Independent Submission Board Model
draft-pauly-independent-submission-restructure-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Tommy Pauly | ||
| Last updated | 2026-11-02 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-pauly-independent-submission-restructure-00
Network Working Group T. Pauly
Internet-Draft 2 November 2026
Intended status: Informational
Expires: 6 May 2027
Independent Submission Board Model
draft-pauly-independent-submission-restructure-00
Abstract
The Independent Submission stream is one of the stream producers that
create draft RFCs. This document proposes the creation of the
Independent Submission Board (ISB), a small board appointed by both
the IAB and IESG, that acts as the stream approver. The ISB is
responsible for activities within the Independent Submission stream,
works with draft editors and reviewers, and interacts with the RFC
Production Center and Publisher, and the RFC Series Editor (RSE).
If approved, this proposal would obsolete RFC 8730, which defines a
single Independent Submission Editor.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://tfpauly.github.io/draft-independent-submission-restructure/
draft-pauly-independent-submission-restructure.html. Status
information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pauly-independent-submission-
restructure/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/tfpauly/draft-independent-submission-restructure.
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/.
Pauly Expires 6 May 2027 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IS Restructure November 2026
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 6 May 2027.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Motivation and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Independent Submission Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Qualifications of Appointees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Appointments and Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The RFC Editor Model [RFC8728] defines a set of streams that produce
draft RFCs, which are submitted for publication. This document
proposes the management function for the Independent Submission
stream, specifically the role of Independent Submission Board (ISB).
The existing model for management of the Independent Submission
stream defines a single appointee, the Independent Submission Editor
(ISE) as the manager of the stream [RFC8730]. This proposal would
obsolete [RFC8730] if approved.
Pauly Expires 6 May 2027 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IS Restructure November 2026
1.1. Motivation and Background
The model of a single ISE makes the Independent Submission stream
unique amongst RFC streams in having a single person responsible for
approvals of documents within an RFC stream. While the ISE can be
supported by an Editorial Board for the purpose of advice and
reviews, the ISE is directly responsible for the processing and
approvals of all documents.
Additionally, the scope of documents for the Independent Submission
stream is quite open-ended, and the potential community of interested
parties is very large (including the IETF community and other
communities and parties outside the IETF community).
The ISE model does not define a visible process or record for how
decisions are made. When a single individual is responsible to an
open-ended community for arbitrating decisions of what should be
published, inevitably there are members of the community who will
disagree with the decisions. In all other RFC streams, there are
consensus-based processes that ensure that no single individual is
entrusted with the decisions for publication. Placing this
requirement on an individual is a burden to that individual as well
as a potential source of conflict for the community.
The structure of the ISB is intended to make it easier to find and
appoint willing volunteers who can share responsibilities and
establish a process of consensus. By sharing the work of shepherding
documents on the Independent Submission stream, each member of the
ISB will have lesser responsibilities (time commitments, etc.) as
compared to a single ISE.
Additionally, having an ISB composed of multiple members with
staggered terms allows for more continuity when appointees step down.
This improves both sharing of institutional knowledge and smooth
processing of documents on the stream.
The ISB approves documents with a public, ballot-based record. This
provides transparency to the interested communities (both the IETF
community and the broader community of contributors to the
Independent Submission stream) about document processing and approval
rationale. The decision to approve or not also does not depend on a
single individual.
The appointment structure and conflict review process for the ISB
intentionally involves both the IESG and the IAB. The ISE model
involved an appointment of an individual by the IAB, but documents go
through conflict review only with the IESG [RFC5742].
Pauly Expires 6 May 2027 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IS Restructure November 2026
RFCs published on the Independent Submission stream can be broadly
grouped into:
* technical specifications that define protocols, register
codepoints, etc., which could potentially overlap with IETF work;
and
* broader informational documents that express opinions,
architectural commentary, humor, etc., which could potentially
overlap with either IETF or IAB work.
ISB members are appointed by both the IESG and IAB, and the ISB
requests conflict reviews from the IESG, as well as the IAB when
appropriate. This shares responsibility for review of the
Independent Submission stream more broadly. This is not intended to
reduce the independence of the stream in any way, but instead improve
communication and awareness across the streams where potential
overlaps might exist.
2. Independent Submission Board
The Independent Submission Board (ISB) is composed of four members,
appointed by both the IAB and IESG (see Section 2.3 for details).
The ISB collectively is responsible for processing and approving
documents on the Independent Submission stream.
2.1. Qualifications of Appointees
Appointees to the ISB are expected to have the following
qualifications:
1. Technical competence, i.e., broad technical experience and
perspective across a wide range of Internet technologies and
applications, and also the ability to work effectively with
portions of that spectrum in which they have no personal
expertise.
2. Thorough familiarity with the RFC series.
3. An ability to define and constitute advisory and document review
arrangements.
4. Good standing in the technical community, in and beyond the IETF.
Pauly Expires 6 May 2027 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IS Restructure November 2026
5. Demonstrated editorial skills, good command of the English
language, and demonstrated history of being able to work
effectively with technical documents and materials created by
others.
6. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment with
divided authority and responsibility similar to that described in
[RFC6635].
2.2. Responsibilities
Members of the ISB share the following responsibilities:
* Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission
stream.
* Reviewing, approving, and processing Independent Submissions. For
each document on the stream, the ISB selects one of its members as
the responsible ISB member to shepherd the document. The
responsible ISB member solicits reviews and helps coordinate
conflict reviews.
* Requesting conflict reviews from the IESG and IAB. All
Independent Submission documents need to run conflict reviews with
the IESG, as described in [RFC5742]. For all documents that the
ISB determines to be relevant, it should also request conflict
reviews from the IAB.
* Approving documents for publication on the Independent Submission
stream. Approval is handled similarly to IESG and IRSG balloting
on documents, where each ISB member indicates approval, no
objection, or an abstain/discuss opinion. In order to be
approved, documents require at least three approvals or no
objection opinions (one of which must be an approval) and no more
than one abstain/discuss opinion. Ballots and associated comments
are publicly available.
* Forwarding approved draft RFCs in the Independent Submission
stream to the RFC Production Center.
* Selecting the RSAB representative [RFC9920] for the Independent
Submission stream, which will likely be an ISB member, but can
also be another appointee.
* Reviewing and approving RFC errata for Independent Submissions.
* Coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies as
specified by the IAB and RSE.
Pauly Expires 6 May 2027 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IS Restructure November 2026
* Providing statistics and documentation as requested by the RSE
and/or LLC.
The ISB sets it own schedule for meetings and teleconferences, used
to discuss, process, and approve documents on the stream.
2.3. Appointments and Terms
Of the four ISB members, two are appointed by the IAB, and two are
appointed by the IESG. The appointing bodies are expected to appoint
members based on the qualifications listed above, after calling for
community input.
Each appointment has a three-year term, which can be renewed up to a
total of three consecutive terms. Terms are staggered such that no
more than two appointments renew in the same year.
For the creation of the ISB, the lengths of the initial appointments
will be set up to start staggered renewal. Specifically, there will
be a one-year term appointed by the IAB, a two-year term appointed by
the IESG, a three-year term appointed by the IAB, and a three-year
term appointed by the IESG.
3. Security Considerations
This document has no specific security implications, however the same
security considerations as those in [RFC9920] apply.
4. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5742>.
[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/rfc/rfc6635>.
Pauly Expires 6 May 2027 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IS Restructure November 2026
[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/rfc/rfc8728>.
[RFC9920] Hoffman, P. and A. Rossi, "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)",
RFC 9920, DOI 10.17487/RFC9920, February 2026,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9920>.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC8730] Brownlee, N., Ed. and R. Hinden, Ed., "Independent
Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8730>.
Author's Address
Tommy Pauly
Email: tpauly.ietf@gmail.com
Pauly Expires 6 May 2027 [Page 7]