Network Working Group O. Kolkman (Ed.)
Internet-Draft IAB
Intended status: Informational January 23, 2009
Expires: July 27, 2009
RFC Editor Model (Version 1)
draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-04
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 27, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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
(http://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.
Abstract
The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out
by various persons or entities. The RFC Editor model presented in
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
four functions: The RFC Series Editor, the Independent Submission
Editor, RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. The model
outlined here is intended to increase flexibility and operational
support options, provide for the orderly succession of the RFC
Editor, and ensure the continuity of the RFC series, while
maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely processing, ensuring
document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost
transparency.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IAOC Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Expenses for the RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Independent Submission Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. RFC Editorial Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgements Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. IAB selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.1. Ad-hoc advisory committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.1.1. Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee Charter . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.2. The IAB Selection Process of an RFC Series Editor
and/or an Independent Stream Editor . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.2.1. Nominations and Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.2.2. Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.2.3. Care of Personal Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2.4. Term of Office and Selection Time Frame . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Internet Draft editing details . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B.1. Section 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B.2. Section 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B.3. Section 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
1. Introduction
The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned
with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor
succession, maintaining RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility.
The IAB is also sensitive to the concerns of the IAOC about providing
the necessary services in a cost effective and efficient manner.
The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844 [1].
Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor":
| 3.1. RFC Editor
|
| Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC
| Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now
| requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are RFC
| Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be
| multiple organizations working together to undertake the work
| required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without
| attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them,
| this document refers to this collection of experts and organizations
| as the "RFC Editor".
|
| The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor,
| acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC
| Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the
| RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition,
| the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in
| discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving
| RFCs.
RFC 4844 makes no attempt to explore the internal organization of the
RFC Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor
organizational structure. In discussion with the Internet community,
the IAB considered changes that increase flexibility and operational
support options, provides for the orderly succession of the RFC
Editor, and ensures the continuity of the RFC series, while
maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely processing, ensuring
document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost
transparency. The model set forth below is the result of those
discussions, and examines the internal organization of the RFC
Editor, while remaining consistent with RFC 4844.
Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC
Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo
provides a model for internal organization. This memo introduces the
term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
organizational components.
The IAB approved the RFC Editor model on October 1, 2008, based on a
draft version of this this document which has received clarifications
since. It should be noted that the publication of the document as an
RFC does not cast the model in stone, as the primary purpose of this
document, throughout the publication procession, is to encourgage
normal community review in order to ascertain consensus to work to
this model as a first step. The document, and the resulting
structures, will be modified as needed through normal procedures.
The IAB will continue to monitor discussions within the community
about potential adjustments to the RFC Editor model and recognizes
that the process described in this document, may need to be adjusted
to align with any changes that result from such discussions, hence
the version number in the title.
2. IAOC Implementation
The model is constructed in such a way that it allows for all these
functions to be implemented jointly or under separate contractual
arrangements. In fact, a bidder could put together a proposal that
includes one or more subcontractors. The reporting structure will
depend on the manner that the contracts are awarded, and they are
subject to change over time. As a result, the model describes only
responsibilities, procedures, and process. The exact implementation
is a responsibility of the IAOC.
2.1. Expenses for the RFC Editor
The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They
are part of the IASA budget. Today, these expenses are part of the
RFC Editor contract with ISI.
3. RFC Editor Model
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series
into the following components:
o RFC Series Editor
o Independent Submission Editor
o RFC Production Center
o RFC Publisher
The RFC Series Production and Process under this structure is
schematically represented by the figure below.
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
------ ----- ------ ---------
Stream | | | | | | |Community|
Pro- | IETF | | IAB | | IRTF | | at |
ducers | | | | | | | Large |
--^--- --^-- ---^-- ----^----
| | | |
| | | | -------
| | | | | RFC |
--v--- ---v--- ---v-- ----v------ | Edi- |
Stream | | | | | | |Independent| | torial|
Appro- | IESG | | IAB | | IRSG | | Stream |..... | |
vers | | | | | | | Editor | | .and .|
----^- ---^--- ----^--- ----^------ | |
| | | | | Advi- |
| | | | | ory |
| | | | | Board |
------ --v--------v----------v-----------v----- | |
| | | | -------
| IANA | <->| RFC Production Center <---. .
| | | | | .
------ -----------------^---------------------- | .
| | .
| ------v-------
------v--------- | |
| | | RFC Series |
| Publisher |<------->| Editor |
| | | |
---------------- --------------
In this model the RFC Series Editor will exercise executive-level
management over many of the activities of the RFC Publisher and the
RFC Production Center (which can be seen as back office functions)
and will be the entity that faces the community, and works with the
IAB and IAOC for procedural and contractual responsibilities
respectively while those entities maintain their chartered
responsibility. The RFC Series Editor does not have the authority to
hire or fire.
If during the execution of their activities, a dispute arises over a
(policy) decision made by one of the four entities in the model, then
the party having the conflict should first request a reconsideration
of the decision. If that reconsideration is not satisfactory to the
party, then the matter can be brought to the RFC Series Editor for a
decision. If the RFC Series Editor decision is not satisfactory, the
matter can be brought to the IAB, whose decision will be binding..
If the dispute is with the RFC Series Editor then there are only two
stages: reconsideration and the IAB consideration.
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
3.1. RFC Series Editor
The RFC Series Editor, or Series Editor for short, is an individual
who may have assistants and who is responsible for:
1. Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series continuity
2. Exercise executive-level management over the implementation of
policies, processes and procedures established to ensure the
quality and consistency fo the RFC Series. The RFC Series Editor
will work with the IAB and IAOC to develop new policy and see
that contractual agreements are met.
3. Taking proposed changes to the community, and work with the IAB
so that the IAB can ensure that there is sufficient community
review before the policy is adopted.
4. Coordinating with IAB and/or IAOC, and together with the IAB
and/or IAOC participating in reviews of the RFC Publisher, RFC
Publication Center, and Independent Stream Editor functions to
ensure the above mentioned continuity
5. Developing, maintaining, and publishing the RFC Style Manual
publication for use by authors, editors, and the RFC publisher
6. Managing the RFC errata process
7. Liaising with the IAB
8. Overseeing consistency of RFCs with the RFC Series and RFC Style
Manual
There are many potential issues with respect to RFC Series
continuity. To name a few: Look and feel of the series, indexing
methodologies, accessibility of the publications, IPR and copyright
issues, and formatting issues. After identifying the appropriate
steps to address such issues, the implementation of those steps
resides mostly with the RFC production and publishing functions.
Since the IAOC maintains oversight of the implementation, the Series
Editor is expected to be invited and participate in reviews of that
implementation.
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional with the
following qualifications:
1. Strong understanding of the IETF process
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
2. Good understanding of the English language and technical
terminology related to the Internet
3. Good communication skills
4. Experience with editorial processes
5. Independent worker
6. Experience as an RFC author desired
The Series Editor may seek support from an advisory board (see
Section 3.5).
The IAOC has two alternative selection methods for selecting the
individual to serve as the RFC Series Editor. The choice between
these alternatives will be based on an Request for Information (RFI)
issued by the IAOC in December 2009.
The first alternative involves a Request for Proposal (RFP) process
run by the IAOC. The IAOC would seek a person with the listed
qualifications in a broadly distributed RFP. The winner would be
selected by the IAOC in consultation with the IAB, and then, the IAOC
would contract for the services. Contract terms, including length of
contract, extensions and renewals, shall be as provided in the RFP.
The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available. Fees and expenses
to support the administrative operation of the RFC Series Editor
would be part of the awarded contract and be part of the IASA budget.
The second alternative involves a nomination and confirmation
process. Candidates are nominated, and then an individual with the
listed qualifications is selected by the Internet community and
confirmed by the IAB. An approach similar to the one used by the IAB
to select an IAOC member every other year as described in Appendix A
will be used. A stipend and expenses to support the administrative
operation of the RFC Series Editor selected in this manner would be
part of the IASA budget.
3.2. Independent Submission Editor
The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have
assistants and who is responsible for:
1. Maintaining technical quality of the Independent stream
2. Independent Submissions approval and processing
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
3. Forwarding RFCs in the Independent Stream to the RFC Production
Center
4. Independent Submissions RFC errata review and approval
The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the
following qualifications are desired:
1. Technical competence, i.e. broad technical experience and
perspective across the whole range of Internet technologies and
applications, and specifically, the ability to work effectively
with portions of that spectrum in which no personal expertise
exists.
2. Thorough familiarity with the RFC series
3. An ability to assess the technical competence of potential
Editorial Board members
4. Good standing in the technical community, in and beyond the IETF
5. Demonstrated Editorial skills and good command of the English
language
The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an advisory
board (see Section 3.5) and may form a team to perform the activities
needed to fulfill their responsibilities.
The individual with the listed qualifications will be selected by the
community and confirmed by the IAB. An approach similar to the one
used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year as
described in Appendix A should be used. A stipend and expenses to
support the administrative operation of the Independent Submission
Editor selected in this manner will be evaluated. The IAB considers
maintaining the Independent stream within the RFC Series part of the
IAB's supported activities, and will include these expenses in its
IASA-supported budget.
3.3. RFC Production Center
RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor
responsibilities include:
1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style
Manual
2. Creating records of edits performed on documents
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact
and seek necessary clarification.
4. Engaging in dialogue with authors, document shepherds, IANA,
and/or stream dependent contacts when clarification is needed.
5. Creating records of dialogue with documents authors
6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed
7. Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed
8. Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol paramater registry
actions
9. Assigning of RFC number
10. Establishing publication readiness of each document through
communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA and/or
stream dependent contacts, and if needed with the RFC Series
Editor.
11. Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher
12. Forwarding records of edits and author dialogue to RFC Publisher
so these can be preserved
13. Liaising with IESG and IAB
The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected by the IAOC
through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the
RFC Series Editor. The IAOC would seek a bidder who, among other
things, is able to provide a professional, quality, timely, and cost
effective service against the established style and production
guidelines. Contract terms, including length of contract, extensions
and renewals, shall be as defined in an RFP. The opportunity to bid
shall be broadly available.
3.4. RFC Publisher
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:
1. Announce and provide on-line access to RFCs
2. Provide on-line system to submit RFC Errata
3. Provide on-line access to approved RFC Errata
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
4. Provide backups
5. Provide storage and preservation of records
6. Authenticate RFCs for legal proceedings
Implementation of the RFC Publisher function can be pursued in two
different ways. The choice between these alternatives will be based
on an RFI issued by the IAOC in December 2009.
The first alternative is to modify the IETF Secretariat contract to
include these services. Expenses to support these services would be
part of the revised contract.
The second alternative is a separate vendor selected by the IAOC
through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the
RFC Series Editor. Expenses to support service would be part of the
awarded contract.
3.5. RFC Editorial Board
Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board. This board
is expected to evolve into one or two advisory boards that support
the review work of the Independent Submissions Editor and provide
input and guidance to the Series Editor. The board(s) will exist at
the pleasure of their advisee, and the members serve at the pleasure
of their advisee. The existence of the board or boards is simply
noted within this model, and additional discussion of such considered
out of scope of this document.
4. IANA considerations
This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor
structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of
registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center. The IAOC
will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC
Production Center 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.
5. Security considerations
The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 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
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
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, non-
machine readable originals) need to be secured against failure of the
storage medium and other similar disasters.
The IAOC should take these security considerations into account
during the implementation of this RFC Editor model.
6. Acknowledgements Section
The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on
mail lists. The first iteration of the text on which this document
is based was first drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ray
Pelletier. In addition to the members of the IAOC and IAB, major and
minor contributions were made by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden,
Brian Carpenter, Sandy Ginoza, Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern, Paul
Hoffman, John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim Schaad.
The IAOC members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were
(in alphabetical order): Fred Baker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Ole
Jacobsen, Ed Juskevicius, Olaf Kolkman, Ray Pelletier (non-voting),
Lynn St.Amour, and Jonne Soininen. In addition, Marshall Eubanks was
serving as the IAOC Scribe.
The IAB members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were
(in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart
Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba,
Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave
Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex-
officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive
Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[1] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC Series and
RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
7.2. Informative References
[2] Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, "The IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process",
BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005.
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
Appendix A. IAB selection
This process is used by the IAB for the selection of the RFC Series
Editor (if that position is not covered by the RFC Production Center
contract) and for the selection of the Independent Submission Editor.
The IAOC selects the RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher from
vendors that choose to submit a proposal. The IAOC procurement
process is not described in this document.
The selection process herein is taken from [2] but modified to allow
for subject matter experts to advise the IAB, to take into account
that the community with interest in the RFC series extends beyond the
IETF community, and to prefer the incumbent.
A.1. Ad-hoc advisory committee
It is expected that the IAB and IAOC will establish an ad-hoc
advisory committee to assist them in the selection of the various
functions. The names of the members of this committee, who do not
need to be IAB members or IETF participants, will be made public
through the IAB and IAOC minutes or otherwise.
The committee is expected to have an understanding of the RFC series
and related processes, and of procedures and interests of the various
streams.
Members of the subcommittee will be privy to confidential material
and are expected to honour confidentiality.
The IAB and IAOC bear the responsibility for the selections of the
candidates for defined functions, the committee provides advice only.
A.1.1. Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee Charter
The charter for the ad-hoc advisory committee that was established
for the first implementation of this model is reproduced below for
purely informational purposes.
RFC Services Selection Oversight Subcommittee.
The subcommittee will:
1. Review the RFIs and RFPs involving all current RFC Editor
services before their release
2. Review the RFI responses and make recommendations to the IAOC and
IAB as to the model, process and RFP going forward
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
3. Review the RFP proposals; conduct interviews; conduct and analyze
testing; if any, and make recommendations to the IAOC
4. Shepherd the IAB selection process for the relevant functions,
based on RFC4333 and provide and motivated shortlist to the IAB.
5. The Subcommittee would terminate upon the completion of contract
awards.
6. The goal is to appoint members that are expected to have an
understanding of the RFC series, its processes and of procedures
and interests of the various streams.
A.2. The IAB Selection Process of an RFC Series Editor and/or an
Independent Stream Editor
A.2.1. Nominations and Eligibility
The IAB will be making a broad public call for nominations. The
public call will specify the manner by which nominations will be
accepted and the means by which the list of nominees will be
published. Self-nominations are permitted. Along with the name and
contact information for each candidate, details about the candidate's
background and qualifications for the position should be attached to
the nomination.
Members of the ad-hoc advisory committee mentioned above are not
eligible, but besides those there are no limitations with respect to
the eligibility for nomination: Nominees do not have to be actively
contributing to the IETF and active participation as being a working
group chair, an IETF Nominating Committee member, or an IAB or IESG
member is not a limitation.
IAB members who accept a nomination for an IAB-selected position will
recuse themselves from IAB selection discussions.
A.2.2. Selection
The IAB will publish the list of nominated persons prior to making a
decision, allowing time for the community to pass any relevant
comments to that body. When established the advisory committee will
be asked to provide a motivated shortlist. The IAB will review the
nomination material, any submitted comments, the shortlist from the
advisory committee, and make its selection.
It is noted that the community mentioned above is the community with
an interest in RFCs and the RFC Editor's functioning, the IETF
community is only a part of that community.
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
The main intent is to select the incumbent or a superior candidate.
A.2.3. Care of Personal Information
The following procedures will be used by the IAB in managing
candidates' personal information:
o The candidate's name will be published, with all other candidate
names, at the close of the nominations period.
o Except as noted above, all information provided to the IAB during
this process will be kept as confidential to the IAB and, when
established, the advisory committee.
A.2.4. Term of Office and Selection Time Frame
The IAB will seat their selected member at the first IETF meeting of
every second year, for a two-year term of office. Basic time frame
requirements for the selection process are as follows:
o 3-4 weeks for solicitation of nominations.
o 3-4 weeks for review of nominees, deliberation, and selection.
About 3-4 weeks prior to the process, the IAB will announce the
specific dates for the selection process for that year, following the
guidelines above.
Appendix B. Internet Draft editing details
[This appendix is to be removed at publication]
$Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-04.txt 35 2009-01-23 19:46:53Z olaf $
B.1. Section 00->01
Added Sandy and Alice to the acknowledgement section, they were
accidentally omitted
Added Appendix A so that the selection mechanism is explicitly
documented. The selection mechanism documents the use of an advisory
committee and is explicit about the fact that the community expands
beyond the IETF community.
Modified the RFC Editor Function name to "RFC Series Editor" in order
to minimize confusion between the collective of functions (RFC
Editor) and the function (Series Editor).
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
Added wording for specifying the technical competence needed by the
indep.subm.editor as suggested by JCK
Clarified the responsibilities of the production function in
Section 3.3
Enumerated qualifications of the RFC Editor
B.2. Section 01->02
Various nits corrected
Inconsictency in the use of RFC Production house and RFC Production
fixed: RFC Production Center used as term
Oversight over RFC consistency with the style manual has been made
explicit.
Clarified that the Independent Stream Editors budget is independent
from the IETF/IASA.
Improved the language that clarified that the RFC Series editors and
Independent Stream editor do not necessarilly need to work without
assistants, while they bear the responsibility.
B.3. Section 02->03
Added Joel to the acknowledgements
Added the Advisory comittee charter as a FYI
Added editorial skill and command of English as a requirement for the
ISE
In the responsibilities for the RFC series: Change "Participate in"
to "Provide input in" for IAOC Review. This makes the text more
implementation neutral.
Typo: Model is consistent with RFC4844 instead of 4884
Added "Maintaining technical quality of the Independent stream" as an
explicit responsibility for the ISE.
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 1) January 2009
Authors' Addresses
Olaf M. Kolkman
EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
Internet Architecture Board
EMail: iab@iab.org
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires July 27, 2009 [Page 16]
