Network Working Group G. Kowack, Ed.
Internet-Draft Riveronce
Expires: May 27, 2011 November 23, 2010
RFC Editor Model Version 2
draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-overview-00
Abstract
The RFC Editor is a set of functions that accepts draft documents
from the community, makes edits and other changes for clarity and
formal correctness, and publishes and archives openly-accessible
RFCs. Editorial services are provided by a Production Center,
publication and access services by a 'Publisher'. The RFC Series
Editor is responsible for ensure ongoing operations as well as
development of the Editor function and the Series.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 27, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. 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
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. The RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Flexible Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Internal Reporting Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. RFC Editor Editorial Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. RFC Editor Core Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Contractor Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Appointment, Reporting, and Duration . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Series Editor Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. General Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Series Editor Professional Qualifications . . . . . . . . 11
5. Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. RFC Editor Oversight Committee (REOC) . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. RFC Series Advisory Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Resolution of Disagreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Disagreements between RFC Editor Components and Model
Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Series Editor Review of Inter-Stream Conflicts . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. RFC End-User Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
1. Background
This memo presents version 2 of the RFC Editor model. Version 1 of
the model was described in [RFC5620]. This version of the model is
based on version 1 and on the experence of the Transitional RFC
Series Editor (TRSE). This document brings together all previous
documents on this subject, and is intended to be the basis for
community discussion during this period.
This document does not detail TRSE observations or motivations on
which this specification is based. Those, and differences from RFC
5620, will be described in an upcoming document.
2. RFC Editor
A block diagram of the RFC Editor, and major entities with which it
interacts, is shown in Figure 1. Documents are created and approved
by a number of "streams", which today includes the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) -- publications approved by the Interet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB), the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) -- publications
approved by the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG), and the
general Internet community -- publications approved by the
Independent Submission Editor (ISE). The approved are edited for
clarity and formal correctness by the RFC Production House and
published as RFCs by the RFC Publisher.
2.1. The RFC Editor Model
The RFC Editor serves the community via two sets of customers:
o on the input side, the streams,
o on the output side, readers of RFCs, including users of the RFC
editor web site and access services.
The RFC Editor divides into services and executive management.
Today, RFC Editor services are provided by an:
o RFC Publisher (RFC Pub), and
o RFC Production Center (RPC).
Executive management of the RFC Editor function is provided by the:
o RFC Series Editor, with support from an Oversight Committee.
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
+--------------+
| |
| IAB |
| |
+--V--------V--+
+.RFC Editor....|........|..........................+
. | | .
+------------+ . +-----------V-+ +---V-------+ +-----------+ .
| | . | RFC | | | | RFC | .
| Community | . | Editor | | RFC | | Series | .
| at <------> Oversight <--> Series <..> Advisory | .
| Large | . | Committee | | Editor | | Group | .
| | . | | | | | | .
+------------+ . +-------------+ +-V-------V-+ +-----------+ .
+...............+ | | +........+
. | | .
+-----------+ +-------------+ . +----V--+ +V--------+ . +-----+
| Community | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E |
| at +---> Submission +---> | | RFC | . | n |
| Large | | Editor | . | P | | | . | d |
| | | | . | r | | P | . | |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | o +-->| u +-----> U |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | d | | b | . | s |
| | | | . | u | | l | . | e |
| IAB +---> IAB +---> c | | i | . | r |
| | | | . | t | | s | . | s |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | i | | h | . | |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | o | | e | . | & |
| | | | . | n | | r | . | |
| IRTF +---> IRSG +---> | | | . | R |
| | | | . | C | | | . | e |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d |
| | | | . | t | | | . | e |
| IETF +---> IESG +---> e | | | . | r |
| | | | . | r | | | . | s |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . +-------+ +---------+ . +-----+
. .
+..........................+
The RFC Editor Structure
In the figure above:
o production flows are indicated by one-way, dashed, horizontal
arrows ("+--->"),
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
o lines of coordination are indicated by two-way, dashed, horizontal
arrows ("<-->"),
o lines of advice are indicated by two-way, dotted, horizontal
arrows ("<..>"), and
o reporting lines are indicated by vertical, dashed arrows.
2.2. Flexible Implementation
This memo uses the term 'function', following the practice
established in [RFC4844], to indicate that a specific service may be
flexibly implemented. For example, RFC Editor functions could be
implemented under separate or joint contractual arrangements, and
bidders may make proposals that could include one or more
contractors. Determining the acceptability of various
implementations is the responsibility of the RFC Series Editor and
the IAOC, in consultation with the Policy Council.
2.3. Internal Reporting Structure
RFC Editor internal reporting structure is subject to change over
time depending, for example, on plans and the manner in which
contracts are awarded. The Series Editor may make such changes, but
only in coordination with the RFC Editor Oversight Committee, and,
when contracts are affected, the IAOC To preclude conflicts of
interest, the Series Editor must not be from an organization that
provides RFC Editor services. The IAB may, however, override this
provision in specific instances, but only after reviewing the matter
with the REOC and IAOC and informing the community.
2.4. RFC Editor Editorial Practices
The substantive technical content of individual documents is the
exclusive responsibility of the submitting stream.
3. RFC Editor Core Services
"Core services" are major and long-standing functions within the RFC
Editor, as distinct from RFC Editor services which may be minor,
developmental, or of limited duration. As of this date, the Core
Services are provided by the RFC Publisher and RFC Production Center.
3.1. RFC Publisher
The RFC Publisher is as described in RFC 5620, with the addition that
the Publisher will need to allocate resources to interact with the
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
Series Editor.
3.2. RFC Production Center
The RFC Production Center is as described in RFC 5620, with the
addition that the Production Center will need to allocate resources
to interact with the Series Editor.
3.3. Contractor Selection
RFC Publisher and RFC Production Center contractors are recommended
by the Series Editor and IAOC after an open RFP process, and approved
by the IAB. The RSE and IAOC will seek bidders who, among other
things, are able to provide a professional, quality, timely, and
cost- effective service against the established style and production
guidelines and adaptable to changes. Contract terms, including
length of contract, extensions and renewals, shall be as defined in
an RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available.
4. RFC Series Editor
4.1. Appointment, Reporting, and Duration
The RFC Series Editor appointee is an individual. The Series Editor
is designated by the IAB, and may be removed by the IAB, subject to
contractual requirements. The Series Editor reports to the REOC
(Section 5.1.3).
The initial term of office is three years with no restrictions on
renewals. Individual contract periods may be shorter due to
practical constraints (e.g,. applicant availability), as determined
by the IAB in cooperation with the IAOC. To maintain institutional
memory, terms of office for the RSE, ISE, and RFC Production Center
should be adjusted to minimize concurrent transitions.
4.2. Series Editor Responsibilities
The Series Editor acts as a single point of responsibility to the
community for the:
o overall, ongoing operation of the RFC Editor,
o refinement and development of RFC Editor processes and services,
o maintenance of quality and advancement of the Series,
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
o representation of the Series to the community, and
o representation of the Series to the rest of the world.
The Series Editor is responsible for ensuring that the Editor
policies are adhered to and developed in line with community
interests. When policies are insufficient, the Series Editor
initiates an RFC Editor policy review and development activity.
4.2.1. RFC Editor Operations
RFC Editor operations include ongoing operations and longer-term
review, planning and executive activities. RFC Editor ongoing
operations consist of:
o monitoring operations for compliance with policies and practices,
and providing direction as necessary,
o advising service provider management when existing policies appear
to be insufficient,
o handling complaints, exceptions, and unexpected events such as
escalation procedures, and
o organizing and leading meetings, including RFC Editor internet
meetings, as well as coordination meetings (including, e.g.,
telechats) with the streams (production-side customers).
Longer-term planning and executive activities include:
o reviewing staff and contractor performance (including formal
reviews) and providing feedback, including participatin in IAB-
initiated reviews of the RFC Editor,
o leading development of statistics and other performance measures,
o reviewing contracts for update or renewal, preparing RFPs, and
o reviewing bids and making recommendations.
4.2.2. Internal Processes and Services Development
Internal process and services development looks for opportunities to:
o improve RFC Editor services to improve quality, reduce costs, or
improve service to customers, and
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
o new and modified services to output-side customers, e.g, improved
RFC access tools.
4.2.3. Series Quality Maintenance and Advancement
Series maintenance and advancement is comprised of:
o ensuring and improving constancy of output,
o improving the (editorial) quality of produced text,
o innovations to improve efficiency, coordination, and transparency,
including process experiments,
o ensuring availability of the Series, including refinement of the
community model of universal RFC access, and that the RFC Series
is accessible via conventional means, such as electronic card
catalogs, and ISSN numbers, which must be kept current,
o improving access tools, including search tools, and.
o consideration of support of formats for new access methods.
4.2.4. Represent the Series to the Community
The RSE must:
o provide all necessary points of contact and services to support
policy inputs and questions from the community, including
production-side and end-user customers,
o take part in (or delegate attendance at) formal meetings,
telechats, and other communications among entities (e.g., IESG and
IAB), as well as general meetings such as the IETF, or retreats,
as required,
o provide consistent communication of the status and plans of the
Editor,
o liaise and work with the IAB so that the IAB may be confident
there has been sufficient community review before significant
policies or policy changes are adopted, and
o engage all team members and the community with a spirit of common
purpose, accomplishment, and teamwork.
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
4.2.5. Represent the Series to the Rest of the World.
The Series Editor is the point of contact and presentation for those
from outside the community. Increasing the stature of the Series
reinforces other community initiatives. The Series Editor should:
o be available to entities that seek representation of the series,
including the press, and
o be open to support low-cost high-impact opportunities to promote
the series.
4.3. General Responsibilities
The Series Editor is responsible for maintaining series continuity
and quality, providing training to authors, and cooperating with the
IAOC.
4.3.1. Continuity
The RFC Editor has sustained operations for more than forty years.
4.3.1.1. Series Continuity
Series continuity is the maintenance and development of the editorial
character of the Series (e.g., look and feel, usage) in a way that
preserves series constancy. That is, changes must be made in a
deliberate, evolutionary way that respects long-standing editorial
practices. Changes must be well-motivated. Changes will be made
with input from editorial staff, and subject to community review.
The RFC Series Style Manual is the primary vehicle for maintaining,
and making changes to, editorial continuity. The Series Editor is
responsible for preparing and maintaining the RFC Style Manual to
describe clearly the grammar, style, usage, typography, punctuation,
and spelling standards that will guide the drafting and editing of
RFCs, so that all publications will appear in clear, concise
technical prose. The primary audiences for the Style Manual are
authors, editors, the stream managers, and the RFC Production Center.
4.3.1.2. Operational Continuity
Operational continuity means consistent, uninterrupted RFC
production. The RFC Series Procedures Manual is the primary document
for maintaining operational continuity.
If editorial services are disrupted, the RFC Series Editor, with the
support of the IAOC, is responsible for promptly acquiring and
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
directing new resources to maintain RFC output. Service from new
teams of editors or additional contractors may be acquired. The RSE
must keep the RFC Editor Procedures Manual and Style Manual up to
date to provide sufficient direction to alternate editors. The
Series Editor must maintain sound understanding of those processes in
order to direct new resources when required. Maintaining editorial
output during a disruption is referred to as "exceptional
continuity".
4.3.2. Quality
For the RFC Editor quality is comprised of:
o editorial quality - the quality of output text,
o production service quality - as provided to the streams, and
o RFC Archive accessibility and access services quality.
4.3.2.1. Policies and Practices
RFC Editor functions follow documented policies and practices that
have been reviewed by the community. Whenever procedural
documentation is insufficient (e.g., fails to address an issue), the
Series Editor is responsible for directing the relevant service
provider (e.g., Production Center) and maintaining ongoing operations
and updating policies and procedures in cooperation with the RFC
Editor Oversight Committee and the community.
The two primary documents that define the practices and procedures of
the RFC Editor are the RFC Style Manual, and the RFC Procedures
Manual.
4.3.2.2. Editorial Quality
Editorial quality must meet the requirements of three groups:
o authoritative community entities (e.g., the IETF Trust regarding
IP notices),
o authors and streams ("producer-side service quality"), and
o re-distributors and end users of RFCs ("consumption-side quality")
During 2010, it was determined that the community has only limted
knowledge of the demographics of RFC end-users, how they use RFCs, or
end-user requirements. To make informed decisions about quality, the
RSE should seek to learn more about how RFC end-users may cluster,
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
and how each uses RFCs.
4.3.2.3. Production Quality
In principle, the RFC Editor provides only one level of editing and
support, which does not vary according to the needs of particular
drafts. The RSE will explore whether an additional level of service
is required. Available on authors' request, this service would give
special attention, and possibly early review, to drafts thought to be
particularly complex, extensive, or to have an especially critical
audience.
4.3.2.4. Access Quality
Access quality concerns the suitability, completeness, accuracy, and
stability of tools for accessing the RFC Series.
4.3.3. Author Guidance and Training
The RFC Production Center will continue to support tutorials for the
community.
4.3.4. Coordination with the IAOC
The Series Editor must support the IAOC on request regarding legal
and financial matters.
4.4. Series Editor Professional Qualifications
The RFC Series Editor provides general and editorial leadership of
the RFC Editor, and meets the following qualifications:
1. experience as a executive with expertise in technical writing,
technical publications, and technical series development,
2. experience with complex organizations with extensive group
processes. The RSE must be skilled at participating in group
processes, and getting value from them. The RSE must understand
and appreciate delegation,
3. good understanding of the English language and technical
terminology related to the Internet,
4. excellent skill at communication and, especially, listening,
5. independent worker,
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
6. prior experience with and understanding of the IETF, RFC
processes, and the community, is desirable, and
7. experience as an RFC author is desirable.
5. Committees
5.1. RFC Editor Oversight Committee (REOC)
5.1.1. Duties
The REOC has the following duties:
o support the RSE in the process of community consultation,
o support the RSE in developing new or modified policy proposals on
an "advise and consent" model,
o support the RSE in presenting general policy proposals for
approval by the IAB,
o receive and review regular progress reports from the RSE,
o support the RSE in regular reporting to the community,
o promptly bring any serious issues with the Series to the IAB's
attention,
o when required, participate with the IASA in the RFP and
contracting process for components of the RFC Editor function, and
o when required, act as the hiring committee for the RSE, in
cooperation with the iAB and in liaison with IASA.
5.1.2. Membership
The REOC will be a small committee, defined by the IAB. Terms will
be two years renewable (with several one year terms initially, to
stagger the renewals). The membership will have the following skills
or backgrounds (members may satisfy more than one of these criteria):
o substantive knowledge of technical writing and publications,
o substantial experience at using RFC Editor services as a author or
editor,
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
o none may be from current streams approving bodies,
o there may be a non-voting IASA liaison member.
The REOC will elect its chair among the regular (non-liaison)
members.
5.1.3. The Series Editor and the REOC
The RSE will report to the regular (non-liaison) membership of the
REOC.
5.2. RFC Series Advisory Group
The RSE may, but is not required to, appoint an RFC Series Advisory
Group (RSAG) at his discretion, with no powers other than to advise
the RSE. The Series Editor will publish the names of members of the
Advisory Group.
6. Resolution of Disagreements
6.1. Disagreements between RFC Editor Components and Model
Participants
If during the execution of their activities, a disagreement arises
over an implementation decision made by one of the participants in
the model, any relevant party should first request a review and
reconsideration of the decision with the other party or parties, and
inform the RSE of such a request. All parties should work informally
and in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion. If the
parties resolve the issue, they should inform the RSE of the
resolution and specify any procedural or other changes that it may
entail.
If one party still disagrees after the reconsideration, that party
should ask the Series Editor to undertake a formal review. The RSE
must inform and engage the REOC in their oversight capacity, and may
call for a review committee including members of the REOC. The RSE
and REOC should seek to reach rough consensus on the resolution of
the matter.
If there is a technical or procedural matter that concerns the IAB,
or an administrative, legal, or financial issue that concerns the
IAOC, the RSE may request the guidance or participation of either or
both of those bodies. If the disagreement directly involves the RSE,
the RSE may ask the IAB to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in
the discussions. The REOC should be used in this capacity unless
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
there is good reason it should not (such as if the REOC itself is a
party to the disagreement).
If a timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation,
and mutual agreement, the Series Editor is expected to make whatever
decisions are needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC
Editor function. Such decisions must follow proper community-
oriented practices as described in Section 4.
RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the RFC
Editor processes and evaluation of whether current policies are being
implemented appropriately or need adjustment. As described in
Section 4, final decisions about the technical content of individual
documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream approvers
for those documents.
If a disagreement or decision has immediate or anticipated future
contractual consequences, the Series Editor must identify the issue
to the IAOC and, if the REOC has provided related advice, the RSE
should forward that to the IAOC.
6.2. Series Editor Review of Inter-Stream Conflicts
The streams are encouraged to resolve conflicts on their own. Any
stream approver may request a Series Editor review of an inter-stream
conflict at any time. Review by the Series Editor must include
assembling a review committee of four disinterested REOC members plus
the RSE, who will chair the committee.
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor
structure, and it places the day-to-day coordination of registry
value assignments with the RFC Production Center under the direction
of the RSE. The IAOC will continue to facilitate the relationship
between the RFC Editor 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 RFC 4844 apply. The
processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains
the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
prevent these published documents, and the index itself, from being
changed by external parties. The archive of RFC documents, any
source documents needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any
associated original documents (such as lists of errata, tools, and,
for some early items, non- machine-readable originals) need to be
secured against failure of the storage medium and other similar
disasters.
The RSE and IAOC should take these security considerations into
account during the implementation of this RFC Editor model.
9. Acknowledgments
[ed., TBD]
10. Normative References
[RFC4844] Daigle, L. and IAB, "", 4844 RFC, July 2007.
[RFC5620] Kolkman, O. and IAB, "RFC Series Editor Model (Version
1)", RFC 5620, August 2009.
Appendix A. RFC End-User Groupings
Work to date suggests that the end-user community may group into the
following:
o RFC implementers. This group intersects with working group
participants. The latter is an unknown proportion of the former,
o network operators (of RFC implementations),
o academics, researchers and students,
o marketers, and requirements writers,
o policy-makers, and
o re-distributors (e.g., mirror site operators) and publishers.
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010
Author's Address
Glenn Kowack (editor)
Riveronce
Email: glenn@riveronce.com
Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 16]