RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11
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 | 2022-02-07 (Latest revision 2022-02-01) | ||
| Replaces | draft-saintandre-rfced-model | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Architecture Board (IAB) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
I18NDIR Last Call review
by Martin Dürst
Almost ready
GENART Last Call review
by Christer Holmberg
Almost ready
TSVART Last Call review
by Wesley Eddy
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Stream | IAB state | Community Review | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| IAB shepherd | (None) |
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11
Network Working Group P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
Internet-Draft Mozilla
Obsoletes: RFC8728 (if approved) 1 February 2022
Updates: RFC7841, RFC8729, RFC8730 (if approved)
Intended status: Informational
Expires: 5 August 2022
RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11
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 5 August 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4. Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Editorial Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.1. Procedures Request of the IETF Trust . . . . . . . . . . 24
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.3. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.4. IAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.5. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.7. Editorial Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Updates to This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
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 the
quality and timely publication of RFCs, ensuring document
accessibility, and clarifying lines of authority and responsibility.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 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), an
open working group that produces policy proposals, and the RFC
Series Approval Board (RSAB), an appointed body that approves
such proposals for publication in the Editorial Stream. The RSAB
includes representatives of the streams as well as an expert in
technical publishing, the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE).
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 (IETF 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 5 August 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 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 of RFCs 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) [RFC8711].
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 all of the
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 5 August 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 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 but is not limited to participants in
the IETF and IRTF, members of the IAB and IESG, developers of
software or hardware systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and
Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs,
individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, scholarly
researchers, and representatives of standards development
organizations other than the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC Board
members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFC
Production Center), 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 5 August 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 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 the appropriate 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 5 August 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 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 the following voting members:
* 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
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:
* The IETF Executive Director or their delegate; the rationale is
that the IETF LLC is accountable for implementation of policies
governing the RFC Series
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
* 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 5 August 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 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 5 August 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 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 policies
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 5 August 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 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 the 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
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
Any RSAB member holding a "CONCERN" position must explain their
concern to the community in detail. Nevertheless, the RSWG
might not be able to come to consensus on modifications that
will address the RSAB member's concern.
There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a position
of CONCERN:
* 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.
10. 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.
11. A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.
12. 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.
13. If the proposal is not approved, it is returned to the RSWG.
The RSWG can then consider making further changes.
14. 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.
15. 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 5 August 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 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 a very wide range of communities that make use of RFCs
(as described under Section 3.1.1.2) since such communities might not
be actively engaged in the RSWG directly. The RSAB should work with
the stream approving bodies 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.
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
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
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:
* Each stream to which the boilerplate applies, which approves that
the boilerplate meets its needs
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
* 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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
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.
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 in the
interest of specifying the detail of its implementation of such
policies, 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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
* 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.
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 publication, 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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
13. Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of IANA-
performed protocol registry actions.
14. Assigning RFC numbers.
15. Establishing the 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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies, or if
it is unclear how to interpret 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.
* 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 so that
the relevant stream document(s) can be published 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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
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.
* 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
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
* 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
* 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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
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 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 a 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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
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
(IPR) for the Editorial Stream.
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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
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:
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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
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.
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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
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
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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
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].
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
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
[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.
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>.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
[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>.
[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>.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
[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], 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.
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model February 2022
Author's Address
Peter Saint-Andre (editor)
Mozilla
Email: stpeter@stpeter.im
Saint-Andre Expires 5 August 2022 [Page 32]