Network Working Group                                P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                   Mozilla
Obsoletes: RFC8728 (if approved)                         August 25, 2021
Intended status: Informational
Expires: February 26, 2022


                      RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
                    draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-01

Abstract

   This document describes Version 3 of the RFC Editor model.  As
   specified here, the model divides the responsibilities for the RFC
   Series into two high-level functions: policy definition governing the
   Series as a whole, and policy implementation through publication of
   documents in the Series.  The policy definition function 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).  The policy implementation function is
   primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC),
   under the ultimate authority of the IETF Administration Limited
   Liability Company (LLC).

   This document reflects experience gained with version 1 of the RFC
   Editor Model as specified in RFC 5620 and with version 2 as specified
   in RFC 6635 and RFC 8728.

   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 February 26, 2022.





Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


Copyright Notice

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Overview of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Policy Definition Function  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.1.  Intent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.2.  Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.3.  Community Calls for Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.4.  Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.5.  Anti-Harassment Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  RSEA Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  RSEA Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Policy Implementation Function  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.1.  Roles and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Editorial and Publication Policies  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.3.  Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC .  13
     5.4.  Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       5.4.1.  Vendor Selection for the RFC Production Center  . . .  14
       5.4.2.  Budget  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model  . . . . . . .  16
     9.1.  RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     9.2.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.1.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16



Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


     11.2.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   NOTE: This document is a work in progress.  Although it is intended
   to describe consensus forged in the RFC Editor Future Development
   Program, many aspects are not yet settled; as a result, this document
   contains proposals and conjectures that do not yet have consensus in
   the Program.  Where possible, open issues are identified herein to
   foster discussion.

   Documents in the Request for Comments (RFC) series have been
   continually published since 1969 [RFC8700].  The RFC series is
   described in [RFC8729].  RFC 8729 uses the term "RFC Editor function"
   or "RFC Editor" to identify the collective set of responsibilities
   for publishing documents in the RFC series.

   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].

   In order to provide a sustainable basis for continued publication of
   the RFC series, this document describes Version 3 of the RFC Editor
   model, which divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into two
   high-level functions: policy definition governing the Series as a
   whole, and policy implementation through publication of documents in
   the Series.  The policy definition function 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).
   The policy implementation function 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 by making a full update to the RFC
   Editor Model, changing the responsibilities of existing bodies and
   functions, and introducing new functions (see Section 7 of this
   document for a summary of the changes from Version 2).

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




Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


   Oversight Committee (RSOC) on behalf of the Internet Architecture
   Board (IAB).

   Discussion within the RFCED-Future Program has led in the direction
   of a more consensus-oriented structure (similar in some respects to
   the structure of technical work within the IETF or IRTF) that retains
   roles for specialized expertise in document editing and publication.

   The policy definition function is performed by 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.  The RSWG is an open working group
   (as described below) that seeks input and participation 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 Editor/Advisor (RSEA).

   The policy implementation function 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 establishes policy, with input from the community, the
      RSAB, and the RSEA.

   o  The RSAB considers those proposals and approves or returns as
      appropriate.

   o  The RPC periodically reports to the RSAB on how it is implementing
      established policies.

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

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







Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


3.  Policy Definition Function

   Policies governing the RFC series as a whole shall be defined in the
   open through proposals that are generated by and discussed within the
   RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) and then approved by the RFC Series
   Approval Board (RSAB).

   Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include but are
   not necessarily limited to document formats, 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)

   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, 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
   informationally 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
   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, RFC
   authors, individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, 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



Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


   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'soriginal
   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 advancement of proposals to the RSAB.

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

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 sole function of RSAB
   is to review policy proposals generated by the RSWG; it shall have no
   independent authority to formulate policy on its own.  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 Editor/Advisor

   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 the operation of the policy



Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


   implementation function.  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.

   The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using a
   method to be determined by the RSAB.

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

   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
   the confidentiality requirements permit.

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #9 [8], ISSUE #38
   [9], ISSUE #50 [10], ISSUE #53 [11], and ISSUE #71 [12].

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



Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


   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.

3.2.2.  Specifics

   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.

   2.  If there is sufficient interest in the proposal, RSWG may adopt
       the proposal as a draft proposal of the RSWG, much the same way a
       working group of the IETF or IRTF would (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 proposals
       and will not be left until the RSAB review period.

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

   5.  After a suitable period of time, the RSWG chairs will determine
       whether rough consensus for the proposal exists.  If comments
       have been received and substantial changes have been made, it is
       expected that additional last calls may be necessary.

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






Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


   7.  Should substantial changes be 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.

   9.  Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will then poll on
       the proposal.  Positions may be as follows: * "YES": the proposal
       should be approved * "CONCERN": the proposal raises substantial
       concerns that must be addressed.  * "RECUSE": the person holding
       the position has a conflict of interest.

   Anyone holding a "CONCERN" position must explain their concern to the
   community in detail.  The explanation may or may not be actionable.

   A CONCERN may be made for two reasons:

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

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

   No CONCERN should ever come as a surprise to the RSWG.

   1.  If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
       Again, all RSAB members 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
       necessary.

   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.







Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 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 fora as appropriate.  Notices are also to be made
   available and archived on the rfc-editor.org web site, and other
   communication channels can be established for notices (e.g., using an
   RSS feed, 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 [13].

3.2.4.  Appeals

   Appeals of RSWG decisions shall be made to the RSAB.  Decisions of
   the RSWG can only be appealed 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 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 appeals body
   shall decide whether a process failure occurred and what if any
   corrective action should take place.





Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #16 [14] and ISSUE
   #36 [15].

3.2.5.  Anti-Harassment Policy

   The IETF anti-harassment policy [16] 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 demonstrate appropriate workplace
   behavior.  See also [RFC7154], [RFC7776], and [RFC8716].

4.  RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA)

   NOTE: Discussion continues within the RFCED-Future Program regarding
   the roles and responsibilities of an expert in technical publication
   processes.  To retain flexibility (e.g., as to whether this
   individual plays more of an advisory role or more of a singular
   leadership role), this document temporarily refers to the individual
   as the "RFC Series Editor/Advisor" ("RSEA").

   The RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA) 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 RSEA 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 RSEA might be consulted could include proposed
   changes to the RFC style guide [RFC7322], RFC formatting in general,
   web presence, copyright matters, archiving policy, and dissemination
   and cataloguing of RFCs.

   Whether the RSEA role is structured as a contractual or employee
   relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC and the IETF Executive
   Director to determine.

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #12 [17] and ISSUE
   #24 [18].




Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


4.1.  RSEA 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 RSEA role.  The selection committee will take
   into account the role definition [19] as well as any other
   information that the committee deems necessary or helpful in making
   its decision.  The IETF LLC is responsible for contracting or
   employment of the RSEA.

4.2.  RSEA Performance Evaluation

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

5.  Policy Implementation Function

5.1.  Roles and Processes

   Publication of RFCs shall continue to be handled by the RFC
   Production Center (RPC) function in accordance with high-level
   policies currently in force or yet to be defined following the
   processes specified in the foregoing sections of this document.

   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 RSAB, RSWG, and broader
   community regarding the contents and progress of its work program 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, then it must notify the
   RSAB.

   This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
   IETF LLC and the RPC function; for example, the RPC function could be
   provided by a separate corporate entity under contract to the IETF
   LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or the IETF
   LLC could work with independent contractors for some or all aspects
   of the RPC function.  The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF
   LLC and the IETF Executive Director to determine.

   The IETF LLC has authority over negotiating performance targets for
   the RPC and also has responsibility for ensuring that those targets



Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


   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.

5.2.  Editorial and Publication 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
      [20]).

   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.

5.3.  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.





Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


   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 [21] and ISSUE #59
   [22].

5.4.  Administrative Implementation

   The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
   activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC.

5.4.1.  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 stream managers and 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 the 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



Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


      the event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be
      referred to the Selection Committee for further action.

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #25 [23].

5.4.2.  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 RSE/A, 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.

6.  Streams

   This document creates the Editorial Stream.  Any and all future
   documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB shall be
   published in the Editorial Stream.

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

   NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #22 [24] and ISSUE
   #73 [25].

7.  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 IETF
   LLC 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.

8.  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



Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


   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.

   The IETF LLC should take these security considerations into account
   during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC Editor component
   contracts.

9.  Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model

9.1.  RFC Series Editor

   The RSWG and RSAB together provide a public process by which policies
   for the RFC series can be defined.  It is expected that these bodies
   will therefore cover some of the responsibilities of the RFC Series
   Editor under Version 2.

9.2.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)

   In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and
   responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy
   and somewhat opaque.  To overcome some of these issues, this document
   dispenses with the RSOC.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

11.  References

11.1.  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>.




Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.



Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


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

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

   [RFC8730]  Brownlee, N., Ed. and B. Hinden, Ed., "Independent
              Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730,
              February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8730>.

   [RFC8874]  Thomson, M. and B. Stark, "Working Group GitHub Usage
              Guidance", RFC 8874, DOI 10.17487/RFC8874, August 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8874>.

11.2.  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/41

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft             RFC Editor Model v3               August 2021


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

   Portions of this document were borrowed from [RFC5620], [RFC6635],
   [RFC8728], and earlier proposals within the RFCED-Future Program by
   Martin Thomson, Brian Carpenter, and Michael StJohns.  Thanks to the
   chairs of the Program, Eliot Lear and Brian Rosen, for their
   leadership and assistance.  Thanks also for feedback and proposed
   text and feedback 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.

Author's Address

   Peter Saint-Andre (editor)
   Mozilla

   Email: stpeter@jabber.org






Saint-Andre             Expires February 26, 2022              [Page 19]