Guidelines for Ethics of RFC Authorship
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-02

RSWG                                                     B. E. Carpenter
Internet-Draft                                         Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational                               26 May 2026
Expires: 27 November 2026

                Guidelines for Ethics of RFC Authorship
                draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-02

Abstract

   This document describes guidelines for assigning authorship in RFC
   documents, including guidelines for disclosing the use of artificial
   intelligence during document preparation.  It also discusses the
   related issues of acknowledgements, editors and contributors.  The
   various RFC streams may apply these guidelines, or set their own
   guidelines, which will have priority.

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 27 November 2026.

Carpenter               Expires 27 November 2026                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                     May 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.  Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Organisational authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  List of Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Revised or Replacement Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Other Exceptions and Discussions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Artificial Intelligence Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Disputes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Intellectual Property Rights  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   13. Change log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   14. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Appendix A.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     A.1.  General Authorship Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     A.2.  The RFC Series  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

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
   have arisen about the use of artificial intelligence tools during the
   drafting of future RFCs.

Carpenter               Expires 27 November 2026                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                     May 2026

   The policy guidelines below address these questions and are
   applicable by default to all RFC streams as defined in [RFC7841] and
   [RFC9920], and to any streams defined in future.  Each stream has its
   own approving body [RFC8729], and may define exceptions to and
   variations from these guidelines.  In case of discrepancies or gaps,
   the stream's policy and the preference of its approving body will
   prevail over this document.

   The guidelines are intended to be compatible with the RFC Editor's
   style guide, including [RFC7322], and with an earlier RFC Editor
   authorship policy [RFCED-policy].

   For the IETF stream, there is an existing IESG statement on Internet-
   Draft Authorship: [IESG-policy].  For the IAB stream, see Section 1
   of [RFC4845].  For the IRTF stream, Section 4 of [RFC9775] covers
   this topic.

   Appendix A covers some general aspects of authorship ethics as
   background information.

   Aspects not covered by this document are left as operational choices
   for the streams and for the RFC Production Centre (RPC).

2.  Authors

   Authors are people who have made a substantial creative contribution
   to the document.  This means writing text or drawing diagrams, or
   making a key conceptual or intellectual contribution.  Sometimes,
   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.

   People who did not make any such substantial contribution should not
   be listed as authors.  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.

   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.

Carpenter               Expires 27 November 2026                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                     May 2026

2.1.  Organisational authors

   Some standards development organisations always remove individual
   authorship when a document is formally adopted.  This is not done for
   RFCs.

   Historically, organisations have sometimes been listed as RFC
   authors, including both community organisations such as "IAB",
   "IESG", "IANA" and "RFC Editor", and various external organisations
   and companies.  This is discouraged unless specifically requested by
   an RFC stream.  An example is [RFC4089] which shows "IAB and IESG" as
   an author and an individual as the editor.

3.  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.  It may vary between the
   various RFC streams.  However, the RPC's practice is to query any
   document that has more than five listed authors.  Any list of more
   than five authors must be approved by the relevant RFC stream's
   approving body.

4.  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.  RFC
   streams may have specific procedures for appointing editors, e.g.
   [I-D.ietf-procon-2418bis].  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.  Ideally, the people
   concerned should all feel happy that the designations of editors,
   authors and contributors are fair and accurate.

Carpenter               Expires 27 November 2026                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                     May 2026

   Historically, RFC streams have chosen to retain the word "Author" in
   most cases, with the formal designation of editors being exceptional.

5.  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.  The dividing line between people who
   are acknowledged and those listed as contributors is a matter of
   judgement and cannot be rigidly defined.

   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.

6.  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.

   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

Carpenter               Expires 27 November 2026                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                     May 2026

   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.

7.  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
   preference of the relevant RFC stream approving body.  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 6, 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.

8.  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.

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

   *  An AI tool must not be credited as an author.

Carpenter               Expires 27 November 2026                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                     May 2026

   *  If a substantial part of the document was created by AI this must
      be disclosed, typically in the Acknowledgements section.

   *  The authors or editors must verify that no unacceptable plagiarism
      has been performed by AI.  If material from earlier RFCs or drafts
      (as discussed in Section 6) has been copied by AI, 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, this is no different in principle
      from older tools like spelling checkers, so disclosure is not
      necessary.

9.  Disputes

   Disputes about authorship, editorship, contributors and
   acknowledgements for future RFCs will not be settled by the RPC and
   must be resolved by the relevant RFC stream according to its own
   procedures.

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.  All authors are strongly advised to be
   familiar with the applicable rules, e.g. [BCP78],[BCP79].

   It is worth noting that if a document includes complete
   acknowledgements and references, it will be 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 document might not mean the same
   thing as the word "Contributor" used in the IETF document [BCP78].

11.  Security Considerations

   None, really.

12.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

Carpenter               Expires 27 November 2026                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                     May 2026

13.  Change log

   [RFC Editor: please remove.]

   draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-00, 2026-04-11:

   *  Original version (derived from draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-
      03).

   draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-01, 2026-04-23:

   *  Many small changes after first round of comments.

   *  Underline that each stream can make its own rules.

   *  Added very short section on dispute resolution.

   draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-02, 2026-05-xx:

   *  Further clarified that each stream may establish its own
      guidelines.

   *  Replaced "stream manager" by "approving body".

   *  Moved background material to Appendix, and trimmed it.

   *  Removed reference to academia.

   *  Removed reference to order of author list.

   *  Removed some redundancy.

   *  Numerous minor edits.

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:

Carpenter               Expires 27 November 2026                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                     May 2026

              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.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>.

   [I-D.ietf-procon-2418bis]
              Salz, R., Schinazi, D., and S. O. Bradner, "IETF Working
              Group Guidelines and Procedures", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-procon-2418bis-02, 2 March
              2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              procon-2418bis-02>.

   [ICMJE]    "Roles and Responsibilities of Authors", n.d.,
              <https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-
              responsibilities/>.

   [IEEE-AI]  "Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Generated
              Text", n.d., <https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/
              become-an-ieee-journal-author/publishing-ethics/
              guidelines-and-policies/submission-and-peer-review-
              policies/#ai-generated-content>.

   [IEEE-ethics]
              "IEEE Author Ethics Guidelines", n.d.,
              <https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-
              content/uploads/IEEE-Author-Ethics-Guidelines.pdf>.

   [IESG-policy]
              IESG, "IESG Statement on Internet-Draft Authorship", May
              2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-
              iesg-statement-on-internet-draft-authorship-20210510/>.

   [KoreanMath]
              "Korean Mathematical Society Code of Ethics", n.d.,
              <https://ckms.kms.or.kr/content/contributors/
              code_of_ethiscs.html>.

   [NIH]      Singhal, S. and B. S. Kalra, "Publication ethics -- Role
              and responsibility of authors", January 2021,
              <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7821455/>.

Carpenter               Expires 27 November 2026                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                     May 2026

   [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>.

   [RFC4845]  Daigle, L., Ed. and IAB, "Process for Publication of IAB
              RFCs", RFC 4845, DOI 10.17487/RFC4845, July 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4845>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8729]  Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
              RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729>.

   [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>.

   [RFCED-policy]
              RFC Editor, "RFC Series Editor statement on authorship",
              May 2015, <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-
              interest/SHM7dHZd_S1a-CkW2JCBvxdKmcs/>.

Appendix A.  Background

A.1.  General Authorship Ethics

   There are some quite general aspects of the ethics of professional
   authorship of academic or technical documents.  The most important
   requirements are as follows.

   *  Factual accuracy, including accuracy about who wrote the document.

   *  Avoidance of misleading or obfuscating statements.

   *  Avoidance of misleading omissions.

Carpenter               Expires 27 November 2026               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                     May 2026

   *  Balance between opposing arguments.

   *  Acknowledgement and citation of sources and references.

   *  Identification of quoted material, and avoidance of unacknowledged
      plagiarism.

   *  Conflicts of interest should be made public.

   *  Corrections, clarifications and retractions should be made
      promptly when needed.

   There are quite a few subjective judgements to be made about whether
   a contribution is substantial enough to count as authorship.  Funding
   support, professional reputation, managerial or supervisory status,
   and CV embellishment are irrelevant.  What fraction of new or
   corrected text counts?  Is a particular concept or brilliant 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.

   Many academic journals and universities have published policies about
   authorship.  Two examples from medical science are [ICMJE] and [NIH].
   An example from mathematics is [KoreanMath].  The IEEE also has clear
   guidance [IEEE-ethics].

   Some organisations have adopted strict policies about the use of
   artificial intelligence (AI) during document preparation, e.g.,
   [IEEE-AI].

A.2.  The RFC Series

   The Internet technical 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.  In other words, internal plagiarism between RFCs is
   normal.  Sometimes that means that small or large sections of text
   are copied from one document into another, and subsequently changed
   as the discussion evolves.  Within the RFC series, we consider this
   to be normal procedure as long as due acknowledgement is given.
   Indeed, when technical text has been carefully verified in a previous
   RFC, reuse of existing text is an important tool to avoid restating a
   specification or concept, and possibly introducing new unintended
   interpretations which might cause interoperability issues.

   The only exception to this is an RFC that carries a "no derivative
   works" legend according to [BCP78].

Carpenter               Expires 27 November 2026               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                Author Ethics                     May 2026

Acknowledgements

   Valuable comments on this document and its 2015 predecessor
   [I-D.carpenter-whats-an-author] were received from Loa Andersson,
   Andy Bierman, Carsten Bormann, Scott Bradner, Dave Crocker, Jay
   Daley, Martin Dürst, David Farmer, Russ Housley, John Klensin (who
   also contributed some text), Larry Kreeger, Mirja Kuehlewind, Watson
   Ladd, Eliot Lear, Jean Mahoney, S.  Moonesamy, Craig Partridge, Colin
   Perkins, Tom Petch, Alexandru Petrescu, Eric Rescorla, Michael
   Richardson, Rich Salz, Rob Sayre, Yaron Sheffer, Martin Thomson, and
   Joe Touch.

   Related mailing list discussions included Jay Daley, Joel Halpern,
   and Lucas Pardue.

   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 27 November 2026               [Page 12]