RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-06
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 | 2021-11-18 | ||
| 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-06
Network Working Group P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
Internet-Draft Mozilla
Obsoletes: RFC8728 (if approved) 18 November 2021
Updates: RFC7841, RFC8729, RFC8730 (if approved)
Intended status: Informational
Expires: 22 May 2022
RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-06
Abstract
This document specifies version 3 of RFC Editor Model. The model
defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. Policy
definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series Working
Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC Series
Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Policy
implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production
Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF Administration
Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC).
This document obsoletes RFC 8728. This document updates RFC 7841,
RFC 8729, and RFC 8730.
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 22 May 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Policy Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Structure and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Workflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.4. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.6. RFC Boilerplates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Policy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Roles and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Working Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. RPC Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the
RPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5. Point of Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6. Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6.1. Vendor Selection for the RFC Production Center . . . 18
4.6.2. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. RSCE Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2. RSCE Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3. Temporary RSCE Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4. Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Editorial Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1. Editorial Stream Boilerplate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . 22
7.1. RFC Editor Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.2. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.3. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.4. IAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
7.7. Editorial Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Introduction
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. RFCs are available free of
charge to anyone via the Internet. As described in [RFC8700], RFCs
have been published continually since 1969. The overall framework
for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function are described in
[RFC8729] and updated here.
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].
This document reflects experience gained with version 1 and version 2
of the Model, and therefore describes version 3 of the Model while
remaining consistent with [RFC8729].
In 2020, following up on meetings led by the RFC Series Editor in
2019, the IAB formed an open program to conduct a community
discussion and consensus process for the further evolution of the RFC
Editor model. Under the auspices of this program, the community
considered changes that would increase transparency and community
input regarding the definition of policies for the RFC Series as a
whole, while at the same time ensuring the continuity of the RFC
Series, maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely processing,
ensuring document accessibility, and clarifying lines of authority
and responsibility.
More specifically, in order to ensure sustainable maintenance and
support of the RFC Series based on the principles of expert
implementation, clear management and direction, and appropriate
community input [RFC8729], this document divides the responsibilities
for the RFC Series into two high-level tasks:
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
1. Policy definition governing the Series as a whole. This is the
joint responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG),
which produces policy proposals, and the RFC Series Approval
Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals for publication in
the Editorial Stream.
2. Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the
streams that form the Series. This is primarily the
responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as
contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited
Liability Company (LLC) [RFC8711].
In this model, RFCs are produced and approved through multiple
document streams. The stream approving body [RFC8729] for each
stream is responsible for the content of that stream. The RFC Editor
function is responsible for the packaging and distribution of all
RFCs; specifically, RFCs from all of the streams are edited and
published by the Production Center.
The four streams that now exist are described in [RFC8729]. This
document adds a fifth stream, the Editorial Stream.
This document obsoletes [RFC8728] by defining version 3 of the RFC
Editor Model. This document updates [RFC7841] by defining
boilerplate text for the Editorial Stream. This document updates
[RFC8729] by replacing the RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and
RSCE. This document updates [RFC8730] by removing the dependency on
certain policies specified by the IAB and RSE. More detailed
information can be found under under Section 7.
2. Overview of the Model
Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC8728] defined 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).
By contrast, version 3 of the RFC Editor Model, specified here,
provides a more consensus-oriented framework (similar in some
respects to the structure of technical work within the IETF) that
retains roles for specialized expertise in document editing and
publication.
Policy definition happens within 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
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
within the RFC Series. The RSWG is an open working group (as
described in Section 3.1.1) that seeks input and participation
through a public process from a wide range of individuals 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 Consulting Editor (RSCE).
Policy implementation is performed by the RFC Production Center
(RPC), as contractually overseen by 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 RSCE.
* The RSAB considers those proposals and either approves them or
returns them to the RSWG, which may make further changes or remove
them from further consideration.
* If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the Editorial
Stream and thus define the policies to be followed by the RSWG,
RSAB, RSCE, and RPC.
* The RSCE 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.
This model is designed to ensure public processes and policy
documents, clear responsibilities and mechanisms for updates and
changes to policies governing the RFC Series as a whole, and
operational implementation of the RFC Series, thus meeting the
requirements specified in Section 4 of [RFC8729].
The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
3. Policy Definition
Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined via open and
public discussion through proposals that are adopted by and discussed
within the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), that pass a last call for
comments in the working group and broader community, and that are
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)
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 all interested individuals, 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 [RFC2418].
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].
All interested individuals are welcome to participate in the RSWG
(subject to anti-harassment policies as described under
Section 3.2.5). 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
author 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.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
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 IESG and IAB shall determine their own
processes for making these appointments. Community members who have
concerns about the performance of an RSWG chair should direct their
feedback to the group. The IESG and IAB shall have the power to
remove their appointed chairs at their discretion at any time, and to
name a replacement who shall serve 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 functioning
of the working group, the general guidance provided in Section 6 of
[RFC2418] should be considered appropriate.
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 only policy-making role
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 responsibility to provide
appropriate review of RSWG proposals.
The voting members of the RSAB are as follows:
* As the stream representative for the IETF stream, an IESG member
or other person appointed by the IESG
* As the stream representative for the IAB stream, an IAB member or
other person appointed by the IAB
* As the stream representative for the IRTF stream, the IRTF chair
or other person appointed by the IRTF Chair
* As the stream representative for the Independent stream, the
Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) [RFC8730] or other person
appointed by the ISE
* The RFC Series Consulting Editor
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
The appointing bodies, i.e., the stream approval bodies (IESG, IAB,
IRTF chair, ISE), shall determine their own processes for appointing
RSAB members (note that processes related to the RSCE are described
under Section 5). Each appointing body shall have the power to
remove its appointed RSAB member at its discretion at any time.
Appointing bodies should ensure that voting members are seated at all
times and should fill any vacancies with all due speed, if necessary
on a temporary basis.
In the case that the IRTF chair or ISE is incapacitated or otherwise
unable to appoint another person to serve as a delegate, the IAB (as
the appointing body for the IRTF chair and ISE respectively) shall
act as the temporary appointing body for those streams and shall
appoint a temporary member of the RSAB until the IAB has appointed an
IRTF chair or ISE, who can then act as an RSAB member or appoint a
delegate through normal processes.
In the case of vacancies by voting members, the RSAB shall operate as
follows:
* Activities related to implementation of policies already in force
shall continue as normal.
* Voting on approval of policy documents produced by the RSWG shall
be delayed until the vacancy or vacancies have been filled, up to
a maximum of 3 months; this clause does not apply to a vacancy of
the RSCE role, only of the stream representatives enumerated
above. If during this 3-month period a further vacancy arises,
the delay should be extended by another 3 months.
To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
include the IETF Executive Director or their delegate as a non-voting
member since the IETF LLC is responsible for implementation of
policies governing the RFC Series. The RSAB may at its discretion
include additional non-voting members, for instance a liaison from
the RPC.
If and when 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 RSCE is the voting member
representing the Editorial Stream.
The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using a
method of its choosing. If the chair position is vacated during the
chair's term, the RSAB chooses a new chair from among its members.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 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.
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 under Section 3.2.2).
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 [RFC2418]). 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 the approval
of a proposal, there should be no surprises. Appointing bodies are
expected to establish whatever processes they deem appropriate to
facilitate this goal.
3.2.2. Workflow
The following process shall be used to formulate or modify processes
related to the RFC Series:
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
1. An individual or set of individuals generates a proposal in the
form of an Internet-Draft (which must be submitted in full
conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 [RFC5378] and BCP 79
[RFC8179]) and asks the RSWG to adopt the proposal as a working
group item.
2. If in 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 discuss and develop the proposal.
Members of the RSAB are expected to participate as individuals in
all discussions relating to RSWG 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 left until the RSAB review
period. The RSWG 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. Once the chairs determine that consensus
has been reached, they shall announce their determination on the
RSWG discussion list and forward the document to the RSAB.
6. Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue a
community call for comments as further described under
Section 3.2.3. If substantial comments are received in response
to the community call for comments, the RSAB may return the draft
to the RSWG to consider those comments and make revisions to
address the feedback received. In parallel with the community
call for comment, the RSAB shall also consider the proposal.
7. If the scope of revisions made in the previous step is large, an
additional community call for comment should be issued by the
RSAB, and the feedback received should be considered by the RSWG.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
8. Once the RSWG chairs confirm that concerns received during the
call(s) for community input have been addressed, they shall
inform the RSAB that the document is ready for balloting by the
RSAB.
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 position of CONCERN may be filed for two reasons:
* The proposal represents a serious problem for one or more of the
individual streams.
* 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 are expected to participate in the discussions
within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues during those
discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come as a surprise to
the RSWG. Notwithstanding, late CONCERN positions are always
possible if issues are identified during RSAB review..
1. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
Again, all RSAB members are expected to participate. If
substantial changes are made in order to address CONCERN
positions, an additional call for community input might be
needed.
2. A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.
3. If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions
remain, a vote of the RSAB is taken. If at least three voting
members vote YES, the proposal is approved.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
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.
5. Policies may take effect immediately upon approval by the RSAB
and before publication of the relevant RFC, unless the IETF LLC
objects pending resolution of resource or contract issues.
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 to the Internet-Draft that defines the proposal
* 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 or to
its successor or future equivalent. The RSAB and RSWG chairs should
also send notices to other communities that may be interested in or
impacted by a proposal as they see fit. RSAB members should also
distribute notice of the call for comments to the communities they
represent. Notices are also to be made available and archived on the
RFC Editor website. 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 website.
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 22 May 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
Decisions of the RSAB can be appealed on grounds of failure to follow
the correct process. Where the RSAB makes a decision in order to
resolve a disagreement between authors and the RPC (as described
under Section 4.4), appeals can be filed on the basis that the RSAB
misinterpreted an approved policy. In other cases, disagreements
about the conduct of the RSAB are not subject to appeal. 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.
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. For
further information about these policies, see [RFC7154], [RFC7776],
and [RFC8716].
3.2.6. RFC Boilerplates
As part of the RFC Style Guide (see [RFC7322] and [STYLEGUIDE]), new
or modified RFC boilerplates (see [RFC7841]) considered under version
3 of the RFC Editor Model must be approved by the following parties,
each of which has a separate area of responsibility with respect to
boilerplates:
* Each stream to which the boilerplate applies, which approves that
the boilerplate meets its needs
* The RSAB, which approves that the boilerplate is not in conflict
with the boilerplate used in the other streams
* The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate
conforms to the RFC Style Guide
* The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly
states the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership
4. Policy Implementation
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
4.1. Roles and Processes
Publication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC).
A few general considerations apply:
* The general roles and responsibilities of the RPC are defined by
RFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by the
RSWG, RSAB, or RSCE), by legacy RFCs which apply to the RPC and
which have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and
by the requisite contracts.
* The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and has a duty to consult
with them under specific circumstances, such as those relating to
disagreements between authors and the RPC.
* The RPC is overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that it performs in
accordance with contracts in place.
All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance
targets, are between the RPC and IETF LLC.
The RPC shall regularly provide reports 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 to
determine.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
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 met. Such
performance targets are set based on the RPC's publication load and
additional efforts required by policies specified in the Editorial
Stream, in legacy RFCs which apply to the RPC and which have not yet
been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and in the requisite
contracts. The IETF LLC may consult with the community regarding
these targets. 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 matter be
investigated by the IETF LLC board, the IETF LLC Executive Director,
or a point of contact designated by the IETF LLC Board. Even if the
IETF LLC opts to delegate this activity, concerns should be raised
with the IETF LLC. The IETF LLC is ultimately answerable to the
community via the mechanisms outlined in its charter.
4.2. Working Practices
In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC, or to
specify the detail of its implementation, the RPC can document
working practices regarding the editorial preparation and final
publication and dissemination of RFCs. Examples include:
* Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards to
which RFCs must adhere (see the style guide web page
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/), which extends
[RFC7322]).
* Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as input
to the editing and publication process.
* Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published
documents. In the context of the XML vocabulary ([RFC7991]), such
guidelines could include clarifications regarding XML elements and
attributes used to capture the semantic content of RFCs.
4.3. RPC Responsibilities
The core responsibility of the RPC is continuous improvement
regarding the implementation of RFC policies (including the
dimensions of document quality, timeliness of production, and
accessibility of results), while taking into account issues raised by
the community through the RSWG and by the stream approving bodies.
More specifically, the RPC's responsibilities at the time of writing
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
include the following:
1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style
Guide.
2. Creating and preserving records of edits performed on documents.
3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact
and seeking necessary clarification.
4. Engaging in dialogue with authors, document shepherds, IANA, or
stream-specific contacts (e.g., working group chairs and stream
approving bodies) when clarification is needed.
5. Creating and preserving records of dialogue with document
authors.
6. Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
7. Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
8. Participating in the creation of new Editorial Stream RFCs that
impact the RPC, at least in an advisory capacity.
9. Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans.
10. Consulting with the community on its plans.
11. Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC.
12. Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC
performance by the IETF LLC.
13. Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of IANA-
performed protocol registry actions.
14. Assigning RFC numbers.
15. Establishing publication readiness of each document through
communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA, or
stream-specific contacts, and, if needed, with the RSAB and
RSCE.
16. Liaising with stream approving bodies and other representatives
of the streams as needed.
17. Publishing RFCs, which includes:
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
* depositing copies on the RFC Editor site both individually
and in collections
* depositing copies with external archives
* creating catalogs and catalog entries
* announcing the publication to all interested parties
18. Providing online access to RFCs.
19. Providing an online system to submit RFC Errata.
20. Providing online access to approved RFC Errata.
21. Providing backups.
22. Providing storage and preservation of records.
23. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.
4.4. 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, IRTF 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 approving bodies) 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 approving body 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.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
* The disagreement might raise 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. In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a)
resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary before
a new policy is defined and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so
that a new policy can be defined.
4.5. Point of Contact
From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF
and the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC
Series. Such inquiries should be directed to the rfc-editor@rfc-
editor.org (mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org) email alias and then
handled by the appropriate bodies (e.g., RSAB, RPC) or individuals
(e.g., RSWG chairs, RSCE).
4.6. 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.
4.6.1. 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 RPC responsibilities (as described under Section 4.3),
the needs of the streams, and 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 approving bodies. The
committee shall select a chair from among its members.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
* 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.
4.6.2. 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 RSCE, 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.
5. RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)
The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) 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 RSCE 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 within the RSWG regarding policy proposals
* Provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC
Matters on which the RSCE might provide guidance could include the
following (see also Section 4 of [RFC8729]):
* Editing, processing, and publication of RFCs
* Publication formats for the RFC Series
* Changes to the RFC style guide
* Series-wide guidelines regarding document content and quality
* Web presence for the RFC Series
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
* Copyright matters related to the RFC Series
* Archiving, indexing, and accessibility of RFCs
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the
engagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and the
timely filling of any vacancy. Therefore, whether the RSCE role is
structured as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for
the IETF LLC to determine.
5.1. RSCE 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 RSCE role. The selection committee will take
into account the definition of the role 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 RSCE.
5.2. RSCE Performance Evaluation
Periodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the RSCE,
including a call for confidential input from the community. The IETF
LLC will produce a draft evaluation of the RSCE's performance for
review by RSAB members other than the RSCE, who will provide feedback
to the IETF LLC.
5.3. Temporary RSCE Appointment
In the case that the currently appointed RSCE is expected to be
unavailable for an extended period, the IETF LLC may appoint a
Temporary RSCE through whatever recruitment process it considers
appropriate. A Temporary RSCE acts as the RSCE in all aspects during
their term of appointment.
5.4. Conflict of Interest
The RSCE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of
interest or judgment in performing these roles. To ensure this, the
RSCE will be subject to a conflict of interest policy established by
the IETF LLC.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
The RPC service provider may contract services from the RSCE service
provider, and vice versa, including for services provided to the IETF
LLC. All contracts between the two must be disclosed to the IETF
LLC.
Where those services are related to services provided to the IETF
LLC, IETF LLC policies shall apply, including publication of relevant
parts of the contract.
6. Editorial Stream
This document creates the Editorial Stream as separate space for
publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related
information regarding the RFC Series as a whole.
All documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB shall be
published as RFCs in the Editorial Stream with a status of
Informational. (Note that 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
policies, procedures, guidelies, rules, and related information
regarding the RFC Series as a whole; 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.
6.1. Editorial Stream Boilerplate
This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This
Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes
to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy
Definition process specified in this document.
Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the
first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].
The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
follows:
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
"This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
process. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working Group
approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents are not
candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
7841."
The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
specified in Section 3.5 of [RFC7841].
7. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model
7.1. RFC Editor Function
Several responsibilities previously assigned to the "RFC Editor" or,
more precisely, the "RFC Editor function" are now performed by the
RSWG, RSAB, RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). These
include various aspects of strategic leadership (Section 2.1.1 of
[RFC8728]), representation of the RFC Series (Section 2.1.2 of
[RFC8728]), development of RFC production and publication
(Section 2.1.3 of [RFC8728]), development of the RFC Series
(Section 2.1.4 of [RFC8728]), operational oversight (Section 3.3 of
[RFC8729]), policy oversight (Section 3.4 of [RFC8729]), the editing,
processing, and publication of documents (Section 4.2 of [RFC8729]),
and development and maintenance of Series-wide guidelines and rules
(Section 4.4 of [RFC8729]). Among other things this changes the
dependency on the RSE included in Section 2.2 of [RFC8730] with
regard to "coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series
policies as specified by the IAB and RSE." In addition, various
details regarding these responsibilities have been modified to accord
with the new framework defined in this document.
7.2. RFC Series Editor
Implied by the changes outlined in the previous section, the
responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or role
(contrasted with the overall "RFC Editor function") are now split or
shared among the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or in
combination). More specifically, the responsibilities of the RFC
Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) under version 3 of the RFC Editor
Model differ in many ways from the responsibilities of the RFC Series
Editor under version 2 of the Model. In general, references in
existing documents to the RSE can be taken as referring to the "RFC
Editor function" as described herein, but should not be taken as
referring to the RSCE.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
7.3. RFC Publisher
In practice the RFC Production Center (RPC) and RFC Publisher roles
have been performed by the same entity and this practice is expected
to continue; therefore this document dispenses with the distinction
and refers only to the RPC.
7.4. IAB
Under earlier versions of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB was
responsible for oversight of the RFC Series and acted as a body for
final conflict resolution regarding the Series. The IAB's authority
in these matters is described in the IAB's charter ([RFC2850] as
updated by [I-D.draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter]). Under version 2
of the Model, the IAB delegated some of its authority to the RFC
Series Oversight Committee (see Section 7.5). Under version 3 of the
Model, authority for policy definition resides with the RSWG as an
independent venue for work by members of the community (with approval
of policy proposals as the responsibility of the RSAB, representing
the streams and the RSCE), whereas authority for policy
implementation resides with the IETF LLC.
7.5. 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. References to the RSOC in documents such as
[RFC8730] are obsolete because this document disbands the RSOC.
7.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC5620] specified the existence
of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer
specified in version 2 of the Model. For the avoidance of doubt,
this document affirms that the RSAG has been disbanded.
7.7. Editorial Stream
This document creates the Editorial Stream in addition to the streams
already described in [RFC8729].
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 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. IANA Considerations
This document places 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.
10. Informative References
[I-D.draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter]
Carpenter, B. E., "IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor
Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-carpenter-
rfced-iab-charter-04, 18 November 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-carpenter-rfced-
iab-charter-04.txt>.
[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>.
[RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed.,
"Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)",
BCP 39, RFC 2850, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>.
[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>.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
[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>.
[RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.
[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>.
[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/info/rfc7841>.
[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>.
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
[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>.
[STYLEGUIDE]
RFC Editor, "Style Guide", 26 October 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>.
Acknowledgments
Portions of this document were borrowed from [RFC5620], [RFC6635],
[RFC8728], [RFC8729], and earlier proposals submitted within the
IAB's RFC Editor Future Development 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, Carsten Bormann, Scott Bradner, 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
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model November 2021
Peter Saint-Andre (editor)
Mozilla
Email: stpeter@stpeter.im
Saint-Andre Expires 22 May 2022 [Page 27]