Skip to main content

Concluded Program RFC Editor Future Development (rfcefdp)

Note: The data for concluded Programs is occasionally incorrect.

Program Name RFC Editor Future Development
Acronym rfcefdp
State Concluded
Document dependencies
Additional resources GitHub Repository
Additional Web Page
Zulip stream
Personnel Lead Wes Hardaker
Chairs Brian Rosen, Eliot Lear
Mailing list Address
To subscribe

Final Group description


This program is intended to foster discussion and consensus on potential changes to the RFC Editor model. Discussion of changes to how the RFC Editor function is managed, staffed, and overseen are all within scope. After the group has come to rough consensus, it will document its output in one or more RFCs. Draft Program Description

During the period between IETF 105 and IETF 106, the RFC Series Editor convened a number of meetings to assess how best to conduct a community discussion and consensus process for the evolution of the RFC Editor model. During that process, an IAB program was identified as the most appropriate vehicle for the discussion, provided it allowed for open participation and used a rough consensus model for decision making. The working methods below are intended to capture the output of those meetings.

This program has no predetermined constraints on the decisions of the group. Updates to or retention of the oversight model, management, and the roles involved in the RFC Editor function are all within scope. Because the focus of the discussions leading up to the creation of the program were on the RFC Series Editor role, there is a presumption that the group’s discussion will start with that. Working Methods

The program is modeled on an IETF working group and uses its mailing list to develop and validate consensus among the participants. Participants must adhere to the IETF participation policies set out in the Note Well [Note Well]. Decisions are made using rough consensus as determined by the chairs.

One or more design teams may be set up during the course of the program, but their output must be considered and validated according to the usual consensus process. Design team output has no special standing.

Participants may appeal consensus calls to the IAB[RFC7282].

In addition to a chair, the program has two IAB program leads. Those leads will act as liaisons between the chair and the IAB for logistical and other formal matters. All members of the IAB, including the liaisons, may also participate in the group as ordinary members.