rfc9280.original   rfc9280.txt 
Network Working Group P. Saint-Andre, Ed. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
Internet-Draft 16 March 2022 Request for Comments: 9280 June 2022
Obsoletes: 8728 (if approved) Obsoletes: 8728
Updates: 7841, 8729, 8730 (if approved) Updates: 7841, 8729, 8730
Intended status: Informational Category: Informational
Expires: 17 September 2022 ISSN: 2070-1721
RFC Editor Model (Version 3) RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-13
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. The Model This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. The model
defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. First, defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. First,
policy definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series policy definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series
Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC
Series Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second, Series Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second,
policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC
Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF
Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC). In addition, Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC). In addition,
various responsibilities of the "RFC Editor Function" are now various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are now performed
performed alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting
Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document establishes the
establishes the Editorial Stream for publication of future policy Editorial Stream for publication of future policy definition
definition documents produced through the processes defined herein. documents produced through the processes defined herein.
This document obsoletes RFC 8728. This document updates RFC 7841, This document obsoletes RFC 8728. This document updates RFCs 7841,
RFC 8729, and RFC 8730. 8729, and 8730.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for informational purposes.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for
publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 17 September 2022. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9280.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document.
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction
2. Overview of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Overview of the Model
3. Policy Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Policy Definition
3.1. Structure and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Structure and Roles
3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
3.2. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. Process
3.2.1. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.1. Intent
3.2.2. Workflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2.2. Workflow
3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment
3.2.4. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.4. Appeals
3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy
3.2.6. RFC Boilerplates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2.6. RFC Boilerplates
4. Policy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. Policy Implementation
4.1. Roles and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1. Roles and Processes
4.2. Working Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2. Working Practices
4.3. RPC Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.3. RPC Responsibilities
4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the 4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC
RPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.5. Point of Contact
4.5. Point of Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6. Administrative Implementation
4.6. Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6.1. Vendor Selection for the RPC
4.6.1. Vendor Selection for the RFC Production Center . . . 20 4.6.2. Budget
4.6.2. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5. RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)
5. RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.1. RSCE Selection
5.1. RSCE Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.2. RSCE Performance Evaluation
5.2. RSCE Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.3. Temporary RSCE Appointment
5.3. Temporary RSCE Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.4. Conflict of Interest
5.4. Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. Editorial Stream
6. Editorial Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.1. Procedures Request of the IETF Trust
6.1. Procedures Request of the IETF Trust . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.2. Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream
6.2. Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream . . . 24 6.3. Editorial Stream Boilerplate
6.3. Editorial Stream Boilerplate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7. Historical Properties of the RFC Series
7.1. Availability
7. Historical Properties of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.2. Accessibility
7.1. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.3. Language
7.2. Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.4. Diversity
7.3. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.5. Quality
7.4. Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.6. Stability
7.5. Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.7. Longevity
7.6. Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8. Updates to This Document
7.7. Longevity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model
8. Updates to This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9.1. RFC Editor Function
9. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . 26 9.2. RFC Series Editor
9.1. RFC Editor Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9.3. RFC Publisher
9.2. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9.4. IAB
9.3. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.5. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
9.4. IAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
9.5. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.7. Editorial Stream
9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10. Security Considerations
9.7. Editorial Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11. IANA Considerations
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12. References
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12.1. Normative References
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12.2. Informative References
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 IAB Members at the Time of Approval
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Author's Address
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series
dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, including dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, including
general contributions from the Internet research and engineering general contributions from the Internet research and engineering
community as well as standards documents. RFCs are available free of community as well as standards documents. RFCs are available free of
charge to anyone via the Internet. As described in [RFC8700], RFCs charge to anyone via the Internet. As described in [RFC8700], RFCs
have been published continually since 1969. have been published continually since 1969.
RFCs are generated and approved by multiple document streams. RFCs are generated and approved by multiple document streams.
Whereas the stream approving body [RFC8729] for each stream is Whereas the stream approving body [RFC8729] for each stream is
responsible for the content of that stream, the RFC Editor Function responsible for the content of that stream, the RFC Editor function
is responsible for the production and distribution of all RFCs. The is responsible for the production and distribution of all RFCs. The
four existing streams are described in [RFC8729]. This document adds four existing streams are described in [RFC8729]. This document adds
a fifth stream, the Editorial Stream, for publication of policies a fifth stream, the Editorial Stream, for publication of policies
governing the RFC Series as a whole. governing the RFC Series as a whole.
The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function
is described in [RFC8729] and is updated by this document, which is described in [RFC8729] and is updated by this document, which
defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. Under this version, defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. Under this version,
various responsibilities of the RFC Editor Function are performed various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are performed
alone or in combination by the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), RFC alone or in combination by the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), RFC
Series Advisory Board (RSAB), RFC Production Center (RPC), RFC Series Series Advisory Board (RSAB), RFC Production Center (RPC), RFC Series
Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF Administration Limited Liability Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF Administration Limited Liability
Company (IETF LLC) [RFC8711], which collectively comprise the RFC Company (IETF LLC) [RFC8711], which collectively comprise the RFC
Editor Function. The intent is to ensure sustainable maintenance and Editor function. The intent is to ensure sustainable maintenance and
support of the RFC Series based on the principles of expert support of the RFC Series based on the principles of expert
implementation, clear management and direction, and appropriate implementation, clear management and direction, and appropriate
community input [RFC8729]. community input [RFC8729].
This document obsoletes [RFC8728] by defining version 3 of the RFC This document obsoletes [RFC8728] by defining version 3 of the RFC
Editor Model. This document updates [RFC7841] by defining Editor Model. This document updates [RFC7841] by defining
boilerplate text for the Editorial Stream. This document updates boilerplate text for the Editorial Stream. This document updates
[RFC8729] by replacing the RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and [RFC8729] by replacing the RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and
RSCE. This document updates [RFC8730] by removing the dependency on RSCE. This document updates [RFC8730] by removing the dependency on
certain policies specified by the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE). certain policies specified by the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE).
More detailed information about changes from version 2 of the Model More detailed information about changes from version 2 of the RFC
can be found under Section 9. Editor Model can be found in Section 9.
2. Overview of the Model 2. Overview of the Model
This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
two high-level tasks: two high-level tasks:
1. Policy definition governing the Series as a whole. This is the 1. Policy definition governing the RFC Series as a whole. This is
joint responsibility of two entities. First, the RFC Series the joint responsibility of two entities. First, the RFC Series
Working Group (RSWG) is an open working group independent of the Working Group (RSWG) is an open working group independent of the
IETF that generates policy proposals. Second, the RFC Series IETF that generates policy proposals. Second, the RFC Series
Approval Board (RSAB) is an appointed body that approves such Approval Board (RSAB) is an appointed body that approves such
proposals for publication in the Editorial Stream. The RSAB proposals for publication in the Editorial Stream. The RSAB
includes representatives of the streams [RFC8729] as well as an includes representatives of the streams [RFC8729] as well as an
expert in technical publishing, the RFC Series Consulting Editor expert in technical publishing, the RFC Series Consulting Editor
(RSCE). (RSCE).
2. Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the 2. Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the
streams that form the Series. This is primarily the streams that form the RFC Series. This is primarily the
responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as
contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited
Liability Company (IETF LLC) [RFC8711]. Liability Company (IETF LLC) [RFC8711].
As described more fully in the remainder of this document, the core As described more fully in the remainder of this document, the core
activities and responsibilities are as follows: activities and responsibilities are as follows:
* The RSWG proposes policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole, * The RSWG proposes policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole,
with input from the community, the RSAB, and the RSCE. with input from the community, the RSAB, and the RSCE.
skipping to change at page 5, line 40 skipping to change at line 222
The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail. The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.
3. Policy Definition 3. Policy Definition
Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through the Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through the
following high-level process: following high-level process:
1. Proposals must be submitted to, adopted by, and discussed within 1. Proposals must be submitted to, adopted by, and discussed within
the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG). the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG).
2. Proposals must pass a last call for comments in the working group 2. Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working group
and a community call for comments (see Section 3.2.3). and a community call for comments (see Section 3.2.3).
3. Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board 3. Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board
(RSAB). (RSAB).
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but
are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication and are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication and
dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series. dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series.
3.1. Structure and Roles 3.1. Structure and Roles
skipping to change at page 6, line 17 skipping to change at line 244
3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) 3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
3.1.1.1. Purpose 3.1.1.1. Purpose
The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which
members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that
govern the RFC Series. govern the RFC Series.
3.1.1.2. Participation 3.1.1.2. Participation
All interested individuals are welcome to participate in the RSWG All interested individuals are welcome to participate in the RSWG;
(subject to anti-harassment policies as described under participants are subject to anti-harassment policies as described in
Section 3.2.5). This includes but is not limited to participants in Section 3.2.5. This includes but is not limited to participants in
the IETF and IRTF, members of the IAB and IESG, developers of the IETF and IRTF, members of the IAB and IESG, developers of
software or hardware systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and software or hardware systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and
Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs, Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and
individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, scholarly Internet-Drafts, individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions,
researchers, and representatives of standards development scholarly researchers, and representatives of standards development
organizations other than the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC Board organizations other than the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC Board
members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFC members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFC
Production Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited to Production Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited to
participate as community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted participate as community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted
by any relevant IETF LLC policies. Members of the RSAB are also by any relevant IETF LLC policies. Members of the RSAB are also
expected to participate actively. expected to participate actively.
3.1.1.3. Chairs 3.1.1.3. Chairs
The RSWG shall have two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the 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 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 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; 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 thereafter, chairs shall serve for a term of two (2) years, with no
term limits on renewal. The IESG and IAB shall determine their own term limits on renewal. The IESG and IAB shall determine their own
processes for making these appointments, making sure to take account processes for making these appointments, making sure to take account
of any potential conflicts of interest. Community members who have of any potential conflicts of interest. Community members who have
concerns about the performance of an RSWG chair should direct their concerns about the performance of an RSWG Chair should direct their
feedback to the appropriate appointing body via mechanisms such feedback to the appropriate appointing body via mechanisms such
bodies shall specify at the time that the RSWG is formed. The IESG bodies shall specify at the time that the RSWG is formed. The IESG
and IAB shall have the power to remove their appointed chairs at and IAB shall have the power to remove their appointed chairs at
their discretion at any time, and to name a replacement who shall their discretion at any time and to name a replacement who shall
serve the remainder of the original chair's term. serve the remainder of the original chair's term.
It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus
within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision
making, for instance regarding acceptance of new proposals and making, for instance, regarding acceptance of new proposals and
advancement of proposals to the RSAB. advancement of proposals to the RSAB.
3.1.1.4. Mode of Operation 3.1.1.4. Mode of Operation
The intent is that the RSWG shall operate in a way similar to that of The intent is that the RSWG shall operate in a way similar to that of
working groups in the IETF. Therefore, all RSWG meetings and working groups in the IETF. Therefore, all RSWG meetings and
discussion venues shall be open to all interested individuals, and discussion venues shall be open to all interested individuals, and
all RSWG contributions shall be subject to intellectual property all RSWG contributions shall be subject to intellectual property
policies, which must be consistent with those of the IETF as policies, which must be consistent with those of the IETF as
specified in [BCP78] and [BCP79]. specified in [BCP78] and [BCP79].
skipping to change at page 8, line 4 skipping to change at line 321
should be considered appropriate. should be considered appropriate.
The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support
RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies. RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies.
The IAB is requested to convene the RSWG when it is first formed in The IAB is requested to convene the RSWG when it is first formed in
order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC
Editor Model. Editor Model.
3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) 3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
3.1.2.1. Purpose 3.1.2.1. Purpose
The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which includes representatives The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which includes representatives
of all of the streams, shall act as the approving body for proposals of all of the streams, shall act as the approving body for proposals
generated within the RSWG, thus providing an appropriate set of generated within the RSWG, thus providing an appropriate set of
"checks and balances" on the output of the RSWG. The only policy- checks and balances on the output of the RSWG. The only policy-
making role of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by making role of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by
the RSWG; it shall have no independent authority to formulate policy the RSWG; it shall have no independent authority to formulate policy
on its own. It is expected that the RSAB will respect the rough on its own. It is expected that the RSAB will respect the rough
consensus of the RSWG wherever possible, without ceding its consensus of the RSWG wherever possible, without ceding its
responsibility to review RSWG proposals as further described under responsibility to review RSWG proposals, as further described in
Section 3.2.2. Section 3.2.2.
3.1.2.2. Members 3.1.2.2. Members
The RSAB consists primarily of the following voting members: The RSAB consists primarily of the following voting members:
* As the stream representative for the IETF stream, an IESG member * A stream representative for the IETF Stream: either an IESG member
or other person appointed by the IESG or someone appointed by the IESG
* As the stream representative for the IAB stream, an IAB member or * A stream representative for the IAB Stream: either an IAB member
other person appointed by the IAB or someone appointed by the IAB
* As the stream representative for the IRTF stream, the IRTF chair * A stream representative for the IRTF Stream: either the IRTF Chair
or other person appointed by the IRTF Chair or someone appointed by the IRTF Chair
* As the stream representative for the Independent stream, the * A stream representative for the Independent Stream: either the
Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) [RFC8730] or other person Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) [RFC8730] or someone
appointed by the ISE appointed by the ISE
* The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) * The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)
If and when a new stream is created, the document that creates the If and when a new stream is created, the document that creates the
stream shall specify if a voting member representing that stream stream shall specify if a voting member representing that stream
shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules and processes shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules and processes
related to that representative (e.g., whether the representative is a related to that representative (e.g., whether the representative is a
member of the body responsible for the stream or an appointed member of the body responsible for the stream or an appointed
delegate thereof). delegate thereof).
The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a voting member of the The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a voting member of the
RSAB but does not act as a representative of the Editorial Stream. RSAB but does not act as a representative of the Editorial Stream.
To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
include the following non-voting, ex-officio members: include the following non-voting, ex officio members:
* The IETF Executive Director or their delegate; the rationale is * The IETF Executive Director or their delegate (the rationale is
that the IETF LLC is accountable for implementation of policies that the IETF LLC is accountable for implementation of policies
governing the RFC Series governing the RFC Series)
* A representative of the RPC, named by the RPC; the rationale is * A representative of the RPC, named by the RPC (the rationale is
that the RPC is responsible for implementation of policies that the RPC is responsible for implementation of policies
governing the RFC Series governing the RFC Series)
In addition to the foregoing, the RSAB may at its discretion include In addition, the RSAB may include other non-voting members at its
other non-voting members, whether ex-officio members or liaisons from discretion; these non-voting members may be ex officio members or
groups or organizations with which the RSAB deems it necessary to liaisons from groups or organizations with which the RSAB deems it
formally collaborate or coordinate. necessary to formally collaborate or coordinate.
3.1.2.3. Appointment and Removal of Voting Members 3.1.2.3. Appointment and Removal of Voting Members
The appointing bodies, i.e., the stream approving bodies (IESG, IAB, The appointing bodies (i.e., IESG, IAB, IRTF Chair, and ISE) shall
IRTF chair, and ISE), shall determine their own processes for determine their own processes for appointing RSAB members (note that
appointing RSAB members (note that processes related to the RSCE are processes related to the RSCE are described in Section 5). Each
described under Section 5). Each appointing body shall have the appointing body shall have the power to remove its appointed RSAB
power to remove its appointed RSAB member at its discretion at any member at its discretion at any time. Appointing bodies should
time. Appointing bodies should ensure that voting members are seated ensure that voting members are seated at all times and should fill
at all times and should fill any vacancies with all due speed, if any vacancies with all due speed, if necessary on a temporary basis.
necessary on a temporary basis.
In the case that the IRTF chair or ISE is incapacitated or otherwise In the case that the IRTF Chair or ISE is incapacitated or otherwise
unable to appoint another person to serve as a delegate, the IAB (as unable to appoint another person to serve as a delegate, the IAB (as
the appointing body for the IRTF chair and ISE) shall act as the the appointing body for the IRTF Chair and ISE) shall act as the
temporary appointing body for those streams and shall appoint a temporary appointing body for those streams and shall appoint a
temporary member of the RSAB until the IAB has appointed an IRTF temporary member of the RSAB until the IAB has appointed an IRTF
chair or ISE, who can then act as an RSAB member or appoint a Chair or ISE, who can then act as an RSAB member or appoint a
delegate through normal processes. delegate through normal processes.
3.1.2.4. Vacancies 3.1.2.4. Vacancies
In the case of vacancies by voting members, the RSAB shall operate as In the case of vacancies by voting members, the RSAB shall operate as
follows: follows:
* Activities related to implementation of policies already in force * Activities related to implementation of policies already in force
shall continue as normal. shall continue as normal.
* Voting on approval of policy documents produced by the RSWG shall * Voting on approval of policy documents produced by the RSWG shall
be delayed until the vacancy or vacancies have been filled, up to be delayed until the vacancy or vacancies have been filled, up to
a maximum of 3 months. If during this 3-month period a further a maximum of three (3) months. If a further vacancy arises during
vacancy arises, the delay should be extended by up to another 3 this three-month period, the delay should be extended by up to
months. After the delay period expires, the RSAB should continue another three months. After the delay period expires, the RSAB
to process documents as described below. Note: this method of should continue to process documents as described below. Note
handling vacancies does not apply to a vacancy of the RSCE role, that this method of handling vacancies does not apply to a vacancy
only of the stream representatives enumerated above. of the RSCE role; it only applies to vacancies of the stream
representatives enumerated in Section 3.1.2.2.
3.1.2.5. Chair 3.1.2.5. Chair
The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using a The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using a
method of its choosing. If the chair position is vacated during the method of its choosing. If the chair position is vacated during the
chair's term, the RSAB chooses a new chair from among its members. chair's term, the RSAB chooses a new chair from among its members.
3.1.2.6. Mode of Operation 3.1.2.6. Mode of Operation
The RSAB is expected to operate via an email discussion list, in- The RSAB is expected to operate via an email discussion list, in-
person meetings, teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling person meetings, teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling
it deems necessary. it deems necessary.
The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including
minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions. The primary minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions. The primary
email discussion list used by the RSAB shall be publicly archived, email discussion list used by the RSAB shall be publicly archived,
although topics that require confidentiality (e.g., personnel although topics that require confidentiality (e.g., personnel
matters) may be omitted from such archives or discussed in private. matters) may be omitted from such archives or discussed in private.
Similarly, meeting minutes may exclude detailed information about Similarly, meeting minutes may exclude detailed information about
topics discussed under executive session, but should note that such topics discussed under executive session but should note that such
topics were discussed. topics were discussed.
The RSAB shall announce plans and agendas for their meetings on the 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 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 such meetings. The meetings shall be open for public attendance, and
the RSAB may consider allowing open participation. If the RSAB needs the RSAB may consider allowing open participation. If the RSAB needs
to discuss a confidential matter in executive session, that part of 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 the meeting shall be private to the RSAB, but it must be noted on the
agenda, and must be documented in the minutes with as much detail as agenda and documented in the minutes with as much detail as
confidentiality requirements permit. confidentiality requirements permit.
The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling and staff to The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling and staff to
support RSAB communication, decision processes, and policies. support RSAB communication, decision processes, and policies.
The IAB is requested to convene the RSAB when it is first formed in The IAB is requested to convene the RSAB when it is first formed in
order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC
Editor Model. Editor Model.
3.2. Process 3.2. Process
This section specifies the RFC Series Policy Definition Process,
which shall be followed in producing all Editorial Stream RFCs.
3.2.1. Intent 3.2.1. Intent
The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to
the RFC Series are defined and evolved. The general expectation is the RFC Series are defined and evolved. The general expectation is
that all interested parties will participate in the RSWG, and that that all interested parties will participate in the RSWG and that
only under extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold only under extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold
"CONCERN" positions (as described under Section 3.2.2). CONCERN positions (as described in Section 3.2.2).
Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWG Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWG
participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work
together in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to together in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to
achieve rough consensus (see [RFC2418]). In particular, RSWG members achieve rough consensus (see [RFC2418]). In particular, RSWG members
are encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously, and RSAB members are are encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously, and RSAB members are
encouraged to clearly express their concerns early in the process and encouraged to clearly express their concerns early in the process and
to be responsive to the community. All parties are encouraged to to be responsive to the community. All parties are encouraged to
respect the value of each stream and the long-term health and respect the value of each stream and the long-term health and
viability of the RFC Series. viability of the RFC Series.
skipping to change at page 11, line 33 skipping to change at line 494
3.2.2. Workflow 3.2.2. Workflow
The following process shall be used to formulate or modify policies The following process shall be used to formulate or modify policies
related to the RFC Series: related to the RFC Series:
1. An individual or set of individuals generates a proposal in the 1. An individual or set of individuals generates a proposal in the
form of an Internet-Draft (which must be submitted in full form of an Internet-Draft (which must be submitted in full
conformance with the provisions of [BCP78] and [BCP79]) and asks conformance with the provisions of [BCP78] and [BCP79]) and asks
the RSWG to adopt the proposal as a working group item. the RSWG to adopt the proposal as a working group item.
2. The RSWG may adopt the proposal as a draft proposal of the RSWG, 2. The RSWG may adopt the proposal as a working group item if the
if the chairs determine (by following working group procedures chairs determine (by following working group procedures for
for rough consensus) that there is sufficient interest in the rough consensus) that there is sufficient interest in the
proposal; this is similar to the way a working group of the IETF proposal; this is similar to the way a working group of the IETF
would operate (see [RFC2418]). would operate (see [RFC2418]).
3. The RSWG shall then further discuss and develop the proposal. 3. The RSWG shall then further discuss and develop the proposal.
All participants, but especially RSAB members, should pay All participants, but especially RSAB members, should pay
special attention to any aspects of the proposal that have the special attention to any aspects of the proposal that have the
potential to significantly modify policies of long standing or potential to significantly modify long-standing policies or
historical characteristics of the Series as described under historical characteristics of the RFC Series as described in
Section 7. Members of the RSAB are expected to participate as Section 7. Members of the RSAB are expected to participate as
individuals in all discussions relating to RSWG proposals. This individuals in all discussions relating to RSWG proposals. This
should help to ensure that they are fully aware of proposals should help to ensure that they are fully aware of proposals
early in the policy definition process. It should also help to early in the RFC Series Policy Definition Process. It should
ensure that RSAB members will raise any issues or concerns also help to ensure that RSAB members will raise any issues or
during the development of the proposal, and not wait until the concerns during the development of the proposal and not wait
RSAB review period. The RSWG chairs are also expected to until the RSAB review period. The RSWG Chairs are also expected
participate as individuals. to participate as individuals.
4. At some point, if the RSWG chairs believe there may be rough 4. At some point, if the RSWG Chairs believe there may be rough
consensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a last consensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a Last
call for comments within the working group. Call for comments within the working group.
5. After a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG chairs will 5. After a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG Chairs will
determine whether rough consensus for the proposal exists determine whether rough consensus for the proposal exists
(taking their own feedback as individuals into account along (taking their own feedback as individuals into account along
with feedback from other participants). If comments have been with feedback from other participants). If comments have been
received and substantial changes have been made, additional last received and substantial changes have been made, additional Last
calls may be necessary. Once the chairs determine that Calls may be necessary. Once the chairs determine that
consensus has been reached, they shall announce their consensus has been reached, they shall announce their
determination on the RSWG discussion list and forward the determination on the RSWG email discussion list and forward the
document to the RSAB. document to the RSAB.
6. Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue 6. Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue
a community call for comments as further described under a community call for comments as further described in
Section 3.2.3. If substantial comments are received in response Section 3.2.3. If substantial comments are received in response
to the community call for comments, the RSAB may return the to the community call for comments, the RSAB may return the
draft to the RSWG to consider those comments and make revisions proposal to the RSWG to consider those comments and make
to address the feedback received. In parallel with the revisions to address the feedback received. In parallel with
community call for comments, the RSAB itself shall also consider the community call for comments, the RSAB itself shall also
the proposal. consider the proposal.
7. If the scope of the revisions made in the previous step is 7. If the scope of the revisions made in the previous step is
substantial, an additional community call for comments should be substantial, an additional community call for comments should be
issued by the RSAB, and the feedback received should be issued by the RSAB, and the feedback received should be
considered by the RSWG. considered by the RSWG.
8. Once the RSWG chairs confirm that concerns received during the 8. Once the RSWG Chairs confirm that concerns received during the
community call(s) for comments have been addressed, they shall community call(s) for comments have been addressed, they shall
inform the RSAB that the document is ready for balloting by the inform the RSAB that the document is ready for balloting by the
RSAB. RSAB.
9. Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will then poll its 9. Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will poll its
members for their positions on the proposal. Positions may be members for their positions on the proposal. Positions may be
as follows: as follows:
* "YES": the proposal should be approved * YES: the proposal should be approved
* "CONCERN": the proposal raises substantial concerns that must * CONCERN: the proposal raises substantial concerns that must
be addressed be addressed
* "RECUSE": the person holding the position has a conflict of * RECUSE: the person holding the position has a conflict of
interest interest
Any RSAB member holding a "CONCERN" position must explain their Any RSAB member holding a CONCERN position must explain their
concern to the community in detail. Nevertheless, the RSWG concern to the community in detail. Nevertheless, the RSWG
might not be able to come to consensus on modifications that might not be able to come to consensus on modifications that
will address the RSAB member's concern. will address the RSAB member's concern.
There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a position There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a position
of CONCERN: of CONCERN:
* The RSAB member believes that the proposal represents a * The RSAB member believes that the proposal represents a
serious problem for one or more of the individual streams. serious problem for one or more of the individual streams.
* The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause * The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause
serious harm to the overall Series, including harm to the serious harm to the overall RFC Series, including harm to the
long-term health and viability of the Series. long-term health and viability of the Series.
* The RSAB member believes, based on the results of the * The RSAB member believes, based on the results of the
community call(s) for comments Section 3.2.3, that rough community call(s) for comments (Section 3.2.3), that rough
consensus to advance the proposal is lacking. consensus to advance the proposal is lacking.
Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the
discussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues discussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues
during those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come during those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come
as a surprise to the RSWG. Notwithstanding, late CONCERN as a surprise to the RSWG. Notwithstanding, late CONCERN
positions are always possible if issues are identified during positions are always possible if issues are identified during
RSAB review or the community call(s) for comments. RSAB review or the community call(s) for comments.
10. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG. 10. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
skipping to change at page 14, line 15 skipping to change at line 614
15. Policies may take effect immediately upon approval by the RSAB 15. Policies may take effect immediately upon approval by the RSAB
and before publication of the relevant RFC, unless they are and before publication of the relevant RFC, unless they are
delayed while the IETF LLC resolves pending resource or contract delayed while the IETF LLC resolves pending resource or contract
issues. issues.
3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment 3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment
The RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community calls The RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community calls
for comments on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG. for comments on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG.
The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input. The RSAB seeks The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input. The RSAB seeks
such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the "rfc-interest" such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the
email list or to its successor or future equivalent. RSAB members rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org (mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org)
should also send a notice to the communities they directly represent email discussion list or to its successor or future equivalent. RSAB
(e.g., the IETF and IRTF). Notices are also to be made available and members should also send a notice to the communities they directly
archived on the RFC Editor website. In addition, other communication represent (e.g., the IETF and IRTF). Notices are also to be made
channels can be established for notices (e.g., via an RSS feed or by available and archived on the RFC Editor website. In addition, other
posting to social media venues). communication channels can be established for notices (e.g., via an
RSS feed or by posting to social media venues).
In cases where a proposal has the potential to significantly modify In cases where a proposal has the potential to significantly modify
policies of long standing or historical characteristics of the Series long-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFC
as described under Section 7, the RSAB should take extra care to Series as described in Section 7, the RSAB should take extra care to
reach out to a very wide range of communities that make use of RFCs reach out to a very wide range of communities that make use of RFCs
(as described under Section 3.1.1.2) since such communities might not (as described in Section 3.1.1.2) since such communities might not be
be actively engaged in the RSWG directly. The RSAB should work with actively engaged in the RSWG directly. The RSAB should work with the
the stream approving bodies and the IETF LLC to identify and stream approving bodies and the IETF LLC to identify and establish
establish contacts in such communities, assisted in particular by the contacts in such communities, assisted by the RSCE in particular.
RSCE.
The RSAB should maintain a public list of communities that are The RSAB should maintain a public list of communities that are
contacted during calls for comments. contacted during calls for comments.
A notice of a community call for comments contains the following: A notice of a community call for comments contains the following:
* A subject line beginning with 'Call for Comments:' * A subject line beginning with 'Call for Comments:'
* A clear, concise summary of the proposal * A clear, concise summary of the proposal
skipping to change at page 15, line 4 skipping to change at line 649
* A clear, concise summary of the proposal * A clear, concise summary of the proposal
* A URL pointing to the Internet-Draft that defines the proposal * A URL pointing to the Internet-Draft that defines the proposal
* Any explanations or questions for the community that the RSAB * Any explanations or questions for the community that the RSAB
deems necessary (using their usual decision-making procedures) deems necessary (using their usual decision-making procedures)
* Clear instructions on how to provide public comments * Clear instructions on how to provide public comments
* A deadline for comments * A deadline for comments
A comment period will last not less than two weeks and should be A comment period will last not less than two weeks and should be
longer if wide outreach is required. Comments will be publicly longer if wide outreach is required. Comments will be publicly
archived on the RFC Editor website. archived on the RFC Editor website.
The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during a The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during a
community call for comments. If RSAB members conclude that such community call for comments. If RSAB members conclude that such
comments raise important issues that need to be addressed, they comments raise important issues that need to be addressed, they
should do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if the should do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if the
issues meet the criteria specified under Step 9 of Section 3.2.2) issues meet the criteria specified in Step 9 of Section 3.2.2)
lodging a position of "CONCERN" during RSAB balloting. lodging a position of CONCERN during RSAB balloting.
3.2.4. Appeals 3.2.4. Appeals
Appeals of RSWG chair decisions shall be made to the RSAB. Decisions Appeals of RSWG Chair decisions shall be made to the RSAB. Decisions
of the RSWG chairs can be appealed only on grounds of failure to of the RSWG Chairs can be appealed only on grounds of failure to
follow the correct process. Appeals should be made within thirty follow the correct process. Appeals should be made within thirty
(30) days of any action, or in the case of failure to act, of notice (30) days of any action or, in the case of failure to act, of notice
having been given to the RSWG chairs. The RSAB will then decide if having been given to the RSWG Chairs. The RSAB will then decide if
the process was followed and will direct the RSWG chairs as to what the process was followed and will direct the RSWG Chairs as to what
procedural actions are required. procedural actions are required.
Decisions of the RSAB can be appealed on grounds of failure to follow Decisions of the RSAB can be appealed on grounds of failure to follow
the correct process. Where the RSAB makes a decision in order to the correct process. In addition, if the RSAB makes a decision in
resolve a disagreement between authors and the RPC (as described order to resolve a disagreement between authors and the RPC (as
under Section 4.4), appeals can be filed on the basis that the RSAB described in Section 4.4), appeals can be filed on the basis that the
misinterpreted an approved policy. Aside from these two cases, RSAB misinterpreted an approved policy. Aside from these two cases,
disagreements about the conduct of the RSAB are not subject to disagreements about the conduct of the RSAB are not subject to
appeal. Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB and appeal. Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB and
should be made within thirty (30) days of public notice of the should be made within thirty (30) days of public notice of the
relevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are posted). The IAB relevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are posted). The IAB
shall decide whether a process failure occurred and what if any shall decide whether a process failure occurred and what (if any)
corrective action should take place. corrective action should take place.
3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy 3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy
The IETF anti-harassment policy The IETF anti-harassment policy
(https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-harassment- (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-harassment-
policy/) also applies to the RSWG and RSAB, which strive to create policy/) also applies to the RSWG and RSAB, which strive to create
and maintain an environment in which people of many different and maintain an environment in which people of many different
backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect. backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect.
Participants are expected to behave according to professional Participants are expected to behave according to professional
standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior. For standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior. For
further information about these policies, see [RFC7154], [RFC7776], further information about these policies, see [RFC7154], [RFC7776],
and [RFC8716]. and [RFC8716].
3.2.6. RFC Boilerplates 3.2.6. RFC Boilerplates
RFC boilerplates (see [RFC7841]) are part of the RFC Style Guide, as RFC boilerplates (see [RFC7841]) are part of the RFC Style Guide, as
defined below under Section 4.2. New or modified boilerplates defined in Section 4.2. New or modified boilerplates considered
considered under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model must be approved under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model must be approved by the
by the following parties, each of which has a separate area of following parties, each of which has a separate area of
responsibility with respect to boilerplates: responsibility with respect to boilerplates:
* Each applicable stream, which approves that the boilerplate meets * The applicable stream, which approves that the boilerplate meets
its needs its needs
* The RSAB, which approves that the boilerplate is not in conflict * The RSAB, which approves that the boilerplate is not in conflict
with the boilerplate used in the other streams with the boilerplate used in the other streams
* The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate is * The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate is
consistent with the RFC Style Guide consistent with the RFC Style Guide
* The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly * The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly
states the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership states the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership
skipping to change at page 16, line 35 skipping to change at line 725
4. Policy Implementation 4. Policy Implementation
4.1. Roles and Processes 4.1. Roles and Processes
Publication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC). Publication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC).
A few general considerations apply: A few general considerations apply:
* The general roles and responsibilities of the RPC are defined by * The general roles and responsibilities of the RPC are defined by
RFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by the RFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by the
RSWG, RSAB, or RSCE), by existing RFCs which apply to the RPC and RSWG, RSAB, or RSCE), by existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and
which have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and by the
by the requisite contracts. requisite contracts.
* The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and has a duty to consult * The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and it has a duty to
with them under specific circumstances, such as those relating to consult with them under specific circumstances, such as those
disagreements between authors and the RPC as described under relating to disagreements between authors and the RPC as described
Section 4.4. in Section 4.4.
* The RPC is overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that it performs in * The RPC is overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that it performs in
accordance with contracts in place. accordance with contracts in place.
All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance
targets, are between the RPC and IETF LLC. targets are between the RPC and IETF LLC.
The RPC shall regularly provide reports to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG, The RPC shall regularly provide reports to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG,
and broader community regarding its activities and any key risks or and broader community regarding its activities and any key risks or
issues affecting it. issues affecting it.
In the event that the RPC is required to make a decision without In the event that the RPC is required to make a decision without
consultation that would normally deserve consultation, or makes a consultation that would normally deserve consultation, or makes a
decision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify the decision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify the
RSAB. RSAB.
This document does not specify the exact relationship between the This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
IETF LLC and the RPC; for example, the work of the RPC could be 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 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 LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or the IETF
LLC could engage with independent contractors for some or all aspects 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 of such work. The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC to
determine. determine.
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the The IETF LLC is responsible for the method and management of the
engagement of the RPC. Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority over engagement of the RPC. Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority over
negotiating performance targets for the RPC and also has negotiating performance targets for the RPC and also has
responsibility for ensuring that those targets are met. Such responsibility for ensuring that those targets are met. Such
performance targets are set based on the RPC's publication load and performance targets are set based on the RPC's publication load and
additional efforts required to implement policies specified in the additional efforts required to implement policies specified in
Editorial Stream, in existing RFCs which apply to the RPC and which Editorial Stream RFCs, in existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and
have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and in the have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and in the
requisite contracts. The IETF LLC may consult with the community requisite contracts. The IETF LLC may consult with the community
regarding these targets. The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a regarding these targets. The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a
manager or to convene a committee to complete these activities. manager or to convene a committee to complete these activities.
If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the
performance of the RPC, they can request that the matter be performance of the RPC, they can request that the matter be
investigated by the IETF LLC Board, the IETF LLC Executive Director, investigated by the IETF LLC Board, the IETF Executive Director, or a
or a point of contact designated by the IETF LLC Board. Even if the point of contact designated by the IETF LLC Board. Even if the IETF
IETF LLC opts to delegate this activity, concerns should be raised LLC opts to delegate this activity, concerns should be raised with
with the IETF LLC. The IETF LLC is ultimately answerable to the the IETF LLC. The IETF LLC is ultimately answerable to the community
community via the mechanisms outlined in its charter [RFC8711]. via the mechanisms outlined in [RFC8711].
4.2. Working Practices 4.2. Working Practices
In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC, or in the In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in the
interest of specifying the detail of its implementation of such interest of specifying the detail of its implementation of such
policies, the RPC can document working practices regarding the policies, the RPC can document working practices regarding the
editorial preparation and final publication and dissemination of editorial preparation, final publication, and dissemination of RFCs.
RFCs. Examples include: Examples include:
* Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards for * Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards for
RFCs; specifically, the RFC Style Guide consists of [RFC7322] and RFCs; specifically, the RFC Style Guide consists of [RFC7322] and
the other documents and resources listed at [STYLEGUIDE]. the other documents and resources listed at [STYLEGUIDE].
* Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as input * Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as input
to the editing and publication process. to the editing and publication process.
* Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published * Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published
documents. In the context of the XML vocabulary [RFC7991], such documents. In the context of the XML vocabulary [RFC7991], such
skipping to change at page 18, line 46 skipping to change at line 833
6. Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed. 6. Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
7. Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed. 7. Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
8. Participating within the RSWG in the creation of new Editorial 8. Participating within the RSWG in the creation of new Editorial
Stream RFCs that impact the RPC, specifically with respect to Stream RFCs that impact the RPC, specifically with respect to
any challenges the RPC might foresee with regard to any challenges the RPC might foresee with regard to
implementation of proposed policies. implementation of proposed policies.
9. Identifying topics and issues that they encounter while 9. Identifying topics and issues while processing documents or
processing documents or carrying out other responsibilities on carrying out other responsibilities on this list for which they
this list for which they lack sufficient expertise, and lack sufficient expertise, and identifying and conferring with
identifying and conferring with relevant experts as needed. relevant experts as needed.
10. Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans. 10. Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans.
11. Consulting with the community on its plans. 11. Consulting with the community on its plans.
12. Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC. 12. Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC.
13. Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC 13. Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC
performance by the IETF LLC. performance by the IETF LLC.
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at line 888
4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC 4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC
During the process of editorial preparation and publication, During the process of editorial preparation and publication,
disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the
RPC. Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such RPC. Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such
disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct
consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in
collaboration with stream-specific contacts. collaboration with stream-specific contacts.
However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies, or if However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies or if it
it is unclear how to interpret an existing policy, the parties may is unclear how to interpret an existing policy, the parties may need
need to consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB, to consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB, IESG,
IESG, IRSG, or stream approving bodies) to help achieve a resolution. IRSG, or stream approving bodies) to help achieve a resolution. The
The following points are intended to provide more specific guidance. following points are intended to provide more specific guidance.
* If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, to * If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, to
help achieve a resolution the RPC should consult with the relevant help achieve a resolution, the RPC should consult with the
stream approving body (such as the IESG or IRSG) and other relevant stream approving body (such as the IESG or IRSG) and
representatives of the relevant stream as appropriate. other representatives of the relevant stream as appropriate.
* If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should * If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should
consult with the RSAB to achieve a resolution. consult with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.
* The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by an * The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by an
existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation
between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies, as between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies, as
described above. In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a) described above. In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a)
resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary so that resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary so that
the relevant stream document(s) can be published before a new the relevant stream document(s) can be published before a new
policy is defined and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so that a policy is defined and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so that a
new policy can be defined. new policy can be defined.
4.5. Point of Contact 4.5. Point of Contact
From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF
and the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC and the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC
Series. Such inquiries should be directed to the rfc-editor@rfc- Series. Such inquiries should be directed to the
editor.org (mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org) email alias or to its rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org) email
successor or future equivalent and then handled by the appropriate alias or to its successor or future equivalent and then handled by
bodies (e.g., RSAB, RPC) or individuals (e.g., RSWG chairs, RSCE). the appropriate bodies (e.g., RSAB and RPC) or individuals (e.g.,
RSWG Chairs and RSCE).
4.6. Administrative Implementation 4.6. Administrative Implementation
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. This activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. This
section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such
activities. activities.
4.6.1. Vendor Selection for the RFC Production Center 4.6.1. Vendor Selection for the RPC
Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under
the final authority of the IETF LLC. the final authority of the IETF LLC.
The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) for The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) for
the RPC and manages the vendor selection process. The work the RPC and manages the vendor-selection process. The work
definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into
account the RPC responsibilities (as described under Section 4.3), account the RPC responsibilities (as described in Section 4.3), the
the needs of the streams, and community input. needs of the streams, and community input.
The process to select and contract for the RFC Production Center and The process to select and contract for the RPC and other RFC-related
other RFC-related services is as follows: services is as follows:
* The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps * The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps
necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the necessary to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) when necessary,
contracting procedures. the timing, and the contracting procedures.
* The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will consist * The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will consist
of the IETF Executive Director and other members selected by the of the IETF Executive Director and other members selected by the
IETF LLC in consultation with the stream approving bodies. The IETF LLC in consultation with the stream approving bodies. The
committee shall select a chair from among its members. committee shall select a chair from among its members.
* The selection committee selects the vendor, subject to the * The selection committee selects the vendor, subject to the
successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC. In successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC. In
the event that a contract cannot be signed, the matter shall be the event that a contract cannot be signed, the matter shall be
referred to the selection committee for further action. referred to the selection committee for further action.
skipping to change at page 22, line 26 skipping to change at line 1003
* Changes to the RFC Style Guide * Changes to the RFC Style Guide
* Series-wide guidelines regarding document content and quality * Series-wide guidelines regarding document content and quality
* Web presence for the RFC Series * Web presence for the RFC Series
* Copyright matters related to the RFC Series * Copyright matters related to the RFC Series
* Archiving, indexing, and accessibility of RFCs * Archiving, indexing, and accessibility of RFCs
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the The IETF LLC is responsible for the method and management of the
engagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and the engagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and the
timely filling of any vacancy. Therefore, whether the RSCE role is timely filling of any vacancy. Therefore, whether the RSCE role is
structured as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for structured as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for
the IETF LLC to determine. the IETF LLC to determine.
5.1. RSCE Selection 5.1. RSCE Selection
Responsibility for making a recommendation to the IETF LLC regarding Responsibility for making a recommendation to the IETF LLC regarding
the RSCE role will lie with a selection committee. The IETF LLC the RSCE role will lie with a selection committee. The IETF LLC
should propose an initial slate of members for this committee, making should propose an initial slate of members for this committee, making
skipping to change at page 22, line 50 skipping to change at line 1027
role of RSCE, the selection committee will take into account the role of RSCE, the selection committee will take into account the
definition of the role as well as any other information that the definition of the role as well as any other information that the
committee deems necessary or helpful in making its decision. The committee deems necessary or helpful in making its decision. The
IETF LLC is responsible for contracting or employment of the RSCE. IETF LLC is responsible for contracting or employment of the RSCE.
5.2. RSCE Performance Evaluation 5.2. RSCE Performance Evaluation
Periodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the RSCE, Periodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the RSCE,
including a call for confidential input from the community. The IETF including a call for confidential input from the community. The IETF
LLC will produce a draft evaluation of the RSCE's performance for LLC will produce a draft evaluation of the RSCE's performance for
review by RSAB members other than the RSCE, who will provide feedback review by RSAB members (other than the RSCE), who will provide
to the IETF LLC. feedback to the IETF LLC.
5.3. Temporary RSCE Appointment 5.3. Temporary RSCE Appointment
In the case that the currently appointed RSCE is expected to be In the case that the currently appointed RSCE is expected to be
unavailable for an extended period, the IETF LLC may appoint a unavailable for an extended period, the IETF LLC may appoint a
Temporary RSCE through whatever recruitment process it considers Temporary RSCE through whatever recruitment process it considers
appropriate. A Temporary RSCE acts as the RSCE in all aspects during appropriate. A Temporary RSCE acts as the RSCE in all aspects during
their term of appointment. their term of appointment.
5.4. Conflict of Interest 5.4. Conflict of Interest
The RSCE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of The RSCE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of
interest or judgment in performing their role. To ensure this, the interest or judgment in performing their role. To ensure this, the
RSCE will be subject to a conflict of interest policy established by RSCE will be subject to a conflict-of-interest policy established by
the IETF LLC. the IETF LLC.
The RPC service provider may contract services from the RSCE service The RPC service provider may contract services from the RSCE service
provider, and vice versa including for services provided to the IETF provider, and vice versa, including services provided to the IETF
LLC. All contracts between the two must be disclosed to the IETF LLC. All contracts between the two must be disclosed to the IETF
LLC. LLC. Where those services are related to services provided to the
Where those services are related to services provided to the IETF IETF LLC, IETF LLC policies shall apply, including publication of
LLC, IETF LLC policies shall apply, including publication of relevant relevant parts of the contract.
parts of the contract.
6. Editorial Stream 6. Editorial Stream
This document creates the Editorial Stream as a separate space for This document creates the Editorial Stream as a separate space for
publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related
information regarding the RFC Series as a whole. information regarding the RFC Series as a whole.
The Editorial Stream shall be used only to specify and update The Editorial Stream shall be used only to specify and update
policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related information policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related information
regarding the RFC Series as a whole; no other use of the Editorial 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 Stream is authorized by this memo, and no other streams are so
authorized. This policy may be changed only by agreement of the IAB, authorized. This policy may be changed only by agreement of the IAB,
IESG, and IETF LLC. IESG, and IETF LLC.
All documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB shall be All documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB shall be
published as RFCs in the Editorial Stream with a status of published as RFCs in the Editorial Stream with a status of
Informational. (Note that the Editorial Stream is not authorized to Informational. (Note that the Editorial Stream is not authorized to
publish RFCs that are Standards Track or Best Current Practice, since publish RFCs that are Standards Track or Best Current Practice, since
such RFCs are reserved to the IETF Stream [RFC8729].) such RFCs are reserved for the IETF Stream [RFC8729].)
Notwithstanding the status of "Informational", it should be Notwithstanding the status of Informational, it should be understood
understood that documents published in the Editorial Stream define that documents published in the Editorial Stream define policies for
policies for the RFC Series as a whole. the RFC Series as a whole.
The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams
are outside the scope of this document. are outside the scope of this document.
6.1. Procedures Request of the IETF Trust 6.1. Procedures Request of the IETF Trust
The IAB requests that the IETF Trust and its Trustees assist in The IAB requests that the IETF Trust and its Trustees assist in
meeting the goals and procedures set forth in this document. meeting the goals and procedures set forth in this document.
The Trustees are requested to publicly confirm their willingness and The Trustees are requested to publicly confirm their willingness and
ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) for the Editorial Stream. (IPR) for the Editorial Stream.
Specifically, the Trustees are asked to develop the necessary Specifically, the Trustees are asked to develop the necessary
boilerplate to enable the suitable marking of documents so that the boilerplate to enable the suitable marking of documents so that the
IETF Trust receives the rights as specified in [BCP78]. These IETF Trust receives the rights as specified in [BCP78]. These
procedures need to also allow authors to indicate either no rights to procedures need to also allow authors to indicate either no rights to
make derivative works, or preferentially, the right to make unlimited make derivative works or, preferentially, the right to make unlimited
derivative works from the documents. It is left to the Trust to derivative works from the documents. It is left to the Trust to
specify exactly how this shall be clearly indicated in each document. specify exactly how this shall be clearly indicated in each document.
6.2. Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream 6.2. Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream
As specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial As specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial
Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying
therein with the rules specified in the latest version of [BCP9]. therein with the rules specified in [BCP9]. This includes the
This includes the disclosure of Patent and Trademark issues that are disclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can be
known, or can be reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor. reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor.
Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as
specified in the most recent version of [BCP79]. The Editorial specified in [BCP79]. The Editorial Stream has chosen to use the
Stream has chosen to use the IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism, IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism (https://www.ietf.org/ipr/) for this
https://www.ietf.org/ipr/, for this purpose. The IAB would prefer purpose. The IAB would prefer that the most liberal terms possible
that the most liberal terms possible be made available for Editorial be made available for Editorial Stream documents. Terms that do not
Stream documents. Terms that do not require fees or licensing are require fees or licensing are preferable. Non-discriminatory terms
preferable. are strongly preferred over those that discriminate among users.
Non-discriminatory terms are strongly preferred over those that However, although disclosure is required and the RSWG and the RSAB
discriminate among users. However, although disclosure is required may consider disclosures and terms in making a decision as to whether
and the RSWG and the RSAB may consider disclosures and terms in to submit a document for publication, there are no specific
making a decision as to whether to submit a document for publication, requirements on the licensing terms for intellectual property related
there are no specific requirements on the licensing terms for to Editorial Stream publication.
intellectual property related to Editorial Stream publication.
6.3. Editorial Stream Boilerplate 6.3. Editorial Stream Boilerplate
This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This
Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes
to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy
Definition process specified in this document. Definition Process specified in Section 3 of this document.
Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the
first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841]. specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].
The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
follows: follows:
This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
process. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working Process. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working
Group approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents Group approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents
are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see
Section 2 of RFC 7841. Section 2 of RFC 7841.
The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
specified in Section 3.5 of [RFC7841]. specified in Section 3.5 of [RFC7841].
7. Historical Properties of the RFC Series 7. Historical Properties of the RFC Series
This section lists some of the properties that have been historically This section lists some of the properties that have been historically
regarded as important to the RFC Series. Proposals that affect these regarded as important to the RFC Series. Proposals that affect these
properties are possible within the processes defined in this properties are possible within the processes defined in this
document. As described under Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.3, document. As described in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, proposals that
proposals that might have a detrimental effect on these properties might have a detrimental effect on these properties should receive
should receive heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB review. The
review. The purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes are deliberate
are deliberate and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as they can be
they can be identified, have been carefully considered. identified, have been carefully considered.
7.1. Availability 7.1. Availability
Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades, Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades,
with no restrictions on access or distribution. with no restrictions on access or distribution.
7.2. Accessibility 7.2. Accessibility
RFC Series documents have been published in a format that was RFC Series documents have been published in a format that was
intended to be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities, intended to be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities,
e.g., people with impaired sight. e.g., people with impaired sight.
7.3. Language 7.3. Language
All existing RFC Series documents have been published in English. All existing RFC Series documents have been published in English.
However, since the beginning of the RFC series, documents have been However, since the beginning of the RFC Series, documents have been
published under terms that explicitly allow translation into published under terms that explicitly allow translation into
languages other than English without asking for permission. languages other than English without asking for permission.
7.4. Diversity 7.4. Diversity
The RFC series has included many types of documents including The RFC Series has included many types of documents including
standards for the Internet, procedural and informational documents, standards for the Internet, procedural and informational documents,
thought experiments, speculative ideas, research papers, histories, thought experiments, speculative ideas, research papers, histories,
humor, and even eulogies. humor, and even eulogies.
7.5. Quality 7.5. Quality
RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality
and edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documents and edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documents
are clear, consistent, and readable [RFC7322]. are clear, consistent, and readable [RFC7322].
7.6. Stability 7.6. Stability
Once published, RFC Series documents have not changed. Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.
7.7. Longevity 7.7. Longevity
RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be
comprehensible to humans for decades or longer. comprehensible to humans for decades or longer.
8. Updates to This Document 8. Updates to This Document
Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced
using the process documented herein, but shall be published and using the process documented herein but shall be published and
operative only after (a) obtaining the agreement of the IAB and the operative only after (a) obtaining the agreement of the IAB and the
IESG, and (b) ensuring that the IETF LLC has no objections regarding IESG and (b) ensuring that the IETF LLC has no objections regarding
its ability to implement any proposed changes. its ability to implement any proposed changes.
9. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model 9. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model
The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs have The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs have
changed significantly over the years. Most recently, in 2009 changed significantly over the years. Most recently, in 2009,
[RFC5620] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1) and in 2012 [RFC5620] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1), and in 2012,
[RFC6635] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), since modified [RFC6635] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), which was then
slightly in 2020 by [RFC8728]. modified slightly in 2020 by [RFC8728].
However, the community experienced several problems with version 1 However, the community experienced several problems with versions 1
and version 2, including a lack of transparency, a lack of avenues and 2, including a lack of transparency, a lack of avenues for
for community input into policy definition, and unclear lines of community input into policy definition, and unclear lines of
authority and responsibility. authority and responsibility.
To address these problems, in 2020 the IAB formed the RFC Editor To address these problems, in 2020, the IAB formed the RFC Editor
Future Development Program to conduct a community discussion and Future Development Program to conduct a community discussion and
consensus process for the further evolution of the RFC Editor Model. consensus process for the further evolution of the RFC Editor Model.
Under the auspices of this Program, the community considered changes Under the auspices of this Program, the community considered changes
that would increase transparency and community input regarding the that would increase transparency and community input regarding the
definition of policies for the RFC Series as a whole, while at the definition of policies for the RFC Series as a whole, while at the
same time ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, maintaining the same time ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, maintaining the
quality and timely publication of RFCs, ensuring document quality and timely publication of RFCs, ensuring document
accessibility, and clarifying lines of authority and responsibility. accessibility, and clarifying lines of authority and responsibility.
This document is the result of discussion within the Program and This document is the result of discussion within the Program and
describes version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining describes version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining
consistent with [RFC8729]. consistent with [RFC8729].
The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in more The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in more
detail. detail.
9.1. RFC Editor Function 9.1. RFC Editor Function
Several responsibilities previously assigned to the "RFC Editor" or, Several responsibilities previously assigned to the RFC Editor or,
more precisely, the "RFC Editor Function" are now performed by the more precisely, the RFC Editor function, are now performed by the
RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). These RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). These
include various aspects of strategic leadership (Section 2.1.1 of include various aspects of strategic leadership (Section 2.1.1 of
[RFC8728]), representation of the RFC Series (Section 2.1.2 of [RFC8728]), representation of the RFC Series (Section 2.1.2 of
[RFC8728]), development of RFC production and publication [RFC8728]), development of RFC production and publication
(Section 2.1.3 of [RFC8728]), development of the RFC Series (Section 2.1.3 of [RFC8728]), development of the RFC Series
(Section 2.1.4 of [RFC8728]), operational oversight (Section 3.3 of (Section 2.1.4 of [RFC8728]), operational oversight (Section 3.3 of
[RFC8729]), policy oversight (Section 3.4 of [RFC8729]), the editing, [RFC8729]), policy oversight (Section 3.4 of [RFC8729]), the editing,
processing, and publication of documents (Section 4.2 of [RFC8729]), processing, and publication of documents (Section 4.2 of [RFC8729]),
and development and maintenance of Series-wide guidelines and rules and development and maintenance of guidelines and rules that apply to
(Section 4.4 of [RFC8729]). Among other things this changes the the RFC Series (Section 4.4 of [RFC8729]). Among other things, this
dependency on the RFC Series Editor (RSE) included in Section 2.2 of changes the dependency on the RFC Series Editor (RSE) included in
[RFC8730] with regard to "coordinating work and conforming to general Section 2.2 of [RFC8730] with regard to "coordinating work and
RFC Series policies as specified by the IAB and RSE." In addition, conforming to general RFC Series policies as specified by the IAB and
various details regarding these responsibilities have been modified RSE." In addition, various details regarding these responsibilities
to accord with the framework defined in this document. have been modified to accord with the framework defined in this
document.
9.2. RFC Series Editor 9.2. RFC Series Editor
Implied by the changes outlined in the previous section, the Implied by the changes outlined in the previous section, the
responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or role responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or role
(contrasted with the overall "RFC Editor Function") are now split or (contrasted with the overall RFC Editor function) are now split or
shared among the RSWG, RSAB, RSCE, RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or in shared among the RSWG, RSAB, RSCE, RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or in
combination). More specifically, the responsibilities of the RFC combination). More specifically, the responsibilities of the RFC
Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) under version 3 of the RFC Editor Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) under version 3 of the RFC Editor
Model differ in many ways from the responsibilities of the RFC Series Model differ in many ways from the responsibilities of the RFC Series
Editor under version 2 of the Model. In general, references in Editor under version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. In general,
existing documents to the RSE can be taken as referring to the "RFC references in existing documents to the RSE can be taken as referring
Editor Function" as described herein, but should not be taken as to the RFC Editor function as described herein but should not be
referring to the RSCE. taken as referring to the RSCE.
9.3. RFC Publisher 9.3. RFC Publisher
In practice the RFC Production Center (RPC) and RFC Publisher roles In practice, the RFC Production Center (RPC) and RFC Publisher roles
have been performed by the same entity and this practice is expected have been performed by the same entity, and this practice is expected
to continue; therefore this document dispenses with the distinction to continue; therefore, this document dispenses with the distinction
between these roles and refers only to the RPC. between these roles and refers only to the RPC.
9.4. IAB 9.4. IAB
Under earlier versions of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB was Under earlier versions of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB was
responsible for oversight of the RFC Series and acted as a body for responsible for oversight of the RFC Series and acted as a body for
final conflict resolution regarding the Series. The IAB's authority final conflict resolution regarding the RFC Series. The IAB's
in these matters is described in the IAB's charter ([RFC2850] as authority in these matters is described in the IAB Charter
updated by [I-D.draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter]). Under version 2 ([RFC2850], as updated by [RFC9283]). Under version 2 of the RFC
of the Model, the IAB delegated some of its authority to the RFC Editor Model, the IAB delegated some of its authority to the RFC
Series Oversight Committee (see Section 9.5). Under version 3 of the Series Oversight Committee (see Section 9.5). Under version 3 of the
Model, authority for policy definition resides with the RSWG as an RFC Editor Model, authority for policy definition resides with the
independent venue for work by members of the community (with approval RSWG as an independent venue for work by members of the community
of policy proposals as the responsibility of the RSAB, representing (with approval of policy proposals being the responsibility of the
the streams and including the RSCE), whereas authority for policy RSAB, which represents the streams and includes the RSCE), whereas
implementation resides with the IETF LLC. authority for policy implementation resides with the IETF LLC.
9.5. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) 9.5. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and
responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy
and somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, this document and somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, this document
dispenses with the RSOC. References to the RSOC in documents such as dispenses with the RSOC. References to the RSOC in documents such as
[RFC8730] are obsolete because this document disbands the RSOC. [RFC8730] are obsolete because this document disbands the RSOC.
9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) 9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC5620] specified the existence Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC5620] specified the existence
of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer
specified in version 2 of the Model. For the avoidance of doubt, specified in version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. For the avoidance of
this document affirms that the RSAG has been disbanded. (The RSAG is doubt, this document affirms that the RSAG has been disbanded. (The
not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which RSAG is not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB),
this document establishes.) which this document establishes.)
9.7. Editorial Stream 9.7. Editorial Stream
This document creates the Editorial Stream in addition to the streams This document creates the Editorial Stream in addition to the streams
already described in [RFC8729]. already described in [RFC8729].
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply. The The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply. The
processes for the publication of documents must prevent the processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
skipping to change at page 29, line 39 skipping to change at line 1341
The IETF LLC facilitates management of the relationship between the The IETF LLC facilitates management of the relationship between the
RPC and IANA. RPC and IANA.
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any
values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required. values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
November 2008.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>
[BCP79] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179, May 2017.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>
[BCP9] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [BCP9] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009. Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.
Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410, Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
October 2011. October 2011.
skipping to change at page 30, line 29 skipping to change at line 1368
Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in
an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, March 2015. an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, March 2015.
Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream
Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789, Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789,
June 2020. June 2020.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>
[BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
November 2008.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>
[BCP79] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179, May 2017.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418, Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>. September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.
[RFC7154] Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54, [RFC7154] Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014, RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>.
[RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322, [RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
skipping to change at page 31, line 18 skipping to change at line 1417
[RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and [RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>. 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.
[RFC8730] Brownlee, N., Ed. and B. Hinden, Ed., "Independent [RFC8730] Brownlee, N., Ed. and B. Hinden, Ed., "Independent
Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730, Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8730>. February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8730>.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter]
Carpenter, B. E., "IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor
Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-carpenter-
rfced-iab-charter-08, 15 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-carpenter-rfced-
iab-charter-08.txt>.
[RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed., [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed.,
"Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)",
BCP 39, RFC 2850, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000, BCP 39, RFC 2850, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>.
[RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", [RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009, RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620>.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor [RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
skipping to change at page 32, line 14 skipping to change at line 1452
[RFC8728] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed., [RFC8728] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728, "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728>.
[RFC8874] Thomson, M. and B. Stark, "Working Group GitHub Usage [RFC8874] Thomson, M. and B. Stark, "Working Group GitHub Usage
Guidance", RFC 8874, DOI 10.17487/RFC8874, August 2020, Guidance", RFC 8874, DOI 10.17487/RFC8874, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8874>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8874>.
[RFC9283] Carpenter, B., Ed., "IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor
Model", BCP 39, RFC 9283, DOI 10.17487/RFC9283, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9283>.
[STYLEGUIDE] [STYLEGUIDE]
RFC Editor, "Style Guide", 26 October 2021, RFC Editor, "Style Guide",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>.
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
approved for publication were:
Jari Arkko
Deborah Brungard
Lars Eggert
Wes Hardaker
Cullen Jennings
Mallory Knodel
Mirja Kühlewind
Zhenbin Li
Tommy Pauly
David Schinazi
Russ White
Qin Wu
Jiankang Yao
This document is the product of the IAB's RFC Editor Future
Development Program. The RFC Editor Future Development Program
allowed for open participation and used a rough consensus model for
decision making.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
Portions of this document were borrowed from [RFC5620], [RFC6635], Portions of this document were borrowed from [RFC5620], [RFC6635],
[RFC8728], [RFC8729], the Frequently Asked Questions of the IETF [RFC8728], [RFC8729], the Frequently Asked Questions of the IETF
Trust, and earlier proposals submitted within the IAB's RFC Editor Trust, and earlier proposals submitted within the IAB's RFC Editor
Future Development Program by Martin Thomson, Brian Carpenter, and Future Development Program by Brian Carpenter, Michael StJohns, and
Michael StJohns. Thanks to Eliot Lear and Brian Rosen in their role Martin Thomson. Thanks to Eliot Lear and Brian Rosen in their role
as chairs of the Program for their leadership and assistance. Thanks as chairs of the Program for their leadership and assistance. Thanks
also for feedback and proposed text to Jari Arkko, Sarah Banks, also for feedback and proposed text to Jari Arkko, Sarah Banks,
Carsten Bormann, Scott Bradner, Nevil Brownlee, Ben Campbell, Jay Carsten Bormann, Scott Bradner, Nevil Brownlee, Ben Campbell, Jay
Daley, Martin Duerst (note: replace "ue" with U+00FC before Daley, Martin Dürst, Wesley Eddy, Lars Eggert, Adrian Farrel, Stephen
publication), Wesley Eddy, Lars Eggert, Adrian Farrel, Stephen
Farrell, Sandy Ginoza, Bron Gondwana, Joel Halpern, Wes Hardaker, Bob Farrell, Sandy Ginoza, Bron Gondwana, Joel Halpern, Wes Hardaker, Bob
Hinden, Russ Housley, Christian Huitema, Ole Jacobsen, Sheng Jiang, Hinden, Russ Housley, Christian Huitema, Ole Jacobsen, Sheng Jiang,
Benjamin Kaduk, John Klensin, Murray Kucherawy, Mirja Kuehlewind, Ted Benjamin Kaduk, John Klensin, Murray Kucherawy, Mirja Kühlewind, Ted
Lemon, John Levine, Lucy Lynch, Jean Mahoney, Andrew Malis, Larry Lemon, John Levine, Lucy Lynch, Jean Mahoney, Andrew Malis, Larry
Masinter, S. Moonesamy, Russ Mundy, Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly, Masinter, S. Moonesamy, Russ Mundy, Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly,
Colin Perkins, Julian Reschke, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Adam Colin Perkins, Julian Reschke, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Adam
Roach, Dan Romascanu, Alice Russo, Doug Royer, Rich Salz, John Roach, Dan Romascanu, Doug Royer, Alice Russo, Rich Salz, John
Scudder, Stig Venaas, Tim Wicinski, and Nico Williams. Scudder, Stig Venaas, Tim Wicinski, and Nico Williams.
Author's Address Author's Address
Peter Saint-Andre (editor) Peter Saint-Andre (editor)
Email: stpeter@stpeter.im Email: stpeter@stpeter.im
 End of changes. 132 change blocks. 
362 lines changed or deleted 382 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/