Skip to main content

RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-09

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 2022-01-13
Replaces draft-saintandre-rfced-model
RFC stream Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
Formats
Reviews
Stream IAB state (None)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
IAB shepherd (None)
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-09
Network Working Group                                P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                   Mozilla
Obsoletes: RFC8728 (if approved)                         13 January 2022
Updates: RFC7841, RFC8729, RFC8730 (if approved)                        
Intended status: Informational                                          
Expires: 17 July 2022

                      RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
                    draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-09

Abstract

   This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model.  The model
   defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series.  First,
   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.  Second,
   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 17 July 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   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)  . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.1.  Intent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.2.  Workflow  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.2.3.  Community Calls for Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.2.4.  Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.2.5.  Anti-Harassment Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.2.6.  RFC Boilerplates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.  Policy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.1.  Roles and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.2.  Working Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     4.3.  RPC Responsibilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.4.  Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the
           RPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.5.  Point of Contact  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.6.  Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       4.6.1.  Vendor Selection for the RFC Production Center  . . .  20
       4.6.2.  Budget  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   5.  RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.1.  RSCE Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.2.  RSCE Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.3.  Temporary RSCE Appointment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.4.  Conflict of Interest  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   6.  Editorial Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.1.  Procedures Request of the IETF Trust  . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.2.  Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream . . .  24
     6.3.  Editorial Stream Boilerplate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   7.  Historical Properties of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     7.1.  Availability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     7.2.  Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     7.3.  Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     7.4.  Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

     7.5.  Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     7.6.  Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     7.7.  Longevity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   8.  Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model  . . . . . . .  26
     8.1.  RFC Editor Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     8.2.  RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     8.3.  RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     8.4.  IAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     8.5.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . .  27
     8.6.  RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     8.7.  Editorial Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   9.  Updates to This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   12. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31

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 is described in
   [RFC8729] and is updated by this document.

   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 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.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   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:

   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 by 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 about changes from version 2 of the Model can be found
   under under Section 8.

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).

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   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
   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.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   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
   effective 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.

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 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)

3.1.1.1.  Purpose

   The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which
   members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that
   govern the RFC Series.

3.1.1.2.  Participation

   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, scholarly researchers, and so on.  The IETF LLC Board
   members, staff, contractors, 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 17 July 2022                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

3.1.1.3.  Chairs

   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 appointing body.  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.

3.1.1.4.  Mode of Operation

   The intent is that the RSWG shall operate in a way similar to working
   groups in the IETF and research groups in the IRTF.  Therefore, all
   RSWG meetings and discussion venues 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 [BCP78] and [BCP79].

   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, which shall be publicly archived.

   The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person or online-only meetings,
   which should be announced with sufficient notice to enable broad
   participation; the IESG Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim
   Meetings (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-
   meetings-guidance-2016-01-16/) provides a reasonable baseline.  In-
   person meetings should include provision for effective online
   participation for those unable to to attend in person.

   The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling
   (e.g., GitHub as specified in [RFC8874]), forms of communication, and
   working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent
   with [RFC2418].

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the operation of
   the RSWG, the general guidance provided in Section 6 of [RFC2418]
   should be considered appropriate.

3.1.2.  RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)

3.1.2.1.  Purpose

   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.

3.1.2.2.  Members

   The RSAB consists primarily of certain voting members.  As specified
   herein, the RSAB also includes certain non-voting members.

   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, in effect representing the
      Editorial Stream

   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).

   To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
   include the following non-voting, ex-officio members:

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   *  The IETF Executive Director or their delegate as an ex-officio
      member; the rationale is that the IETF LLC is accountable for
      implementation of policies governing the RFC Series

   *  A representative of the RPC, named by the RPC; the rationale is
      that the RPC is responsible for implementation of policies
      governing the RFC Series

   In addition to the foregoing, the RSAB may at its discretion include
   other non-voting members, whether ex-officio members or liaisons from
   groups or organizations with which the RSAB deems it necessary to
   formally collaborate or coordinate.

3.1.2.3.  Appointment and Removal of Voting Members

   The appointing bodies, i.e., the stream approving 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.

3.1.2.4.  Vacancies

   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.  If during this 3-month period a further
      vacancy arises, the delay should be extended by up to another 3
      months.  After the delay period expires, the RSAB should continue
      to process documents as described below.  Note: this method of
      handling vacancies does not apply to a vacancy of the RSCE role,
      only of the stream representatives enumerated above.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

3.1.2.5.  Chair

   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.

3.1.2.6.  Mode of Operation

   The RSAB is expected to operate via an email discussion list, 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 primary
   email discussion list used by the RSAB shall be publicly archived,
   although topics that require confidentiality (e.g., personnel
   matters) may be elided from such archives or discussed in private.
   Similarly, meeting minutes may exclude detailed information about
   topics discussed under executive session, but should note that such
   topics were discussed.

   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).

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   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:

   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 [BCP78] and [BCP79] and asks
       the RSWG to adopt the proposal as a working group item.

   2.  If by following working group 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.
       All participants, but especially RSAB members, should pay special
       attention to any aspects of the proposal that have the potential
       to significantly modify policies of long standing or historical
       characteristics of the Series as described under Section 7.
       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.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   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.

   8.  Once the RSWG chairs confirm that concerns received during the
       community call(s) for comment 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.

   There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a position of
   CONCERN:

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   *  The RSAB member believes that 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.

   *  The RSAB member believes, based on the results of the community
      call(s) for comment Section 3.2.3, that rough consensus to advance
      the proposal is lacking.

   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 or the community
   call for comment.

   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 community call for comment 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.

   4.  If the proposal is not approved, it is returned to the RSWG.  The
       RSWG can then consider making further changes.

   5.  If the 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.

   6.  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.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

3.2.3.  Community Calls for Comment

   The RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community calls
   for comment on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG.
   The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input.  The RSAB seeks
   such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the rfc-interest
   mailing list or to its successor or future equivalent.  RSAB members
   should also send a notice to the communities they directly represent
   (e.g., the IETF and IRTF).  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., via an RSS feed or by
   posting to social media venues).

   In cases where a proposal has the potential to significantly modify
   policies of long standing or historical characteristics of the Series
   as described under Section 7, the RSAB should take extra care to
   reach out to even broader communities that make use of RFCs, such as
   scholarly researchers, procurement managers, and standards
   development organizations.  The RSAB should work with the stream
   representatives and the IETF LLC to identify and establish contacts
   in such communities, assisted in particular by the RSCE.

   The RSAB should maintain a public list of communities that are
   contacted during calls for comment.

   A notice of a community call for comment contains the following:

   *  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

   A comment period will last not less than two weeks and should be
   longer if wide outreach is required.  Comments will be publicly
   archived on the RFC Editor website.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during a
   community call for comment.  If RSAB members conclude that such
   comments raise important issues that need to be addressed, they
   should do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if the
   issues meet the criteria specified under Step 9 of Section 3.2.2)
   lodging a position of "CONCERN" during RSAB balloting.

3.2.4.  Appeals

   Appeals of RSWG chair decisions shall be made to the RSAB.  Decisions
   of the RSWG chairs can be appealed only on grounds of failure to
   follow the correct process.  Appeals should be made within thirty
   (30) days of any action, or in the case of failure to act, of notice
   having been given to the RSWG chairs.  The RSAB will then decide if
   the process was followed and will direct the RSWG chairs as to what
   procedural actions are required.

   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.  Aside from these two 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:

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   *  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

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

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   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.

   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 the preferred
      XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic content
      of RFCs.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

4.3.  RPC Responsibilities

   The core responsibility of the RPC is the implementation of RFC
   Series policies through publication of RFCs (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
   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 within the RSWG in the creation of new Editorial
        Stream RFCs that impact the RPC, specifically with respect to
        any challenges the RPC might forsee with regard to
        implementation of proposed policies.

   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.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   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:

        *  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 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
   it is unclear how to interprete an existing policy, 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 specific guidance.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   *  If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, the
      RPC should consult with the relevant stream approving body and
      other representatives of the relevant streams 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.

   *  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 or to its
   successor or future equivalent 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:

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   *  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.

   *  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 signed, the matter shall be
      referred to the selection committee for further action.

4.6.2.  Budget

   Most 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

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   *  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

   *  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

   Responsibility for making a recommendation to the IETF LLC regarding
   the RSCE role will lie with a selection committee.  The IETF LLC
   should propose an initial slate of members for this committee, making
   sure to include community members with diverse perspectives, and
   consult with the stream representatives regarding the final
   membership of the committee.  In making its recommendation for the
   role of RSCE, 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.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

5.4.  Conflict of Interest

   The RSCE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of
   interest or judgment in performing their role.  To ensure this, the
   RSCE will be subject to a conflict of interest policy established by
   the IETF LLC.

   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.

   The Editorial Stream shall be used only to specify and update
   policies, procedures, guidelines, 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.

   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 requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams
   are outside the scope of this document.

6.1.  Procedures Request of the IETF Trust

   The IAB requests that the IETF Trust and its Trustees assist in
   meeting the goals and procedures set forth in this document.

   The Trustees are requested to publicly confirm their willingness and
   ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights
   for the Editorial Stream.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   Specifically, the Trustees are asked to develop the necessary
   boilerplate to enable the suitable marking of documents so that the
   IETF Trust receives the rights as specified in [BCP78].  These
   procedures need to also allow authors to indicate either no rights to
   make derivative works, or preferentially, the right to make unlimited
   derivative works from the documents.  It is left to the Trust to
   specify exactly how this shall be clearly indicated in each document.

6.2.  Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream

   As specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial
   Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying
   therein with the rules specified in the latest version of [BCP9].
   This includes the disclosure of Patent and Trademark issues that are
   known, or can be reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor.

   Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as
   specified in the most recent version of [BCP79].  The Editorial
   Stream has chosen to use the IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism,
   https://www.ietf.org/ipr/, for this purpose.  The IAB would prefer
   that the most liberal terms possible be made available for Editorial
   Stream documents.  Terms that do not require fees or licensing are
   preferable.
   Non-discriminatory terms are strongly preferred over those that
   discriminate among users.  However, although disclosure is required
   and the RSWG and the RSAB may consider disclosures and terms in
   making a decision as to whether to submit a document for publication,
   there are no specific requirements on the licensing terms for
   intellectual property related to Editorial Stream publication.

6.3.  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 17 July 2022                 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

      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.  Historical Properties of the RFC Series

   This section lists some of the properties that have been historically
   regarded as important to the RFC Series.  Proposals that affect these
   properties are possible within the processes defined in this
   document.  As described under Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.3,
   proposals that might have a detrimental effect on these properties
   should receive heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB
   review.  The purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes
   are deliberate and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as
   they can be identified, have been carefully considered.

7.1.  Availability

   Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades,
   with no restrictions on access or distribution.

7.2.  Accessibility

   RFC Series documents have been published in a format that was
   intended to be as accessible as possible to those with special needs,
   e.g., for those with impaired sight.

7.3.  Language

   All existing RFC Series documents have been published in English.
   However, since the beginning of the RFC series, documents have been
   published under terms that explicitly allow translation into
   languages other than English without asking for permission.

7.4.  Diversity

   The RFC series has included many types of documents including
   standards for the Internet, procedural and informational documents,
   thought experiments, speculative ideas, research papers, histories,
   humor, and even eulogies.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

7.5.  Quality

   RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality
   and edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documents
   are clear, consistent, and readable [RFC7322].

7.6.  Stability

   Once published, RFC Series documents have not changed.

7.7.  Longevity

   RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be
   comprehensible to humans for decades or longer.

8.  Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model

8.1.  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.

8.2.  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

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   Editor function" as described herein, but should not be taken as
   referring to the RSCE.

8.3.  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
   between these roles and refers only to the RPC.

8.4.  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 8.5).  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 including the RSCE), whereas authority for policy
   implementation resides with the IETF LLC.

8.5.  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.

8.6.  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.  (The RSAG is
   not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which
   this document establishes.)

8.7.  Editorial Stream

   This document creates the Editorial Stream in addition to the streams
   already described in [RFC8729].

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

9.  Updates to This Document

   Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced
   using the process documented herein, but shall be operative only
   after (a) obtaining the agreement of the IAB and the IESG, and (b)
   ensuring that the IETF LLC has no objections regarding its ability to
   implement any proposed changes.

10.  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 data
   storage failure.

   The IETF LLC should take these security considerations into account
   during the implementation and enforcement of any relevant contracts.

11.  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.

12.  Informative References

   [BCP78]    Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
              Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
              November 2008.

              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>

   [BCP79]    Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
              Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179, May 2017.

              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>

   [BCP9]     Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

              Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
              and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
              Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.

              Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
              Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
              October 2011.

              Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official
              Protocol Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100,
              December 2013.

              Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
              of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127, January 2014.

              Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in
              an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, March 2015.

              Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream
              Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789,
              June 2020.

              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>

   [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>.

   [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>.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   [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>.

   [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>.

Saint-Andre               Expires 17 July 2022                 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft              RFC Editor Model                January 2022

   [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], the Frequently Asked Questions of the IETF
   Trust, and earlier proposals submitted within the IAB's RFC Editor
   Future Development Program by Martin Thomson, Brian Carpenter, and
   Michael StJohns.  Thanks to Eliot Lear and Brian Rosen in their role
   as chairs of the Program 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 (note: replace "ue" with U+00FC before
   publication), 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 17 July 2022                 [Page 31]