RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
draft-saintandre-rfced-model-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Peter Saint-Andre | ||
| Last updated | 2021-04-05 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model, draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model, RFC 9280 | ||
| RFC stream | (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-saintandre-rfced-model-00
Network Working Group P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
Internet-Draft Mozilla
Obsoletes: RFC8728 (if approved) April 05, 2021
Intended status: Informational
Expires: October 7, 2021
RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
draft-saintandre-rfced-model-00
Abstract
This document describes Version 3 of the RFC Editor model.
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 October 7, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 April 2021
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Ongoing Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Policy Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Structure and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2.1. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2.2. Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2.3. Appeals of RSAB Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. RSEA Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. RSEA Ongoing Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . 9
7.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
NOTE NOTE NOTE This document is a work in progress. Although it is
intended to describe consensus forged in the RFCED-Future Program,
many aspects are not yet settled; as a result, this document contains
proposals and conjectures that do not yet have consensus.
Documents in the Request for Comments (RFC) series have been
continually published since 1969 [RFC8700]. The processes and
organizational models for publication of these documents 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].
In order to provide a sustainable basis for continued publication of
the RFC series, this document describes Version 3 of the RFC Editor
model, which divides the responsibilities for the RFC series among
four primary functions: the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), the
Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 April 2021
RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), the RFC Series Approval Board
(RSAB), and the RFC Publication Center (RPC).
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Overview of the Model
Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC8728] specified a structure
consisting of the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and
the RFC Publisher, with oversight provided by the RFC Series
Oversight Committee (RSOC) on behalf of the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB).
Discussion within the RFCED-Future Program has led in the direction
of a more consensus-oriented structure (similar in some respects to
the structure of technical work within the IETF) that retains roles
for specialized expertise in document editing and publication.
Specifically, this document defines a structure in which ultimate
authority lies with the IETF LLC, which is the corporate home for the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB), and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).
The IETF LLC shall exercise oversight regarding ongoing operation of
the final editorial and publication processes that lead to
publication of documents in the RFC series. As in Version 2, these
processes are the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC)
function.
The IETF LLC shall also provide a structure for defining policies
regarding the RFC series. This document specifies such a structure
through a new RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which shall submit its
policy proposals to a new RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).
4. Ongoing Operation
Continuing publication of RFCs shall be handled by the RFC Production
Center (RPC) function in accordance with current policies in force or
future policies defined as specified in the next section of this
document.
Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 April 2021
This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
IETF LLC and the RPC function; for example, the RPC function could be
provided 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 work with independent contractors for some or all aspects
of the RPC function. The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF
LLC and its Executive Director to determine.
The IETF LLC has authority over negotiating performance targets for
the RPC and also has responsibility for ensuring that those targets
are adhered to. The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a manager or to
convene a committee that is responsible for this oversight function.
Community members who have concerns about the performance of the RPC
can request that the IETF LLC look into the matter. If the IETF LLC
opts to delegate the oversight function, concerns can be raised with
the IETF LLC. The IETF LLC is ultimately responsible to the
community via the mechanisms outlined in its charter.
5. Policy Definition
Policies governing the RFC series as a whole shall be defined in the
open through proposals that are generated by and discussed within the
RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) and then approved by the RFC Series
Approval Board (RSAB).
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include but are
not necessarily limited to document formats, tooling, processes for
publication and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the
RFC series.
5.1. Structure and Roles
5.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) shall formulate proposals
regarding policies governing the RFC series. The intent is that the
RSWG operate in a way similar to working groups in the IETF and
research groups in the IRTF. Therefore, all RSWG meetings shall be
open to any participant, subject to intellectual property policies
which must be consistent with those of the IETF [RFC8179]. At the
initial formation of the RSWG, all discussions shall take place on an
open mailing list, and anyone is welcome to participate in
discussions on that list. The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to
use additional forms of communication (e.g., GitHub as specified in
[RFC8874]) that are consistent with [RFC2418]. The RSWG shall
conform itself to an anti-harassment policy consistent with [RFC7154]
and [RFC7776].
Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 April 2021
The IETF Chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each
appoint and oversee a co-chair of the RSWG.
All interested parties are welcome to participate in the RSWG. This
includes participants in the IETF and IRTF, IAB and IESG members, RFC
authors, individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, and the
like. The IETF LLC Board members, staff, and the 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 in the RSWG so that
they are fully aware of proposals early in the policy definition
process.
5.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) shall act as the approving body
for proposals generated within the RSWG. The sole function of RSAB
is to review policy proposals generated by the RSWG; it shall have no
independent authority to formulate policy on its own.
The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows:
o The IETF Chair, representing the IETF stream
o The IAB Chair, representing the IAB stream
o The IRTF Chair, representing the IRTF stream
o The Independent Submissions Editor [RFC8730]
o The RFC Series Editor/Advisor
OPEN ISSUE: Discussion continues within the RFCED-Future Program
regarding the number of members on the RSAB (e.g., whether each
stream shall have one representative, whether streams that generate
more RFCs such as the IETF stream shall have more member, etc.) as
well as the individuals who are voting members (e.g., IETF Chair or
someone appointed by the IETF Chair, the RFC Series Editor/Advisor,
etc.).
The RSAB shall choose a chair from among its members using a method
to be determined by the RSAB. The RSAB is expected to operate via
email and through any necessary tooling. THE RSAB shall keep a
public record of its proceedings, including minutes of all meetings
and a record of all decisions.
Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 April 2021
5.2. Process
5.2.1. Intent
The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to
the RFC series are defined and evolved. The general expectation is
that all interested parties will participate in the RSWG, and that
only under extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold
"CONCERN" positions as described below.
Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWG
participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work
together in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to
achieve rough consensus (see [RFC7282]). In particular, RSWG members
are encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously, and RSAB members are
encouraged to clearly express their concerns early in the process and
to be responsive to the community. All parties are encouraged to
respect the value of each stream and the long term health and
viability of the RFC series.
This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation. RSAB
members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,
authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an
ongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider a proposal,
there should be no surprises. Appointing bodies are expected to
establish whatever processes they deem appropriate to facilitate this
goal.
5.2.2. Specifics
The following process shall be used to formulate or modify processes
related to the RFC series:
1. A individual participant in the RSWG generates a proposal in the
form of an Internet-Draft.
2. If there is sufficient interest in the proposal, RSWG may adopt
the proposal as a draft proposal of the RSWG, much the same way a
working group of the IETF or IRTF would.
3. The RSWG shall then further develop the proposal. Members of the
RSAB are expected to participate in discussion relating to such
proposals.
4. At some point, if the RSWG chairs believe there may be rough
consensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a working
group last call.
Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 April 2021
5. After a suitable period of time, the RSWG chairs will determine
whether rough consensus for the proposal exists. If comments
have been received and substantial changes have been made, it is
expected that additional last calls may be necessary.
6. Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the chairs shall issue
a community call for comments. Should substantial comments be
received, the RSWG will again consider those comments and make
revisions as they see fit. At this same time, the RSAB will
consider the proposal. OPEN ISSUE: specify what counts as a
"community call for consensus".
7. Should substantial changes be made, additional community calls
for comment should be issued, and again comments considered.
8. Once all comments have been been addressed, the RSWG chairs will
submit the proposal to the RSAB for its consideration.
9. Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will then poll on
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.
Anyone holding a "CONCERN" position MUST explain their concern to the
community in detail. The explanation may or may not be actionable.
A CONCERN may be made for two reasons:
o The proposal represents a serious problem for the group a
particular member represents.
o The 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.
No CONCERN should ever come as a surprise to the RSWG.
1. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
Again, all RSAB members MUST participate.
2. If all CONCERN positions are addressed, then the proposal is
approved. Again, if substantial changes have been made, an
additional call for community input should be made.
3. If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions
remain, a formal vote of the RSAB is taken. If a majority of
RSAB members vote to approve, the proposal is approved.
Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 April 2021
Otherwise, it is returned to the RSWG. In the case of a tie, the
proposal is approved.
4. When a proposal is approved, a notification is sent to the
community, and the document enters the queue for publication as
an RFC.
OPEN ISSUE: In which stream [RFC8729] are these documents published?
Is a new stream (e.g., the "Editorial Stream") needed?
5.2.3. Appeals of RSAB Decisions
Appeals of RSAB decisions may only be made based on process failures,
and not on the substance of a proposal. These appeals SHALL be made
to the ISOC Board of Trustees within thirty days of the RSAB
decision. The ISOC Board of Trusteers MAY decide only whether a
process failure occurred, and what if any corrective action should
take place.
6. RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA)
OPEN ISSUE: Discussion continues within the RFCED-Future Program
regarding the roles and responsibilities of an expert in technical
publication processes. To retain flexibility (e.g., as to whether
this individual plays more of an advisory role or more of a singular
leadership role), this document temporarily refers to the individual
as the "RFC Series Editor/Advisor" ("RSEA").
The RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA) shall be a senior professional
with deep knowledge of technical publishing.
The primary responsibilities of the RSEA are as follows:
o Provide expert advice regarding policy proposals within the RSWG.
o Serve as a voting member on the RSAB (see OPEN ISSUE above).
o If requested, provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC.
Matters on which the RSEA might be consulted could include proposed
changes to the RFC style guide, RFC formatting in general, web
presence, copyright matters, and archiving policy.
6.1. RSEA Selection
The RSEA will be selected by a committee formed by the Executive
Director of the IETF LLC, taking into account the role definition [1]
and any detailed job description defined by the relevant parties
Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 April 2021
(e.g., the Executive Director, other RSAB members, or RSWG chairs).
The search committee may ask others to take part in the selection
process in confidence. The initial length of service shall be for
one year, but then further extensions will be for three to five
years.
6.2. RSEA Ongoing Performance Evaluation
Periodically, the Executive Director will send out to the community a
call for input on the performance of the RSEA. The evaluation will
be based on criteria specified in the role definition. Criteria
could include matters such as the following:
o Was the RSEA an active participant in RSWG/RSAB discussions and
meetings?
o Did the RSEA provide useful advice to the RSWG and RPC?
o Did the RSEA exercise good judgment in RSAB decision making?
o Was the RSEA effective in advising the community on policy
direction?
The Executive Director will review the feedback, consulting with
stream manager representatives, and then produce a recommendation to
the IETF LLC Board. The LLC will then make a decision, taking into
account the Executive Director's recommendation.
Whether the RSEA role is structured as a contractual or employee
relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC and its Executive Director
to determine.
7. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model
7.1. RFC Series Editor
The RSWG and RSAB together provide a public process by which policies
for the RFC series can be defined. It is expected that these bodies
will therefore cover some of the responsibilities of the RFC Series
Editor under Version 2.
7.2. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and
responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy
and somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, this document
dispenses with the RSOC.
Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 April 2021
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.
[RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620>.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
[RFC7154] Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>.
[RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF",
RFC 7282, DOI 10.17487/RFC7282, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7282>.
[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>.
[RFC8179] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.
Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 April 2021
[RFC8700] Flanagan, H., Ed., "Fifty Years of RFCs", RFC 8700,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8700, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8700>.
[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>.
9.3. URIs
[1] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/blob/master/
Issue12-RSE-role.md
Acknowledgments
Portions of this document were borrowed from [RFC5620], [RFC6635],
[RFC8728], and earlier proposals within the RFCED-Future Program by
Martin Thomson, Brian Carpenter, and Michael StJohns. Thanks also
for proposed text from Eliot Lear, Brian Rosen, and other
participants yet to be mentioned. (TODO: make this complete.)
Author's Address
Peter Saint-Andre (editor)
Mozilla
Email: stpeter@jabber.org
Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2021 [Page 11]