RFC Series Policy Definition and Implementation
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9280.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Peter Saint-Andre | ||
| Last updated | 2021-09-14 | ||
| Replaces | draft-saintandre-rfced-model | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Architecture Board (IAB) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
I18NDIR Last Call review
(of
-11)
by Martin Dürst
Almost ready
TSVART Last Call review
(of
-11)
by Wesley Eddy
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Stream | IAB state | (None) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| IAB shepherd | (None) |
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-02
Network Working Group P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
Internet-Draft Mozilla
Obsoletes: RFC8728 (if approved) 14 September 2021
Updates: RFC8729 (if approved)
Intended status: Informational
Expires: 18 March 2022
RFC Series Policy Definition and Implementation
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-02
Abstract
This document describes updated processes for defining and
implementing policies regarding the RFC Series. As specified here,
the model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into two
high-level functions: policy definition governing the RFC Series as a
whole, and policy implementation for publication of documents in the
RFC Series. The policy definition function is the responsibility of
the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals
that are subject to approval by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).
The policy implementation function is primarily the responsibility of
the RFC Production Center (RPC), under the ultimate authority of the
IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC).
This document reflects experience gained with version 1 of the RFC
Editor Model as specified in RFC 5620 and with version 2 as specified
in RFC 6635 and RFC 8728.
This document obsoletes RFC 8728.
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 18 March 2022.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Policy Definition Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Structure and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.4. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. RSEA Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. RSEA Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Policy Implementation Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Roles and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Editorial and Publication Policies . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the
RPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4. Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4.1. Vendor Selection for the RFC Production Center . . . 16
5.4.2. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Changes from RFC 8728 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Updates to RFC 8729 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction
As described in RFCs have been published continually since 1969
[RFC8729], the Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival
series dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications,
including general contributions from the Internet research and
engineering community as well as standards documents.[RFC8700].
The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs have
changed significantly over the years. Most recently, in 2009
[RFC5620] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1) and in 2012
[RFC6635] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), since modified
slightly in 2020 by [RFC8728]. Following historical precedent, these
documents used the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC Editor" to
identify the collective set of responsibilities for publishing
documents in the RFC series.
In order to provide a sustainable basis for ongoing publication of
the RFC series, this document divides the responsibilities for the
RFC Series into two high-level functions: policy definition governing
the Series as a whole, and policy implementation through publication
of documents in the Series. The policy definition function is the
responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which produces
policy proposals that are subject to approval by the RFC Series
Approval Board (RSAB). The policy implementation function is
primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC),
under the ultimate authority of the IETF Administration Limited
Liability Company (LLC) [RFC8711]. Therefore this document
introduces new functions and in some cases makes significant changes
to the responsibilities of existing bodies and functions (see
Section 7 of this document for a summary of the changes).
This document obsoletes RFC 8728.
2. Overview of the Model
Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC8728] specified a structure
consisting of the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and
the RFC Publisher, with oversight provided by the RFC Series
Oversight Committee (RSOC) on behalf of the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB).
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
Discussion within the RFCED-Future Program has led in the direction
of a more consensus-oriented structure (similar in some respects to
the structure of technical work within the IETF or IRTF) that retains
roles for specialized expertise in document editing and publication.
The policy definition function is performed by the RFC Series Working
Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals that are subject to
approval by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), after which such
policies are formally established through publication in the
Editorial Stream within the RFC Series. The RSWG is an open working
group (as described below) that seeks input and participation from a
wide range of persons who have an interest in the RFC Series. The
RSAB consists of appointed members who represent the various RFC
streams [RFC8728] as well as an expert in technical publishing, the
RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA).
The policy implementation function is performed by the RFC Production
Center (RPC), under the ultimate authority of the IETF Administration
Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC).
In short:
* The RSWG proposes policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole,
with input from the community, the RSAB, and the RSEA.
* The RSAB considers those proposals and approves them, returns them
to the RSWG for further consideration, or declines to publish
them, as appropriate.
* If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the Editorial
Stream and thus define the policies to be followed by the RSWG,
RSAB, RSEA, and RPC.
* The RSEA provides expert advice to the RPC and RSAB on how to
implement established policies on an ongoing and operational
basis, which can include raising issues or initiating proposed
policy changes within the RSWG.
* The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in
its day-to-day editing and publication of RFCs from other streams.
* If issues arise with the implementation of particular policies,
the RPC brings those issues to the RSAB, which interprets the
policies and provides interim guidance to the RPC, informing the
RSWG of those interpretations.
The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
3. Policy Definition Function
Policies governing the RFC series as a whole are defined in the open
through proposals that are generated by and discussed within the RFC
Series Working Group (RSWG) and then approved by the RFC Series
Approval Board (RSAB).
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include but are
not necessarily limited to document formats, processes for
publication and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the
RFC series.
3.1. Structure and Roles
3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
NOTE: There is discussion within the RFCED-Future Program regarding
the appropriate name for this entity; provisionally "RFC Series
Working Group" (RSWG) is used here, but the name might change in
future versions of this document.
The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) shall formulate proposals
regarding policies that govern the RFC series. The intent is that
the RSWG operate in a way similar to working groups in the IETF and
research groups in the IRTF. Therefore, all RSWG meetings shall be
open to any participant, and all RSWG contributions shall be subject
to intellectual property policies, which must be consistent with
those of the IETF as specified in BCP 78 [RFC5378] and BCP 79
[RFC8179].
The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation
informally described in [RFC7282].
When the RSWG is formed, all discussions shall take place on an open
email discussion list. Subsequently, the RSWG may decide by rough
consensus to also use additional tooling (e.g., GitHub as specified
in [RFC8874]), forms of communication (e.g., in-person or online
meetings), and working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they
are consistent with [RFC2418].
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
All interested persons are welcome to participate in the RSWG
(subject to anti-harassment policies as described below). This
includes participants in the IETF and IRTF, IAB and IESG members,
individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, authors of RFCs
and Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to authors RFCs, and
the like. The IETF LLC Board members, staff, and the IETF Executive
Director are invited to participate as community members in the RSWG
to the extent permitted by any relevant IETF LLC policies. Members
of the RSAB are also expected to participate actively.
The RSWG shall have two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the
other appointed by the IAB. When the RSWG is formed, the chair
appointed by the IESG shall serve for a term of one (1) year and the
chair appointed by the IAB shall serve for a term of two (2) years;
thereafter, chairs shall serve for a term of two (2) years, with no
term limits on renewal. The appointing bodies shall determine their
own processes for making these appointments, such as provision for an
open nominations period. Community members who have concerns about
the performance of an RSWG chair should direct their feedback to the
relevant appointing body. Each appointing body shall have the power
to replace its appointed chair at its discretion at any time, with
the replacement serving the remainder of the original chair's term.
It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus
within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision
making, for instance regarding acceptance of new proposals and
advancement of proposals to the RSAB.
Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the roles and
responsibilities of the chairs, the general guidance provided in
Section 6.1 of [RFC2418] should be considered appropriate.
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #9
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/9),
ISSUE #14 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/
issues/14), ISSUE #16 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-
future/issues/16), ISSUE #28 (https://github.com/intarchboard/
program-rfced-future/issues/28), ISSUE #29
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/29),
ISSUE #41 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/
issues/41), ISSUE #44 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-
future/issues/44), ISSUE #68 (https://github.com/intarchboard/
program-rfced-future/issues/68), and ISSUE #72
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/72).
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) shall act as the approving body
for proposals generated within the RSWG. The sole function of the
RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by the RSWG; it shall
have no independent authority to formulate policy on its own. It is
expected that the RSAB will respect the rough consensus of the RSWG
wherever possible, without ceding its review function.
The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows:
* One delegate representing the IETF stream, appointed by the IESG
* One delegate representing the IAB stream, appointed by the IAB
* One delegate representing the IRTF stream, appointed by the IRTF
Chair
* The Independent Submissions Editor [RFC8730]
* The RFC Series Editor/Advisor
The appointing bodies shall determine their own processes for
appointing delegates, such as provision for an open nominations
period. If it becomes necessary to replace such a delegate for any
reason, then for the sake of continuity the appointing body should
name a new delegate to complete the former delegate's term.
To ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
include the IETF Executive Director as a non-voting member since the
IETF LLC is ultimately responsible for the operation of the policy
implementation function. The RSAB may at its discretion include
additional non-voting members, for instance a liaison from the RPC.
Whenever a new stream is created, the document that creates the
stream shall specify if a voting member representing that stream
shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules and processes
related to that representative (e.g., whether the representative is a
member of the body responsible for the stream or an appointed
delegate thereof). In effect, the RSEA is the voting member
representing the Editorial Stream.
The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using a
method to be determined by the RSAB. If the chair position is
vacated during the chair's term, the RSAB should choose a new chair
from among its members.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
The RSAB is expected to operate via email, in-person meetings,
teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling it deems
necessary.
The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including
minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions.
The RSAB shall announce plans and agendas for their meetings on the
RFC Editor website and by email to the RSWG at least a week before
such meetings. The meetings shall be open for public attendance and
the RSAB may consider allowing open participation. If the RSAB needs
to discuss a confidential matter in executive session, that part of
the meeting shall be private to the RSAB, but must be noted on the
agenda, and must be documented in the minutes with as much detail as
confidentiality requirements permit.
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #9
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/9),
ISSUE #38 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/
issues/38), ISSUE #50 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-
future/issues/50), ISSUE #53 (https://github.com/intarchboard/
program-rfced-future/issues/53), and ISSUE #71
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/71).
3.2. Process
3.2.1. Intent
The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to
the RFC series are defined and evolved. The general expectation is
that all interested parties will participate in the RSWG, and that
only under extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold
"CONCERN" positions as described below.
Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWG
participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work
together in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to
achieve rough consensus (see [RFC7282]). In particular, RSWG members
are encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously, and RSAB members are
encouraged to clearly express their concerns early in the process and
to be responsive to the community. All parties are encouraged to
respect the value of each stream and the long-term health and
viability of the RFC series.
This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation. RSAB
members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,
authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an
ongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider a proposal,
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
there should be no surprises. Appointing bodies are expected to
establish whatever processes they deem appropriate to facilitate this
goal.
3.2.2. Specifics
The following process shall be used to formulate or modify processes
related to the RFC series:
1. An individual participant in the RSWG generates a proposal in the
form of an Internet-Draft, which is submitted in full conformance
with the provisions of BCP 78 [RFC5378] and BCP 79 [RFC8179].
2. If (following procedures for rough consensus) the chairs
determine that there is sufficient interest in the proposal, the
RSWG may adopt the proposal as a draft proposal of the RSWG, in
much the same way a working group of the IETF or research group
of the IRTF would (see [RFC2418]).
3. The RSWG shall then further develop the proposal. Members of the
RSAB are expected to participate in discussion relating to such
proposals so that they are fully aware of proposals early in the
policy definition process and so that any issues or concerns that
they have will be raised during the development of the proposal
(not be left until the RSAB review period). The RWSG chairs are
also expected to participate as individuals.
4. At some point, if the RSWG chairs believe there may be rough
consensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a last
call for comment within the working group.
5. After a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG chairs will
determine whether rough consensus for the proposal exists (taking
their own feedback as individuals into account along with
feedback from other participants). If comments have been
received and substantial changes have been made, additional last
calls may be necessary.
6. Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue a
community call for comments as further described below. If
substantial comments have been received, the RSWG will again
consider those comments and make revisions as they see fit. At
this same time, the RSAB will also consider the proposal.
7. If substantial changes have been made, additional community calls
for comment should be issued by the RSAB, and again comments
considered by the RSWG.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
8. Once all comments have been addressed, the RSWG chairs will
submit the proposal to the RSAB for its consideration.
9. Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will then poll among
its members regarding the proposal. Positions may be as follows:
* "YES": the proposal should be approved
* "CONCERN": the proposal raises substantial concerns that must
be addressed
* "RECUSE": the person holding the position has a conflict of
interest
Any RSAB member holding a "CONCERN" position must explain their
concern to the community in detail. The explanation might or might
not be actionable.
A CONCERN may be made for two reasons:
* The proposal represents a serious problem for the stream or group
that a particular member represents.
* The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause serious
harm to the overall series, including harm to the long term health
and viability of the series.
Because RSAB members should have been participating in discussions
within the RSWG, no position of CONCERN should ever come as a
surprise to the RSWG.
1. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
Again, all RSAB members are expected to participate.
2. A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved. If
substantial changes have been made in order to address CONCERN
positions, an additional call for community input might be
needed.
3. If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions
remain, a formal vote of the RSAB is taken. If a majority of
RSAB members vote to approve, the proposal is approved.
Otherwise, it is returned to the RSWG. In the case of a tie, the
proposal is approved.
4. When a proposal is approved, a notification is sent to the
community, and the document enters the queue for publication as
an RFC within the Editorial Stream.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #45
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/45) and
ISSUE #69 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/
issues/69).
3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment
When a community call for comment is made, the RSAB sends a notice
containing:
* A subject line beginning with 'Call for Comment:'
* A clear, concise summary of the proposal
* A URL for the proposal document
* Any commentary or questions for the community that the RSAB deems
necessary (using their usual decision-making procedures)
* Clear instructions on how to provide public comments
* A deadline for comments
Notices will always be sent to the rfc-interest mailing list. The
RSAB and RSWG should also send notices to other communities that may
be interested in or impacted by a proposal as they see fit, following
policies for those communities as appropriate. Notices are also to
be made available and archived on the rfc-editor.org web site. In
addition, other communication channels can be established for notices
(e.g., using an RSS feed or social media).
A comment period will not last less than two weeks. Comments will be
publicly archived on the rfc-editor.org web site.
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #67
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/67).
3.2.4. Appeals
Appeals of RSWG decisions shall be made to the RSAB. Decisions of
the RSWG can be appealed only on grounds of failure to follow the
correct process. Appeals should be made within 30 days of any
action, or in the case of failure to act, of notice having been given
to the RSWG. The RSAB will then decide if the process was followed
and will direct the RSWG chairs as to what procedural actions are
required.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB and should be made
within thirty (30) days of public notice of the relevant RSAB
decision (typically, when minutes are posted). The IAB shall decide
whether a process failure occurred and what if any corrective action
should take place.
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #16
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/16) and
ISSUE #36 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/
issues/36).
3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy
The IETF anti-harassment policy
(https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-harassment-
policy/) also applies to the RSWG and RSAB, which strive to create
and maintain an environment in which people of many different
backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect.
Participants are expected to behave according to professional
standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior. See
also [RFC7154], [RFC7776], and [RFC8716].
4. RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA)
NOTE: Discussion continues within the RFCED-Future Program regarding
the appropriate title for an expert in technical publication
processes. To retain flexibility, this document temporarily refers
to the individual as the "RFC Series Editor/Advisor" ("RSEA").
The RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA) is a senior technical publishing
professional who will apply their deep knowledge of technical
publishing processes to the RFC series.
The primary responsibilities of the RSEA are as follows:
* Serve as a voting member on the RSAB
* Identify problems with the RFC publication process and
opportunities for improvement
* Provide expert advice regarding policy proposals within the RSWG
* If requested, provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC
Matters on which the RSEA might be consulted could include proposed
changes to the RFC style guide [RFC7322], RFC formatting in general,
web presence for the RFC Series, copyright matters, archiving policy,
and dissemination and cataloguing of RFCs.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the
engagement of the RSEA. Therefore, whether the RSEA role is
structured as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for
the IETF LLC and the IETF Executive Director to determine.
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #12
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/12) and
ISSUE #24 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/
issues/24).
4.1. RSEA Selection
The IETF LLC will form a selection committee, including members from
the community, that will be responsible for making a recommendation
to the IETF LLC for the RSEA role. The selection committee will take
into account the role definition (https://github.com/intarchboard/
program-rfced-future/blob/master/Issue12-RSE-role.md) as well as any
other information that the committee deems necessary or helpful in
making its decision. The IETF LLC is responsible for contracting or
employment of the RSEA.
4.2. RSEA Performance Evaluation
Periodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the RSEA,
including a call for confidential input from the community. The IETF
LLC will produce a draft performance evaluation for the RSAB (not
including the RSEA), which will provide feedback to the IETF LLC.
5. Policy Implementation Function
5.1. Roles and Processes
Publication of RFCs shall is handled by the RFC Production Center
(RPC).
In general, the RPC is instructed by RFCs published in the Editorial
Stream (i.e., not directly by the RSWG, RSAB, or RSEA), is advised by
the RSAB and has a duty to ask for that advice under specific
circumstances, and is contractually overseen by the IETF LLC to
ensure that it performs in accordance with contracts in place.
Within these parameters, at a high level the RPC is tasked with the
following activities:
* Editing documents from the streams and publishing them as RFCs.
* Participating in the creation of new Editorial Stream RFCs that
impact the RPC, at least in an advisory capacity.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
* Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans.
* Consulting with the community on its plans.
* Negotiating its resources with the IETF LLC.
All matters of budget, timetable and impact on its performance
targets, are between the RPC and IETF LLC.
The RPC shall report regularly to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG, and
broader community regarding its activities and any key risks or
issues affecting it.
In the event that the RPC is required to make a decision without
consultation that would normally deserve consultation, or makes a
decision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify the
RSAB.
This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
IETF LLC and the RPC; for example, the work of the RPC could be
performed by a separate corporate entity under contract to the IETF
LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or the IETF
LLC could engage with independent contractors for some or all aspects
of such work. The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC
and the IETF Executive Director to determine.
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the
engagement of the RPC. Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority over
negotiating performance targets for the RPC and also has
responsibility for ensuring that those targets are adhered to. The
IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a manager or to convene a committee
to complete these activities.
If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the
performance of the RPC, they can request that the IETF LLC look into
the matter. Even if the IETF LLC opts to delegate this activity,
concerns should be raised with the IETF LLC. The IETF LLC is
ultimately responsible to the community via the mechanisms outlined
in its charter.
5.2. Editorial and Publication Policies
Under and consistent with the high-level policies defined for the RFC
Series in general or particular streams, the RPC shall define more
particular policies regarding matters related to the editorial
preparation and final publication and dissemination of RFCs.
Examples include:
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
* Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards to
which RFCs must adhere (see [RFC7322] and the style guide web page
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/)).
* Policies regarding the file formats that are accepted as input to
the editing and publication process.
* Policies regarding the final structure and layout of published
documents. In the context of the XML vocabulary ([RFC7991]), such
policies could include matters such as the exact XML elements and
attributes used to capture the semantic content of RFCs. More
generally, such policies could address the readability and
presentation of information in RFCs.
5.3. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC
During the process of editorial preparation and publication,
disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the
RPC. Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such
disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct
consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in
collaboration with other individuals such as a document shepherd,
IETF working group chair, IRSG research group chair, or IETF Area
Director.
However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies, or if
the interpretation of an existing policy is unclear, the parties may
need to consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB,
IESG, IRSG, or stream manager) to help achieve a resolution. The
following points are intended to provide more particular guidance.
* If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, the
RPC should consult with the relevant stream manager to help
achieve a resolution, if needed also conferring with a per-stream
body such as the IESG or IRSG.
* If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should
consult with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.
* If the disagreement raises a new issue that is not covered by an
existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation
between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies (as
described above), the issue should be brought to the RSWG in order
to formulate a new policy. However, in the interest of time the
disagreement may be resolved as the parties best see fit while the
RSWG formulates a more general policy.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #6
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/6) and
ISSUE #59 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/
issues/59).
5.4. Administrative Implementation
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. This
section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such
activities.
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #25
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/25),
ISSUE #57 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/
issues/57), ISSUE #61 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-
future/issues/61), ISSUE #62 (https://github.com/intarchboard/
program-rfced-future/issues/62), and ISSUE #63
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/63),
5.4.1. Vendor Selection for the RFC Production Center
Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under
the final authority of the IETF LLC.
The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) for
the RPC and manages the vendor selection process. The work
definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into
account the needs of stream managers as well as community input.
The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center and
other RFC-related services is as follows:
* The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps
necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the
contracting procedures.
* The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will consist
of the IETF Executive Director and other members selected by the
IETF LLC in consultation with the stream managers. The committee
shall select a chair from among its members.
* The selection committee selects the vendor, subject to the
successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC. In
the event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be
referred to the selection committee for further action.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
5.4.2. Budget
The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They
have been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.
The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding
to support the RSEA, the RFC Production Center, and the Independent
Stream.
The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor
budget (and the authority to deny it). All relevant parties must
work within the IETF LLC budgetary process.
6. Streams
This document creates the Editorial Stream. Any and all future
documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB shall be
published in the Editorial Stream. Documents pubished in the
Editorial Stream shall have a status of Informational. The Editorial
Stream is not authorized to publish RFCs that are Standards Track or
Best Current Practice, since such RFCs are reserved to the IETF
Stream [RFC8729].
The Editorial Stream will be used only to specify and update the
strategy, policy, and procedures of the RFC Series itself; no other
use of the Editorial Stream is authorized by this memo and no other
streams are so authorized. This policy may be changed only by
agreement of the IAB, IESG, and IETF LLC.
The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams
are outside the scope of this document.
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #22
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/22),
ISSUE #35 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/
issues/35), ISSUE #63 (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-
future/issues/63), and ISSUE #73 (https://github.com/intarchboard/
program-rfced-future/issues/73).
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines several functions related to the RFC Series and
places the responsibility for coordination of registry value
assignments with the RPC. The IETF LLC facilitates management of the
relationship between the RPC and IANA.
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any
values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
8. Security Considerations
The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply. The
processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains
the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to
prevent these published documents from being changed by external
parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed
to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents
(such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, originals
that are not machine-readable) need to be secured against any kind of
data storage failure.
The IETF LLC should take these security considerations into account
during the implementation and enforcement of any relevant contracts.
9. Changes from RFC 8728
9.1. RFC Series Editor
The RSWG and RSAB together provide a public process by which policies
for the RFC Series can be defined. It is expected that these bodies
will therefore cover some of the responsibilities of the RFC Series
Editor function as defined by RFC 8728.
9.2. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and
responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy
and somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, this document
dispenses with the RSOC.
10. Updates to RFC 8729
This document incorporates some text directly from [RFC8729] and also
makes the following updates:
* This document creates the Editorial Stream.
* Future changes to policies governing the RFC Series as a whole now
occur through documents defined by the RSWG and approved by the
RSAB.
* As described above, several responsibilities previously assigned
to the "RFC Editor function" are now performed by the RSWG, RSAB,
RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). These include
aspects of operational oversight (Section 3.3 of [RFC8729]),
policy oversight (Section 3.4 of [RFC8729]), the editing,
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
processing, and publication of documents (Section 4.2 of
[RFC8729]), and series-wide guidelines and rules (Section 4.4 of
[RFC8729]).
In addition, some details regarding these responsibilities have
been modified to accord with the new framework defined in this
document.
11. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
12. Informative References
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.
[RFC3777] Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation,
and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
Committees", RFC 3777, DOI 10.17487/RFC3777, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777>.
[RFC5378] 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>.
[RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620>.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
[RFC7154] Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>.
[RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF",
RFC 7282, DOI 10.17487/RFC7282, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7282>.
[RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
[RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.
[RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.
[RFC8179] 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>.
[RFC8700] Flanagan, H., Ed., "Fifty Years of RFCs", RFC 8700,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8700, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8700>.
[RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.
[RFC8716] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IETF Anti-
Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF
Administration LLC", BCP 25, RFC 8716,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8716, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716>.
[RFC8728] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728>.
[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/info/rfc8729>.
[RFC8730] Brownlee, N., Ed. and B. Hinden, Ed., "Independent
Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8730>.
[RFC8874] Thomson, M. and B. Stark, "Working Group GitHub Usage
Guidance", RFC 8874, DOI 10.17487/RFC8874, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8874>.
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Policy September 2021
Acknowledgments
Portions of this document were borrowed from [RFC5620], [RFC6635],
[RFC8728], [RFC8729], and earlier proposals submitted within the
RFCED-Future Program by Martin Thomson, Brian Carpenter, and Michael
StJohns. Thanks to the chairs of the Program, Eliot Lear and Brian
Rosen, for their leadership and assistance. Thanks also for feedback
and proposed text to Jari Arkko, Sarah Banks, Scott Bradner, Carsten
Bormann, Nevil Brownlee, Ben Campbell, Jay Daley, Martin Duerst, Lars
Eggert, Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Sandy Ginoza, Bron Gondwana,
Joel Halpern, Wes Hardaker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Christian
Huitema, Ole Jacobsen, John Klensin, Mirja Kuehlewind, Ted Lemon,
John Levine, Lucy Lynch, Andrew Malis, Larry Masinter, S. Moonesamy,
Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly, Colin Perkins, Julian Reschke, Eric
Rescorla, Adam Roach, Alice Russo, Doug Royer, Rich Salz, Tim
Wicinski, and Nico Williams.
Author's Address
Peter Saint-Andre (editor)
Mozilla
Email: stpeter@stpeter.im
Saint-Andre Expires 18 March 2022 [Page 21]