Network Working Group                                P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                   Mozilla
Obsoletes: RFC8728 (if approved)                      September 21, 2021
Updates: RFC7841, RFC8729 (if approved)
Intended status: Informational
Expires: March 25, 2022


            RFC Series Policy Definition and Implementation
                    draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-03

Abstract

   This document describes updated processes for defining and
   implementing policies regarding the RFC Series as a whole and thus
   specifies version 3 of RFC Editor Model.  As specified here, the
   model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into two high-
   level tasks.  Policy definition is the responsibility of the RFC
   Series Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals that are
   subject to approval by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).  Policy
   implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production
   Center (RPC), under the ultimate authority of the IETF Administration
   Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC).

   This document obsoletes RFC 8728.

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 March 25, 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Overview of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Policy Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Structure and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.1.  RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)  . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.1.  Intent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.2.  Workflow  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.3.  Community Calls for Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.2.4.  Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.2.5.  Anti-Harassment Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  Policy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  Roles and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  Implementation-Specific Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.3.  RPC Responsibilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.4.  Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC .  15
     4.5.  Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.5.1.  Vendor Selection for the RFC Production Center  . . .  16
       4.5.2.  Budget  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.1.  RSCE Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.2.  RSCE Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   6.  Editorial Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.1.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.2.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Appendix A.  Updates to RFC 7841  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     A.1.  First Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     A.2.  Second Paragraph  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     A.3.  Third Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Appendix B.  Changes from RFC 8728  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     B.1.  RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     B.2.  RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23



Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


     B.3.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Appendix C.  Updates to RFC 8729  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25

1.  Introduction

   The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series
   dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, including
   general contributions from the Internet research and engineering
   community as well as standards documents.  As described in [RFC8700],
   RFCs have been published continually since 1969.  The overall
   framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function are
   described in [RFC8729] and updated here.

   The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs have
   changed significantly over the years.  Most recently, in 2009
   [RFC5620] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1) and in 2012
   [RFC6635] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), since modified
   slightly in 2020 by [RFC8728].

   This document reflects experience gained with version 1 and version 2
   of the Model, and therefore describes version 3 of the Model (see
   Section 7 for a summary of the changes) while remaining consistent
   with [RFC8729].

   More specifically, in order to ensure sustainable maintenance and
   support of the RFC series based on the principles of expert
   implementation, clear management and direction, and appropriate
   community input [RFC8729], this document divides the responsibilities
   for the RFC Series into two high-level tasks:

   1.  Policy definition governing the Series as a whole.  This is the
       responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which
       produces policy proposals that are subject to approval by the RFC
       Series Approval Board (RSAB).

   2.  Policy implementation through publication of documents in the
       Series.  This is primarily the responsibility of the RFC
       Production Center (RPC), under the ultimate authority of the IETF
       Administration Limited Liability Company (LLC) [RFC8711].

   This document obsoletes RFC 8728.








Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


2.  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 framework (similar in some respects to
   the structure of technical work within the IETF or IRTF) that retains
   roles for specialized expertise in document editing and publication.

   Policy definition happens within the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG),
   which produces policy proposals that are subject to approval by the
   RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), after which such policies are
   formally established through publication in the Editorial Stream
   within the RFC Series.  The RSWG is an open working group (as
   described below) that seeks input and participation through a public
   process from a wide range of persons who have an interest in the RFC
   Series.  The RSAB consists of appointed members who represent the
   various RFC streams [RFC8728] as well as an expert in technical
   publishing, the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE).

   Policy implementation is performed by the RFC Production Center
   (RPC), under the ultimate authority of the IETF Administration
   Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC).

   In short:

   o  The RSWG proposes policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole,
      with input from the community, the RSAB, and the RSCE.

   o  The RSAB considers those proposals and approves them, returns them
      to the RSWG for further consideration, or declines to publish
      them, as appropriate.

   o  If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the Editorial
      Stream and thus define the policies to be followed by the RSWG,
      RSAB, RSCE, and RPC.

   o  The RSCE provides expert advice to the RPC and RSAB on how to
      implement established policies on an ongoing and operational
      basis, which can include raising issues or initiating proposed
      policy changes within the RSWG.

   o  The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in
      its day-to-day editing and publication of RFCs from other streams.



Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   o  If issues arise with the implementation of particular policies,
      the RPC brings those issues to the RSAB, which interprets the
      policies and provides interim guidance to the RPC, informing the
      RSWG of those interpretations.

   This model is designed to ensure public processes and definition
   documents, clear responsibilities and mechanisms for updates and
   changes to policies governing the RFC Series as a whole, and
   operational implementation of the RFC Series, thus meeting the
   requirements specified in Section 4 of [RFC8729].

   The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.

3.  Policy Definition

   Policies governing the RFC series as a whole are defined 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, processes for
   publication and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the
   RFC series.

3.1.  Structure and Roles

3.1.1.  RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)

   NOTE: There is discussion within the RFCED-Future Program regarding
   the appropriate name for this entity; provisionally "RFC Series
   Working Group" (RSWG) is used here, but the name might change in
   future versions of this document.

   The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) shall formulate proposals
   regarding policies that govern 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, and all RSWG contributions shall be subject
   to intellectual property policies, which must be consistent with
   those of the IETF as specified in BCP 78 [RFC5378] and BCP 79
   [RFC8179].

   The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation
   informally described in [RFC7282].

   When the RSWG is formed, all discussions shall take place on an open
   email discussion list.  Subsequently, the RSWG may decide by rough



Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   consensus to also use additional tooling (e.g., GitHub as specified
   in [RFC8874]), forms of communication (e.g., in-person or online
   meetings), and working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they
   are consistent with [RFC2418].

   All interested persons are welcome to participate in the RSWG
   (subject to anti-harassment policies as described below).  This
   includes participants in the IETF and IRTF, IAB and IESG members,
   individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, authors of RFCs
   and Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to authors RFCs, and
   the like.  The IETF LLC Board members, staff, and the IETF Executive
   Director are invited to participate as community members in the RSWG
   to the extent permitted by any relevant IETF LLC policies.  Members
   of the RSAB are also expected to participate actively.

   The RSWG shall have two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the
   other appointed by the IAB.  When the RSWG is formed, the chair
   appointed by the IESG shall serve for a term of one (1) year and the
   chair appointed by the IAB shall serve for a term of two (2) years;
   thereafter, chairs shall serve for a term of two (2) years, with no
   term limits on renewal.  The appointing bodies shall determine their
   own processes for making these appointments, such as provision for an
   open nominations period.  Community members who have concerns about
   the performance of an RSWG chair should direct their feedback to the
   relevant appointing body.  Each appointing body shall have the power
   to replace its appointed chair at its discretion at any time, with
   the replacement serving the remainder of the original chair's term.

   It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus
   within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision
   making, for instance regarding acceptance of new proposals and
   advancement of proposals to the RSAB.

   Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the roles and
   responsibilities of the chairs, the general guidance provided in
   Section 6.1 of [RFC2418] should be considered appropriate.

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #9 [1], ISSUE #14
   [2], ISSUE #16 [3], ISSUE #28 [4], ISSUE #29 [5], ISSUE #41 [6],
   ISSUE #44 [7], ISSUE #55 [8], ISSUE #68 [9], ISSUE #72 [10], and
   ISSUE #80 [11].

3.1.2.  RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)

   The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) shall act as the approving body
   for proposals generated within the RSWG.  The only policy-making role
   of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by the RSWG; it
   shall have no independent authority to formulate policy on its own.



Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   It is expected that the RSAB will respect the rough consensus of the
   RSWG wherever possible, without ceding its review function.

   The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows:

   o  One delegate representing the IETF stream, appointed by the IESG

   o  One delegate representing the IAB stream, appointed by the IAB

   o  One delegate representing the IRTF stream, appointed by the IRTF
      Chair

   o  The Independent Submissions Editor [RFC8730]

   o  The RFC Series Consulting Editor

   For the avoidance of doubt, the RSAB shall continue to operate in the
   case of any vacancies; however, such vacancies should be filled with
   all due speed.

   The appointing bodies shall determine their own processes for
   appointing delegates, such as provision for an open nominations
   period.  If it becomes necessary to replace such a delegate for any
   reason, then for the sake of continuity the appointing body should
   name a new delegate to complete the former delegate's term.

   To ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
   include the IETF Executive Director as a non-voting member since the
   IETF LLC is ultimately responsible for implementation of policies
   governing the RFC Series.  The RSAB may at its discretion include
   additional non-voting members, for instance a liaison from the RPC.

   Whenever a new stream is created, the document that creates the
   stream shall specify if a voting member representing that stream
   shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules and processes
   related to that representative (e.g., whether the representative is a
   member of the body responsible for the stream or an appointed
   delegate thereof).  In effect, the RSCE is the voting member
   representing the Editorial Stream.

   The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using a
   method to be determined by the RSAB.  If the chair position is
   vacated during the chair's term, the RSAB should choose a new chair
   from among its members.

   The RSAB is expected to operate via email, in-person meetings,
   teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling it deems
   necessary.



Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including
   minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions.

   The RSAB shall announce plans and agendas for their meetings on the
   RFC Editor website and by email to the RSWG at least a week before
   such meetings.  The meetings shall be open for public attendance and
   the RSAB may consider allowing open participation.  If the RSAB needs
   to discuss a confidential matter in executive session, that part of
   the meeting shall be private to the RSAB, but must be noted on the
   agenda, and must be documented in the minutes with as much detail as
   confidentiality requirements permit.

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #9 [12], ISSUE #38
   [13], ISSUE #50 [14], ISSUE #53 [15], ISSUE #71 [16], and ISSUE #82
   [17].

3.2.  Process

3.2.1.  Intent

   The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to
   the RFC series are defined and evolved.  The general expectation is
   that all interested parties will participate in the RSWG, and that
   only under extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold
   "CONCERN" positions as described 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.








Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


3.2.2.  Workflow

   The following process shall be used to formulate or modify processes
   related to the RFC series:

   1.  An individual participant in the RSWG generates a proposal in the
       form of an Internet-Draft, which is submitted in full conformance
       with the provisions of BCP 78 [RFC5378] and BCP 79 [RFC8179].

   2.  If (following procedures for rough consensus) the chairs
       determine that there is sufficient interest in the proposal, the
       RSWG may adopt the proposal as a draft proposal of the RSWG, in
       much the same way a working group of the IETF or research group
       of the IRTF would (see [RFC2418]).

   3.  The RSWG shall then further develop the proposal.  Members of the
       RSAB are expected to participate in discussion relating to such
       proposals so that they are fully aware of proposals early in the
       policy definition process and so that any issues or concerns that
       they have will be raised during the development of the proposal
       (not be left until the RSAB review period).  The RSWG chairs are
       also expected to participate as individuals.

   4.  At some point, if the RSWG chairs believe there may be rough
       consensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a last
       call for comment within the working group.

   5.  After a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG chairs will
       determine whether rough consensus for the proposal exists (taking
       their own feedback as individuals into account along with
       feedback from other participants).  If comments have been
       received and substantial changes have been made, additional last
       calls may be necessary.

   6.  Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue a
       community call for comments as further described below.  If
       substantial comments have been received, the RSWG will again
       consider those comments and make revisions as they see fit.  At
       this same time, the RSAB will also consider the proposal.

   7.  If substantial changes have been made, additional community calls
       for comment should be issued by the RSAB, and again comments
       considered by the RSWG.

   8.  Once all comments have been addressed, the RSWG chairs will
       submit the proposal to the RSAB for its consideration.





Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   9.  Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will then poll among
       its members regarding the proposal.  Positions may be as follows:

       *  "YES": the proposal should be approved

       *  "CONCERN": the proposal raises substantial concerns that must
          be addressed

       *  "RECUSE": the person holding the position has a conflict of
          interest

   Any RSAB member holding a "CONCERN" position must explain their
   concern to the community in detail.  The explanation might or might
   not be actionable.

   A CONCERN may be made for two reasons:

   o  The proposal represents a serious problem for the stream or group
      that a particular member represents.

   o  The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause serious
      harm to the overall series, including harm to the long term health
      and viability of the series.

   Because RSAB members should have been participating in discussions
   within the RSWG, no position of 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 are expected to participate.

   2.  A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.  If
       substantial changes have been made in order to address CONCERN
       positions, an additional call for community input might be
       needed.

   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.
       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 within the Editorial Stream.

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #45 [18] and ISSUE
   #69 [19].



Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


3.2.3.  Community Calls for Comment

   When a community call for comment is made, the RSAB sends a notice
   containing:

   o  A subject line beginning with 'Call for Comment:'

   o  A clear, concise summary of the proposal

   o  A URL for the proposal document

   o  Any commentary or questions for the community that the RSAB deems
      necessary (using their usual decision-making procedures)

   o  Clear instructions on how to provide public comments

   o  A deadline for comments

   Notices will always be sent to the rfc-interest mailing list.  The
   RSAB and RSWG should also send notices to other communities that may
   be interested in or impacted by a proposal as they see fit, following
   policies for those communities as appropriate.  Notices are also to
   be made available and archived on the rfc-editor.org web site.  In
   addition, other communication channels can be established for notices
   (e.g., using an RSS feed or social media).

   A comment period will not last less than two weeks.  Comments will be
   publicly archived on the rfc-editor.org web site.

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #67 [20].

3.2.4.  Appeals

   Appeals of RSWG decisions shall be made to the RSAB.  Decisions of
   the RSWG can be appealed only on grounds of failure to follow the
   correct process.  Appeals should be made within 30 days of any
   action, or in the case of failure to act, of notice having been given
   to the RSWG.  The RSAB will then decide if the process was followed
   and will direct the RSWG chairs as to what procedural actions are
   required.

   Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB and should be made
   within thirty (30) days of public notice of the relevant RSAB
   decision (typically, when minutes are posted).  The IAB shall decide
   whether a process failure occurred and what if any corrective action
   should take place.





Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #16 [21] and ISSUE
   #36 [22].

3.2.5.  Anti-Harassment Policy

   The IETF anti-harassment policy [23] also applies to the RSWG and
   RSAB, which strive to create and maintain an environment in which
   people of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity,
   decency, and respect.  Participants are expected to behave according
   to professional standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace
   behavior.  See also [RFC7154], [RFC7776], and [RFC8716].

4.  Policy Implementation

4.1.  Roles and Processes

   Publication of RFCs shall is handled by the RFC Production Center
   (RPC).

   A few general considerations apply:

   o  The general roles and responsibilities of the RPC are defined by
      RFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by the
      RSWG, RSAB, or RSCE).

   o  The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and has a duty to consult
      with them under specific circumstances, such as those relating to
      disagreements between authors and the RPC.

   o  The RPC is contractually overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that
      it performs in accordance with contracts in place.

   All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance
   targets, are between the RPC and IETF LLC.

   The RPC shall report regularly to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG, and
   broader community regarding its activities and any key risks or
   issues affecting it.

   In the event that the RPC is required to make a decision without
   consultation that would normally deserve consultation, or makes a
   decision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify the
   RSAB.

   This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
   IETF LLC and the RPC; for example, the work of the RPC could be
   performed by a separate corporate entity under contract to the IETF
   LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or the IETF



Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   LLC could engage with independent contractors for some or all aspects
   of such work.  The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC to
   determine.

   The IETF LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the
   engagement of the RPC.  Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority over
   negotiating performance targets for the RPC and also has
   responsibility for ensuring that those targets are adhered to.  The
   IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a manager or to convene a committee
   to complete these activities.

   If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the
   performance of the RPC, they can request that the IETF LLC look into
   the matter.  Even if the IETF LLC opts to delegate this activity,
   concerns should be raised with the IETF LLC.  The IETF LLC is
   ultimately responsible to the community via the mechanisms outlined
   in its charter.

4.2.  Implementation-Specific Policies

   Under and consistent with the high-level policies defined for the RFC
   Series in general or particular streams, the RPC shall define more
   particular policies regarding matters related to the editorial
   preparation and final publication and dissemination of RFCs.
   Examples include:

   o  Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards to
      which RFCs must adhere (see [RFC7322] and the style guide web page
      [24]).

   o  Policies regarding the file formats that are accepted as input to
      the editing and publication process.

   o  Policies regarding the final structure and layout of published
      documents.  In the context of the XML vocabulary ([RFC7991]), such
      policies could include matters such as the exact XML elements and
      attributes used to capture the semantic content of RFCs.  More
      generally, such policies could address the readability and
      presentation of information in RFCs.

4.3.  RPC Responsibilities

   RPC responsibilities include the following:

   1.   Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style
        Guide.

   2.   Creating and preserving records of edits performed on documents.



Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


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

   4.   Engaging in dialogue with authors, document shepherds, IANA, or
        stream-specific contacts when clarification is needed.

   5.   Creating and preserving records of dialogue with document
        authors.

   6.   Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed.

   7.   Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed.

   8.   Participating in the creation of new Editorial Stream RFCs that
        impact the RPC, at least in an advisory capacity.

   9.   Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans.

   10.  Consulting with the community on its plans.

   11.  Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC.

   12.  Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC
        performance by the IETF LLC.

   13.  Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of IANA-
        performed protocol registry actions.

   14.  Assigning RFC numbers.

   15.  Establishing publication readiness of each document through
        communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA, or
        stream-specific contacts, and, if needed, with the RSAB and
        RSCE.

   16.  Liaising with stream managers and other representatives of the
        streams as needed.

   17.  Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.

   18.  Providing an on-line system to submit RFC Errata.

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

   20.  Providing backups.

   21.  Providing storage and preservation of records.




Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   22.  Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.

4.4.  Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC

   During the process of editorial preparation and publication,
   disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the
   RPC.  Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such
   disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct
   consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in
   collaboration with other individuals such as a document shepherd,
   IETF working group chair, IRSG research group chair, or IETF Area
   Director.

   However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies, or if
   the interpretation of an existing policy is unclear, the parties may
   need to consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB,
   IESG, IRSG, or stream manager) to help achieve a resolution.  The
   following points are intended to provide more particular guidance.

   o  If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, the
      RPC should consult with the relevant stream manager to help
      achieve a resolution, if needed also conferring with a per-stream
      body such as the IESG or IRSG.

   o  If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should
      consult with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.

   o  If the disagreement raises a new issue that is not covered by an
      existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation
      between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies (as
      described above), the issue should be brought to the RSWG in order
      to formulate a new policy.  However, in the interest of time the
      disagreement may be resolved as the parties best see fit while the
      RSWG formulates a more general policy.

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #6 [25] and ISSUE #59
   [26].

4.5.  Administrative Implementation

   The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
   activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC.  This
   section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such
   activities.

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #25 [27], ISSUE #57
   [28], ISSUE #61 [29], ISSUE #62 [30], and ISSUE #63 [31],




Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


4.5.1.  Vendor Selection for the RFC Production Center

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

   The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) for
   the RPC and manages the vendor selection process.  The work
   definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into
   account the needs of stream managers as well as community input.

   The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center and
   other RFC-related services is as follows:

   o  The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps
      necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the
      contracting procedures.

   o  The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will consist
      of the IETF Executive Director and other members selected by the
      IETF LLC in consultation with the stream managers.  The committee
      shall select a chair from among its members.

   o  The selection committee selects the vendor, subject to the
      successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC.  In
      the event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be
      referred to the selection committee for further action.

4.5.2.  Budget

   The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses.  They
   have been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.

   The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding
   to support the RSCE, the RFC Production Center, and the Independent
   Stream.

   The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor
   budget (and the authority to deny it).  All relevant parties must
   work within the IETF LLC budgetary process.

5.  RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)

   NOTE: Discussion continues within the RFCED-Future Program regarding
   the appropriate title for an expert in technical publication
   processes.  Reflecting provisional agreement, this document refers to
   the individual as the "RFC Series Consulting Editor" ("RSCE").





Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a senior technical
   publishing professional who will apply their deep knowledge of
   technical publishing processes to the RFC series.

   The primary responsibilities of the RSCE are as follows:

   o  Serve as a voting member on the RSAB

   o  Identify problems with the RFC publication process and
      opportunities for improvement

   o  Provide expert advice regarding policy proposals within the RSWG

   o  If requested, provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC

   Matters on which the RSCE might be consulted could include the
   following (see also Section 4 of [RFC8729]):

   o  Editing, processing, and publication of RFCs

   o  Publication formats for the RFC Series

   o  Changes to the RFC style guide

   o  Series-wide guidelines regarding document content and quality

   o  Web presence for the RFC Series

   o  Copyright matters related to the RFC Series

   o  Archiving, indexing, and accessibility of RFCs

   The IETF LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the
   engagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and the
   timely filling of any vacancy.  Therefore, whether the RSCE role is
   structured as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for
   the IETF LLC to determine.

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #12 [32], ISSUE #24
   [33], and ISSUE #55 [34].

5.1.  RSCE Selection

   The IETF LLC will form a selection committee, including members from
   the community, that will be responsible for making a recommendation
   to the IETF LLC for the RSCE role.  The selection committee will take
   into account the role definition [35] as well as any other
   information that the committee deems necessary or helpful in making



Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   its decision.  The IETF LLC is responsible for contracting or
   employment of the RSCE.

5.2.  RSCE Performance Evaluation

   Periodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the RSCE,
   including a call for confidential input from the community.  The IETF
   LLC will produce a draft performance evaluation for the RSAB (not
   including the RSCE), which will provide feedback to the IETF LLC.

6.  Editorial Stream

   This document creates the Editorial Stream as separate space for
   publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related
   information regarding the RFC Series as a whole.

   Any and all future documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the
   RSAB shall be published in the Editorial Stream.  Documents pubished
   in the Editorial Stream shall have a status of Informational.  The
   Editorial Stream is not authorized to publish RFCs that are Standards
   Track or Best Current Practice, since such RFCs are reserved to the
   IETF Stream [RFC8729].

   The Editorial Stream will be used only to specify and update
   policies, procedures, guidelies, rules, and related information
   regarding the RFC Series as a whole; no other use of the Editorial
   Stream is authorized by this memo and no other streams are so
   authorized.  This policy may be changed only by agreement of the IAB,
   IESG, and IETF LLC.

   The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams
   are outside the scope of this document.

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #22 [36], ISSUE #35
   [37], ISSUE #63 [38], and ISSUE #73 [39].

7.  Security Considerations

   The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply.  The
   processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
   introduction of unapproved changes.  Since the RFC Editor maintains
   the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to
   prevent these published documents from being changed by external
   parties.  The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed
   to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents
   (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, originals
   that are not machine-readable) need to be secured against any kind of
   data storage failure.



Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   The IETF LLC should take these security considerations into account
   during the implementation and enforcement of any relevant contracts.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document places responsibility for coordination of registry
   value assignments with the RPC.  The IETF LLC facilitates management
   of the relationship between the RPC and IANA.

   This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any
   values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.

9.  References

9.1.  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>.

   [RFC3777]  Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation,
              and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
              Committees", RFC 3777, DOI 10.17487/RFC3777, June 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777>.

   [RFC5378]  Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
              Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.

   [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>.






Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   [RFC7322]  Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.

   [RFC7776]  Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.

   [RFC7841]  Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed.,
              "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7841>.

   [RFC7991]  Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
              RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8700]  Flanagan, H., Ed., "Fifty Years of RFCs", RFC 8700,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8700, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8700>.

   [RFC8711]  Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
              the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
              BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.

   [RFC8716]  Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IETF Anti-
              Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF
              Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF
              Administration LLC", BCP 25, RFC 8716,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8716, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716>.

   [RFC8728]  Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
              "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728>.

   [RFC8729]  Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
              RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.





Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   [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>.

9.2.  URIs

   [1] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/9

   [2] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/14

   [3] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/16

   [4] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/28

   [5] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/29

   [6] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/41

   [7] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/44

   [8] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/55

   [9] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/68

   [10] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/72

   [11] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/80

   [12] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/9

   [13] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/38

   [14] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/50

   [15] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/53

   [16] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/71

   [17] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/82

   [18] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/45

   [19] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/69




Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   [20] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/67

   [21] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/16

   [22] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/36

   [23] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-
        harassment-policy/

   [24] https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/

   [25] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/6

   [26] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/59

   [27] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/25

   [28] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/57

   [29] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/61

   [30] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/62

   [31] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/63

   [32] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/12

   [33] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/24

   [34] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/55

   [35] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-
        future/blob/master/Issue12-RSE-role.md

   [36] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/22

   [37] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/35

   [38] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/63

   [39] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/73

Appendix A.  Updates to RFC 7841

   NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Because this document (if approved) will be the
   first RFC in the Editorial Series, please apply the changes in this
   section to its boilerplate if directed to do so by the IAB.




Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


   This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This
   Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream.  Any changes
   to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy
   Definition process specified in this document.

A.1.  First Paragraph

   Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the
   first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
   specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].

A.2.  Second Paragraph

   The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
   follows:

   "This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
   process.  It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working Group
   approved by the RFC Series Approval Board.  Such documents are not
   candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
   7841.

A.3.  Third Paragraph

   The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
   specified in Section 3.5 of RFC 7841.

Appendix B.  Changes from RFC 8728

B.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 many of the responsibilities of the RFC Series
   Editor function as defined by [RFC8728].  For example, representation
   to the IETF (Section 2.1.2.1 of [RFC8728] is no longer necessary
   because IETF participants can get involved in the RSWG, because the
   IETF has a delegate on the RSAB, and because the RPC provides reports
   directly to the community.

B.2.  RFC Publisher

   In practice the RFC Production Center (RPC) and RFC Publisher roles
   have been performed by the same entity and this practice is expected
   to continue; therefore this document dispenses with the distinction
   and refers only to the RPC.





Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


B.3.  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.

Appendix C.  Updates to RFC 8729

   This document incorporates some text directly from [RFC8729] and also
   makes the following updates:

   o  This document creates the Editorial Stream.

   o  Future changes to policies governing the RFC Series as a whole now
      occur through documents defined by the RSWG, approved by the RSAB,
      and published in the Editorial Stream.

   o  As described above, several responsibilities previously assigned
      to the "RFC Editor function" are now performed by the RSWG, RSAB,
      RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination).  These include
      aspects of operational oversight (Section 3.3 of [RFC8729]),
      policy oversight (Section 3.4 of [RFC8729]), the editing,
      processing, and publication of documents (Section 4.2 of
      [RFC8729]), and series-wide guidelines and rules (Section 4.4 of
      [RFC8729]).
      In addition, some details regarding these responsibilities have
      been modified to accord with the new framework defined in this
      document.

Acknowledgments

   Portions of this document were borrowed from [RFC5620], [RFC6635],
   [RFC8728], [RFC8729], and earlier proposals submitted within the
   RFCED-Future Program by Martin Thomson, Brian Carpenter, and Michael
   StJohns.  Thanks to the chairs of the Program, Eliot Lear and Brian
   Rosen, for their leadership and assistance.  Thanks also for feedback
   and proposed text to Jari Arkko, Sarah Banks, Scott Bradner, Carsten
   Bormann, Nevil Brownlee, Ben Campbell, Jay Daley, Martin Duerst, Lars
   Eggert, Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Sandy Ginoza, Bron Gondwana,
   Joel Halpern, Wes Hardaker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Christian
   Huitema, Ole Jacobsen, John Klensin, Mirja Kuehlewind, Ted Lemon,
   John Levine, Lucy Lynch, Andrew Malis, Larry Masinter, S.  Moonesamy,
   Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly, Colin Perkins, Julian Reschke, Eric
   Rescorla, Adam Roach, Alice Russo, Doug Royer, Rich Salz, Tim
   Wicinski, and Nico Williams.





Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft              RFC Series Policy             September 2021


Author's Address

   Peter Saint-Andre (editor)
   Mozilla

   Email: stpeter@stpeter.im













































Saint-Andre              Expires March 25, 2022                [Page 25]