[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 rfc6635                                     
Network Working Group                                   O. Kolkman (Ed.)
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                          J. Halpern (Ed.)
Expires: November 1, 2011                                       Ericsson
                                                                     IAB
                                                          April 30, 2011


                      RFC Editor Model (Version 2)
                    draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-01

Abstract

   The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out
   by various persons or entities.  The RFC Editor model described in
   this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
   four functions: The RFC Series Editor, the Independent Submission
   Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher.  The
   function of the Independent Submission Editor is defined here.  The
   IAB oversight by way of delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Board
   is described.  This document reflects 1 year of experience with RFC
   Editor Model version 1.

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 http://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 November 1, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Administrative Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Expenses for the RFC Editor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  RFC Series Editor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.1.  Executive Management of the Publication and
               Production function  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.2.  Representation of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . .  9
         3.1.2.1.  Representation to the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
         3.1.2.2.  External Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.1.3.  Development of RFC Production and RFC Access . . . . . 10
       3.1.4.  Development of the RFC Series  . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.1.5.  Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.1.6.  Qualifications and Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.2.  Independent Submission Editor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.3.  RFC Production Center  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.4.  RFC Publisher  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.  Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.1.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)  . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.1.1.  RSOC composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.1.2.  Disagreements Among RFC Editor Entities  . . . . . . . 17
         4.1.2.1.  Issues with Contractual Impact . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.2.  Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board  . . . . . . 18
   5.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   6.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Appendix A.  Internet Draft editing details  . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     A.1.  Section 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     A.2.  Section 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     A.3.  Section 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     A.4.  section 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     A.5.  section 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     A.6.  section 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     A.7.  section 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     A.8.  section 07->08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     A.9.  v2-00->v2-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


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 IETF Administrative
   Oversight Committee (IAOC) about providing the necessary services in
   a cost effective and efficient manner.

   The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844 [RFC4844].
   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 the experience gained since, as described immediately
   below, and examines the internal organization of the RFC Editor,
   while remaining consistent with RFC 4844.  This version of the
   document also reflects the discussions, as described below, that have
   occurred since the first efforts to clarify that internal
   organization.



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   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 defines the
   term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the
   organizational components.

   The RFC Editor model was first approved in October 1, 2008 and has
   evolved since.  During the implementation of version 1 of the model
   [RFC5620] it was quickly realized that the role of the RSE and the
   oversight responsibilities needed to be structured differently.  In
   order to gain experience with 'running code' a transitional RFC
   Series Editor was hired who analyzed the managerial environment and
   provided recommendations.  This version of the model is based on his
   recommendations and the subsequent discussion on the rfc-interest
   list.

   The document, and the resulting structures, will be modified as
   needed through normal procedures.  The RSE, and the IAB, through the
   RFC oversight committee (see Section 4.1), 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.  Administrative Implementation

   The model is constructed in such a way that it sets boundary
   conditions on whether these functions are to be implemented jointly
   or under separate contractual arrangements.  The exact implementation
   is a responsibility of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
   (IAOC, [RFC4071]) in cooperation with the RFC Series Editor.

2.1.  Expenses for the RFC Editor

   The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses.  They
   have been and remain part of the IETF Administrative Support Activity
   (IASA, [RFC4071]) budget.

3.  RFC Editor Model

   The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series
   into the following components:

   o  RFC Series Editor ("RSE").

   o  Independent Submission Editor ("ISE").





Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   o  RFC Production Center.

   o  RFC Publisher.

   The structure and relationship of the components of the RFC Series
   Production and Process is schematically represented by the figure
   below (the picture does not depict oversight and escalation
   relations).











































Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


                              +--------------+
                              |              |
                              |     IAB      |
                              |              |
                              +----V--------V+
                   +.RFC Editor....|........V.................+
                   .               |                          .
   +------------+  .   +-----------V-+  +-----------+         .
   |            |  .   |     RFC     |  |           |         .
   |  Community |  .   |   Series    |  |   RFC     |         .
   |     at     <------>  Oversight  <-->  Series   |         .
   |   Large    |  .   |  Committee  |  |  Editor   |         .
   |            |  .   |             |  |           |         .
   +------------+  .   +-------------+  +-V-------V-+         .
                   +...............+      |       |           .
                                   .      |       |           .
   +-----------+   +-------------+ . +----V--+   +V--------+  .  +-----+
   | Community |   | Independent | . |  RFC  |   |         |  .  |  E  |
   |    at     +---> Submission  +--->       |   |   RFC   |  .  |  n  |
   |  Large    |   |   Editor    | . |   P   |   |         |  .  |  d  |
   |           |   |             | . |   r   |   |    P    |  .  |     |
   +-----------+   +-------------+ . |   o   +-->|    u    +----->  U  |
   +-----------+   +-------------+ . |   d   |   |    b    |  .  |  s  |
   |           |   |             | . |   u   |   |    l    |  .  |  e  |
   |    IAB    +--->     IAB     +--->   c   |   |    i    |  .  |  r  |
   |           |   |             | . |   t   |   |    s    |  .  |  s  |
   +-----------+   +-------------+ . |   i   |   |    h    |  .  |     |
   +-----------+   +-------------+ . |   o   |   |    e    |  .  |  &  |
   |           |   |             | . |   n   |   |    r    |  .  |     |
   |   IRTF    +--->    IRSG     +--->       |   |         |  .  |  R  |
   |           |   |             | . |   C   |   |         |  .  |  e  |
   +-----------+   +-------------+ . |   e   |   |         |  .  |  a  |
   +-----------+   +-------------+ . |   n   |   |         |  .  |  d  |
   |           |   |             | . |   t   |   |         |  .  |  e  |
   |   IETF    +--->    IESG     +--->   e   |   |         |  .  |  r  |
   |           |   |             | . |   r   |   |         |  .  |  s  |
   +-----------+   +-------------+ . +-------+   +---------+  .  +-----+
                                   .                          .
                                   +..........................+

            Structure of RFC Series production and process.

                                 Figure 1

   In this model documents are produced and approved through multiple
   document streams.  The four that now exist are described in
   [RFC4844].  Documents from these streams are edited and processed by
   the Production Center and published by the Publisher.  The RFC Series



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   Editor will exercise executive management over 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:

   o  Provides Executive Management for the overall operation of the RFC
      Editor, including the Production and Publication components.

   o  Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function within the
      IETF and externally.

   o  Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of
      improvements in the RFC Editor Production and Access Processes.

   o  Leads the community in the development of improvements to the RFC
      Series.

   These responsibilities are defined below, although the specific work
   items under them are a matter for the actual employment contract and
   its Statement of Work.

   The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined
   in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071].  More details on the oversight by the IAB
   via the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) can be found in
   Section 4.1.

   Therefore, the RSE does not have the direct authority to hire or fire
   RFC Editor contractors or personnel.  Serious issues, such as those
   that might be detected during the RSE annual review of the production
   facility, would be brought by the RSE to the RSOC, and escalated from
   there if appropriate.

3.1.  RFC Series Editor

   The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall responsibility
   for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series.  While
   that individual may, in the future, have assistants; at present there
   are no staff other than those associated with the RFC Series
   Production and Publication facility.

   The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the IAOC.  The
   IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the RSOC, which it
   appoints.

3.1.1.  Executive Management of the Publication and Production function

   With respect to the Publication and Production functions, the RSE
   provides input to the IASA budget, statements of work, and manages
   vendor selection processes.  The RSE performs annual reviews of the



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   Production and Publication function which are then provided to the
   RSOC and the IASA.

   Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under
   final authority of the IASA.

   Concretely:

   o  The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and
      manages the vendor search processes.  The work definition is
      created within the (budgetary) boundary condition that are
      negotiated with IASA and takes into account the RSE's requirements
      and community input.

   o  The RSE manages the evaluation process of the bids against the SOW
      and then provides a recommendation to the IASA.

   o  Final vendor selection is done by the IASA in close consultation
      with the RSE to ensure that contract terms and other arrangements
      are consistent with the SOW, consistent with the both RSE's and
      contractor's requirements to satisfy the contract.

   The IASA has the responsibility to approve the total RSE budget (and
   the authority to deny it).  The RSE has the responsibility to manage
   all the series functions within that budget.  It is assumed that
   there is a level of cooperation between RSE and IASA that allows
   decisions by the IASA to be 'pro forma'.  In case of disagreement,
   the IAB will attempt to mediate the issue.  If no mutual agreement
   can be reached, the IAB will make the final decision.

   When budgets have been assigned by IASA the RSE is responsible for
   managing the RFC Editor to operate within those budgets.  If
   production needs change, the RSE is responsible for working with the
   production facility to determine what the correct response should be.
   If they agree that a budgetary change is needed, that needs to be
   taken to the IAD and the IAOC.

   The RSE primarily supervises the on-going performance of the vendors
   without asserting direct operational responsibility.  However, the
   RSE has operational responsibilities for issues that raise above the
   responsibilities of the publication or publication functions such as
   cross stream coordination of priorities and other issues.  When the
   RSE needs to take extra-budgetary or out-of contract measures those
   actions will be coordinated with IASA.

   The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and structures
   that will allow for the RFC Series' continuity when circumstances
   engender the need for the execution of the publication and/or



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   production functions by other vendors.

   For this type of responsibility the RSE is expected to cooperate
   closely with the IASA and the various streams.

   To prevent actual or apparent problems with conflicts of interest or
   judgment, the RSE is barred from having any ownership, advisory, or
   other relationship to the vendors executing the Publication or
   Production functions except as specified elsewhere in this document.
   If necessary, an exception can be made after public disclosure of
   those relationships and with the explicit permission of the IAB and
   IASA.

3.1.2.  Representation of the RFC Series

   The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series.  This
   representation is important both internally, relative to the IETF,
   and externally.

3.1.2.1.  Representation to the IETF

   The RSE is the primary point of contact the IETF on matters other
   than the practicalities of producing individual RFCs (which are
   worked with the RFC Production staff.)

   This includes providing suitable reports to the community at large;
   providing email contact for policy questions and inputs; and enabling
   and participating in suitable on-line forums for discussion of issues
   related to the RFC Series.

   Due to the history and nature of the interaction between the RSE and
   the IETF, certain principles must be understood and adhered to by the
   RSE in his or her interactions with the community.  These apply to
   the representation function, as well as to the leadership the RSE
   provides in Production and Series Development.

3.1.2.1.1.  Volunteerism

   The vast majority of Internet technical community work is led,
   initiated, and done by community volunteers, including oversight,
   policy-making, and direct production of, for example, many software
   tools.  The Series Editor role relies on volunteer participation and
   needs to support the vitality and effectiveness of volunteer
   participation.







Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


3.1.2.1.2.  Policy Authority

   All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the
   community.  The community is the arbiter of policy.  The RSE must
   consult with the community on policy issues.  The RSE works with the
   community to achieve policy that meets the overall quality,
   continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is charged with meeting.  As
   described below in Section 4.1 the RSE reports the results of such
   interactions to the RSOC, including the specific recommendations on
   policy.  This enables the RSOC to provide the oversight the IAB is
   required to apply, as well as to confirm that the IETF community has
   been properly consulted and considered in making policy.

3.1.2.2.  External Representation

   From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF
   need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series.  The RSE is
   that individual.

   Over time, the RSE should determine what if any means should be
   employed to increase end-user awareness of the series, and to
   reinforce the stature of the Series, and will be the contact point
   for outside parties seeking information on the Series or the Editor.

3.1.3.  Development of RFC Production and RFC Access

   Closely related to providing executive management to the RFC
   Production and Publication functions is the need to develop and
   improve those functions.  The RSE is responsible for ensuring that
   such ongoing development takes place.

   This effort must include the dimensions of document quality,
   timeliness of production, and accessibility of results.  It must also
   specifically take into account issues raised by the IETF community.

3.1.4.  Development of the RFC Series

   In order to develop the RFC Publication series the RSE is expected to
   develop a relationships with the Internet technical community.  With
   that community, the Editor is expected to engage in a process of
   articulating and refining a vision for the Series and its continuous
   evolution.

   Concretely:







Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


      The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on
      Series evolution among the Series' Stream participants and the
      broader Internet technical community.

      In time the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision for the
      RFC Series, including examining:

         the technical specification series, as it continues to evolve.
         The RSE is expected to take a broad view and be be looking for
         the best ways to evolve the series for the benefit of the
         entire Internet Community.  As such, the RSE may even consider
         evolution beyond the historical 'by engineers for engineers'
         emphasis; and

         and its publication-technical environment: looking at whether
         it should be slowly changing in terms of publication and
         archiving techniques; particularly to better serve the
         communities that produce and depend on the RFC Series.  For
         example, all of those communities have been slowly changing to
         include significant multi-lingual and non-native-English
         populations.  Another example is that some of these
         constituencies also have a shifted to include significant
         groups of members whose primary focus is on the constraints and
         consequences of network engineering, rather than a primary
         interest in the engineering issues themselves.

      The RSE will develop consensus versions of vision and policy
      documents which will be approved by the RFC Series Oversight
      Committee (Section 4.1).

   For this type of responsibility the RSE cooperates closely with the
   community and under oversight of the RSOC and thus ultimately under
   oversight of the IAB.

3.1.5.  Workload

   The job is expected initially to take on average half of an FTE
   (approx 20 hrs per week), with the workload per week near full time
   during IETF weeks, over 20 hours per week in the first few months of
   the engagement, and higher during special projects.

3.1.6.  Qualifications and Selection

   The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional with the
   following qualifications:

   1.  Executive management experience suitable to managing the
       requirements outlined elsewhere in this document and the many



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


       aspects of this role, and to coordinating the overall RFC Editor
       process.

   2.  Good understanding of the English language and technical
       terminology related to the Internet.

   3.  Good communication skills.

   4.  Experience with editorial processes.

   5.  Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC
       process.

   6.  Independent worker.

   7.  Experience as an RFC author desired.

   As described below (Section 4.1) the IAB appoints the RSOC and
   delegates authority to it.  One of the first responsibilities of the
   RSOC will be to define in detail the solicitation and selection
   process for the next RSE.  The RSOC is expected to document to the
   community the process it selects.  Upon completion of selection, the
   RSOC should determine the best way to preserve this information for
   future use.

3.2.  Independent Submission Editor

   The Independent Submission Editor (ISE) is the head of the
   Independent Submission Stream of RFCs, as defined by [RFC4844].
   While formally part of the RFC Editor function, the Independent
   Stream and the Independent Submission Editor are not under the
   authority or direction of the RSE.  As noted below, the ISE is
   appointed by and is responsible directly to the IAB.

   The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have
   assistants and who is responsible for:

   1.  Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission
       stream.

   2.  Reviewing, approving, and processing Independent Submissions.

   3.  Forwarding draft RFCs in the Independent Submission Stream to the
       RFC Production Center.

   4.  Reviewing and approving Independent Submissions RFC errata.





Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   5.  Coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies
       as specified by the IAB and RSE.

   6.  Providing statistics and documentation as requested by the RSE
       and/or IAOC.

   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 define and constitute advisory and document review
       arrangements.  If those arrangements include an Editorial Board
       similar to the current one or some equivalent arrangement, 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, 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
       this document.

   The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an advisory
   board (see Section 4.2) 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
   IAB after input is collected from the community.  An approach similar
   to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year
   as described in [RFC4333] should be used.  While the ISE itself is
   considered a volunteer function, the IAB considers maintaining the
   Independent Submission stream within the RFC Series part of the IAB's
   supported activities, and will include the expenses made for the
   support of the ISE in its IASA-supported budget.






Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


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, under the direction of the RSE;

   2.   Creating records of edits performed on documents;

   3.   Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact
        and seeking necessary clarification;

   4.   Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds, IANA,
        and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed;

   5.   Creating records of dialog with document authors;

   6.   Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;

   7.   Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed;

   8.   Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC
        Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external
        reviews of the RFC Editor initiated by the IAB or IAOC;

   9.   Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry
        actions;

   10.  Assigning RFC numbers;

   11.  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;

   12.  Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher;

   13.  Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC
        Publisher so these can be preserved;

   14.  Liaising with the streams as needed.

   All these activities will be done under the general direction, but
   not day to day management, of the RSE and need some level of
   coordination with various submission streams and the RSE.

   The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected by the IAOC



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   through an RFP process.  The IAOC will 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.  Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.

   2.  Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata.

   3.  Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.

   4.  Providing backups.

   5.  Providing storage and preservation of records.

   6.  Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.

   All these activities will be done under the general direction, but
   not day to day management, of the RSE and need some level of
   coordination with various submission streams and the RSE.

   The vendor selection by the IAOC is through an RFP process.  This may
   be part of the same contract as the RFC Production center, or may be
   separate, as decided by the IAOC.

4.  Committees

4.1.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)

   The IAB is responsible for oversight over the RFC Series.

   In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the nomcom
   appointment cycle and assure that oversight is informed through
   subject matter experts the IAB will establish a group that implements
   oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC).

   The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: In general
   it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision
   documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the
   community.

   In those general cases the IAB is ultimately responsible for



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   oversight and acts as a body for appeal and resolution.

   For all aspects that affect the RSE itself (e.g. hiring and firing)
   the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB but final decision is
   the responsibility of the IAB.  For instance the RSOC would:

   o  perform annual reviews of the RSE and reports to the IAB.

   o  manage RSE candidate selection and advises the IAB on candidate
      appointment (in other words select the RSE, subject to IAB
      approval)

   It is expected that such oversight by the IAB is a matter of due
   diligence and that the reports and recommendations from the RSOC are
   approached as if they are binding.

   RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of
   interest and behave accordingly.

   There is one aspect in which the RSOC will work with the IASA: the
   remuneration of the RSE itself.  The RSOC will propose a budget for
   approval to the IASA.

   The RSOC will be responsible to ensure that the RFC Series is run in
   a transparent and accountable manner.

   The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order.

4.1.1.  RSOC composition

   The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB
   retaining final responsibility.  The IAB will delegate authority and
   responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE
   relationships evolve.  The RSOC will include people who are not
   current IAB members.  Currently, this is aligned with the IAB Program
   structure.  The IAB will designate the membership of the RSOC with
   the goals of preserving effective stability, keeping it small enough
   to be effective, but large enough to provide general Internet
   Community expertise, specific IETF expertise, Publication expertise,
   and stream expertise.  Members serve at the pleasure of the IAB and
   are expected to bring a balance between short and long term
   perspective.  Specific input about, and recommendations of, members
   will be sought from the streams, the IASA, and the RSE.

   The RSE and a person designated to represent the IASA will serve as
   ex-officio members of the RSOC but either or both can be excluded
   from its discussions if necessary.




Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


4.1.2.  Disagreements Among RFC Editor Entities

   If during the execution of their activities, a disagreement arises
   over an implementation decision made by one of the entities in the
   model, any relevant party should first request a review and
   reconsideration of the decision.  If that party still disagrees after
   the reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or,
   especially if the RSE is involved, that party may ask the IAB Chair
   (for a technical or procedural matter) or IAD (for an administrative
   or contractual one) to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in the
   discussions, although neither is obligated to do so.  All parties
   should work informally and in good faith to reach a mutually
   agreeable conclusion.

   If such a conclusion is not possible through those informal
   processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC Series
   Oversight Committee.  The RSOC may choose to offer advice to the RSE
   or more general advice to the parties involved and may ask the RSE to
   defer a decision until it formulates its advice.  However, if a
   timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation, and
   mutual agreement, the Series Editor is expected to make whatever
   decisions are needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC
   Editor function; those decisions are final.

   RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the
   process and evaluation of whether current policies are appropriately
   implemented in the decision or need adjustment.  In particular, it
   should be noted that final decisions about the technical content of
   individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream
   approvers for those documents, as shown in the illustration in
   Figure 1.

   If informal agreements cannot be reached, then formal RSOC review and
   decision making may be required.  If so, the the RSE must identify
   the issues involved to the community, so that the community is aware
   of the situation.  The RSE will the report the issue to the RSOC for
   formal resolution by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its
   oversight capacity.

   IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected
   to inform future changes to Series policies including possible
   updates to this document.

4.1.2.1.  Issues with Contractual Impact

   If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual
   consequences, the Series Editor must identify the issue to the IAOC
   and, if the RSOC has provided advice, forward that advice as well.



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   After the IAOC has notified the IAB, the IAD as guided by the IAOC,
   with advice provided by the Series Editor, has the responsibility to
   resolve these contractual issues.

4.2.  Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board

   The Independent Submission Editor is supported by an Editorial Board
   for the review of Independent Submission stream documents.  This
   board is known as the Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board.
   This volunteer Editorial Board exists at the pleasure of the ISE, and
   the members serve at the pleasure of the ISE.  The existence of this
   board is simply noted within this model, and additional discussion of
   such is considered out of scope of this document.

5.  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.

6.  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
   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.

7.  Acknowledgments

   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 in
   conjunction with those roles, major and minor contributions were made



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy
   Ginoza, Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, 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 initial 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.

   The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in
   alphabetical order): Marcelo Bagnulo, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart
   Cheshire, Vijay Gill, Russ Housley, John Klensin, Olaf Kolkman,
   Gregory Lebovitz, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Jon
   Peterson, and Dave Thaler.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4844]  Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
              Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.

   [RFC4071]  Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF
              Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
              RFC 4071, April 2005.

   [RFC2850]  Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of
              the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850,
              May 2000.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4333]  Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, "The IETF Administrative
              Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and
              Process", BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005.

   [RFC5620]  Kolkman, O. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
              RFC 5620, August 2009.




Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


Appendix A.  Internet Draft editing details

   [This appendix is to be removed at publication]

   $Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 55 2009-06-08 12:32:59Z olaf $

A.1.  Section 00->01

   Added Sandy and Alice to the acknowledgment section, they were
   accidentally omitted

   Added text 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).

   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

A.2.  Section 01->02

   Various nits corrected

   Inconsistency 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 Submission Stream Editors budget is
   independent from the IETF/IASA.

   Improved the language that clarified that the RFC Series editors and
   Independent Submission Stream editor do not necessarily need to work
   without assistants, while they bear the responsibility.







Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


A.3.  Section 02->03

   Added Joel to the acknowledgments

   Added the Advisory committee 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 Submission
   stream" as an explicit responsibility for the ISE.

A.4.  section 03->04

   [omitted by accident]

A.5.  section 04->05

   Introduced the concept of the RFC Series Advisory Group and reworked
   the text to take this into account.  This also caused the renaming of
   the advisory group to an explicit "Independent Submission Stream
   Editorial Board".

   Rewrote the appeal process to take the RSAG into account

   Extended the appointment period to 3 years

A.6.  section 05->06

   This version documents decisions made by the IAB during prior to
   approval during its April 27-28 retreat

   Addressed some nits

   Rewritten details of dispute resolution.  Also stopped using the
   words appeal or dispute resolution as they have a specific meaning in
   the standards process

   The ISE's expenses are covered from the IASA budget.

   The envisioned size of the RSAG is changed from 6 to un-specified,
   the RSAG is allowed to advice on the size later



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


   Rewrote/clarified requirements for RSE and ISE function

A.7.  section 06->07

   Fixed nits

   Addressed some IAB concerns that were accidentally omitted in version
   06

A.8.  section 07->08

   pen handed to Joel Halpern, added as Editor

   clarified text on RSE non-authority to hire and fire.

   Replaced structure diagram in section 3 with diagram developed by
   Glenn Kowack.

   Replaced responsibilities section (3) with a structure to match the
   ongoing SoW, with content largely derived by Olaf Kolkman.

   replaced RSAG section (4.1) with RSOC section, with new procedures
   and responsibilities.

   Removed description of 2009 selection process.

A.9.  v2-00->v2-01

   Editorial corrections and reference additions.

   Rewriting text on the vision for the development of the RFC Series.

   Clean up the text explaining the relationship between RSE management
   and IAOC budgetary authority.

   cleaned up text to better explain the RSE's role in judging community
   policy consensus.

   Clarified the general but not day to day managerial relationship of
   the RSE with the production and publication factilities.

   Highlight special handling of disagreements with contractual
   implications.

   Clarify that the ISE is part of the RFC Editor function, but not
   under the authority of the RSE.





Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)            April 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Olaf M. Kolkman

   EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl


   Joel M. Halpern
   Ericsson

   EMail: joel.halpern@ericsson.com


   Internet Architecture Board

   EMail: iab@iab.org



































Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires November 1, 2011               [Page 23]