April 2026

13.  Change log

   draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-00, 2026-04-11: original
   version (derived from draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-03).

14.  Informative References

   [BCP78]    Best Current Practice 78,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>.
              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

              Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
              Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.

   [BCP79]    Best Current Practice 79,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>.
              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

              Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
              Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.

   [I-D.draft-carpenter-whats-an-author]
              Carpenter, B. E., "What is an Author of an IETF Stream
              Draft?", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              carpenter-whats-an-author-02, 13 June 2015,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-carpenter-
              whats-an-author-02>.

   [RFC4089]  Hollenbeck, S., Ed. and IAB and IESG, "IAB and IESG
              Recommendation for IETF Administrative Restructuring",
              RFC 4089, DOI 10.17487/RFC4089, May 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4089>.

   [RFC7322]  Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322>.

   [RFC7841]  Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed.,
              "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7841>.

Carpenter                Expires 13 October 2026                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                   April 2026

   [RFC9775]  Perkins, C. S., "IRTF Code of Conduct", RFC 9775,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9775, March 2025,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9775>.

   [RFC9920]  Hoffman, P. and A. Rossi, "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)",
              RFC 9920, DOI 10.17487/RFC9920, February 2026,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9920>.

Acknowledgements

   Valuable comments on this document and its 2015 predecessor
   [I-D.draft-carpenter-whats-an-author] were received from Loa
   Andersson, Andy Bierman, Carsten Bormann, Dave Crocker, David Farmer,
   John Klensin (who also contributed some text), Larry Kreeger, Eliot
   Lear, Tom Petch, Alexandru Petrescu, Yaron Sheffer, and Joe Touch.

   Especially given the topic of this draft, the author apologises for
   any accidental omissions.

Author's Address

   Brian E. Carpenter
   The University of Auckland
   School of Computer Science
   The University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland 1142
   New Zealand
   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com

Carpenter                Expires 13 October 2026               [Page 10]