[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 6635

Network Working Group                                   O. Kolkman (Ed.)
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                          J. Halpern (Ed.)
Expires: December 29, 2011                                      Ericsson
                                                                     IAB
                                                           June 27, 2011


                      RFC Editor Model (Version 2)
                    draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02

Abstract

   The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out
   by various persons or entities.  The RFC Editor model described in
   this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
   three functions: The RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center,
   and the RFC Publisher.  The function of the Independent Submission
   Editor is also defined here.  The Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
   oversight by way of delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Committee
   (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship between the IETF
   Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC.  This
   document reflects 1 year of experience with RFC Editor Model version
   1.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


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











































Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  RFC Series Editor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.1.1.  Executive Management of the Publication and
               Production Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.1.2.  Representation of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . .  8
         2.1.2.1.  Representation to the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
         2.1.2.2.  External Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.1.3.  Development of RFC Production and Publication  . . . .  9
       2.1.4.  Development of the RFC Series  . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.1.5.  Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.1.6.  Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.1.7.  Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     2.2.  Independent Submission Editor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     2.3.  RFC Production Center  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     2.4.  RFC Publisher  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   3.  Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.1.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)  . . . . . . . . . . 14
       3.1.1.  RSOC Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.2.  Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board  . . . . . . 16
   4.  Administrative Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.1.  Vendor Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.2.  Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.3.  Disagreements Among RFC Editor Entities  . . . . . . . . . 19
     4.4.  Issues with Contractual Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   5.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   6.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Appendix A.  Internet Draft editing details  . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     A.1.  Section 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     A.2.  Section 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     A.3.  Section 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     A.4.  section 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     A.5.  section 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     A.6.  section 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     A.7.  section 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     A.8.  section 07->08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     A.9.  v2-00->v2-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     A.10. v2-01->v2-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24







Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


1.  Introduction

   The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned
   with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor
   succession, maintaining RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility.
   The IAB is also sensitive to the concerns of the IETF Administrative
   Oversight Committee (IAOC) about providing the necessary services in
   a cost effective and efficient manner.

   The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844 [RFC4844].
   Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor":


      Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC
      Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now
      requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are
      RFC Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be
      multiple organizations working together to undertake the work
      required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without
      attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them,
      this document refers to this collection of experts and
      organizations as the "RFC Editor".

      The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor,
      acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC
      Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the
      RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition,
      the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in
      discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving
      RFCs.

   RFC 4844 makes no attempt to explore the internal organization of the
   RFC Editor.  However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor
   organizational structure.  In discussion with the Internet community,
   the IAB considered changes that increase flexibility and operational
   support options, provides for the orderly succession of the RFC
   Editor, and ensures the continuity of the RFC series, while
   maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely processing, ensuring
   document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost
   transparency.  The model set forth below is the result of those
   discussions and the experience gained since, as described immediately
   below, and examines the internal organization of the RFC Editor,
   while remaining consistent with RFC 4844.  This version of the
   document also reflects the discussions, as described below, that have
   occurred since the first efforts to clarify that internal
   organization.

   Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo
   provides a model for internal organization.  This memo defines the
   term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the
   organizational components.

   The RFC Editor model was first approved in October 1, 2008 and has
   evolved since.  During the implementation of version 1 of the model
   [RFC5620] it was quickly realized that the role of the RSE and the
   oversight responsibilities needed to be structured differently.  In
   order to gain experience with 'running code' a transitional RFC
   Series Editor was hired who analyzed the managerial environment and
   provided recommendations.  This version of the model is based on his
   recommendations and the subsequent discussion on the rfc-interest
   list.

   The document, and the resulting structures, will be modified as
   needed through normal procedures.  The RSE, and the IAB, through the
   RFC oversight committee (see Section 3.1), will continue to monitor
   discussions within the community about potential adjustments to the
   RFC Editor model and recognizes that the process described in this
   document may need to be adjusted to align with any changes that
   result from such discussions, hence the version number in the title.

   The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined
   in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071].

2.  RFC Editor Model

   The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series
   into the following components:

   o  RFC Series Editor ("RSE").

   o  RFC Production Center.

   o  RFC Publisher.

   The structure and relationship of the components of the RFC Series
   Production and Process is schematically represented by the figure
   below (the picture does not depict oversight and escalation
   relations).










Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


                                      +-------------+
                                      |             |
                       +--------------+     IAB     <------------+
                       |              |             |            |
                       |              |=============|            |
                       |              |             |            |
                       |              |     RSOC    <------------+
                       |              |             |            |
                       |              +-------+-----+      +-----+-----+
                       |                      |            |           |
                       |          +...........|.........+  | Community |
                       |          .           |         .  |    at     |
                       |          .   +-------V-----+   .  |   Large   |
                       |          .   |             |   .  |           |
                       |          .   |     RFC     |   .  +-----+-----+
                       |          .   |    Series   |   .        |
                       |          .   |    Editor   <------------+
                       |          .   |             |   .
                       |          .   +-+---------+-+   .
                       |          .     |         |     .
+-------------+  +-----V-------+  .  +--V--+   +--V--+  .     +-----+
|             |  |             |  .  |     |   |     |  .     |     |
| Independent |  | Independent |  .  | RFC |   |     |  .     |  E  |
|   Authors   +--> Submission  +----->     |   |     |  .     |  n  |
|             |  |   Manager   |  .  |  P  |   |     |  .     |  d  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  r  |   | RFC |  .     |     |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  o  |   |     |  .     |  U  |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  d  |   |  P  |  .     |  s  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  u  |   |  u  |  .     |  e  |
|     IAB     +-->     IAB     +----->  c  |   |  b  |  .     |  r  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  t  |   |  l  |  .     |  s  |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  i  +--->  i  +-------->     |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  o  |   |  s  |  .     |  &  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  n  |   |  h  |  .     |     |
|    IRTF     +-->     IRSG    +---->|     |   |  e  |  .     |  R  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  C  |   |  r  |  .     |  e  |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  e  |   |     |  .     |  a  |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  n  |   |     |  .     |  d  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  t  |   |     |  .     |  e  |
|    IETF     +-->    IESG     +----->  e  |   |     |  .     |  r  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  r  |   |     |  .     |  s  |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  +-----+   +-----+  .     +-----+
                                  .                     .
                                  +..... RFC Editor ....+

            Structure of RFC Series production and process.

                                 Figure 1



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   In this model documents are produced and approved through multiple
   document streams.  The stream manager for each stream is responsible
   for the content of that stream.  The four streams that now exist are
   described in [RFC4844].  The RFC Editor function is responsible for
   the packaging and distribution of the documents.  As such, documents
   from these streams are edited and processed by the Production Center
   and published by the Publisher.  The RFC Series Editor will exercise
   executive management over the activities of the RFC Publisher and the
   RFC Production Center (which can be seen as back office functions)
   and will be the entity that:

   o  Provides Executive Management for the overall operation of the RFC
      Editor, including the Production and Publication components.

   o  Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function within the
      IETF and externally.

   o  Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of
      improvements in the RFC Editor Production and Access Processes.

   o  Leads the community in the development of improvements to the RFC
      Series.

   o  Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web site,
      which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher.

   o  The RSE will develop consensus versions of vision and policy
      documents which will be approved by the RFC Series Oversight
      Committee (Section 3.1).

   These responsibilities are defined below, although the specific work
   items under them are a matter for the actual employment contract and
   its Statement of Work.

   The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined
   in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071].  More details on the oversight by the IAB
   via the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) can be found in
   Section 3.1.  For example, the RSE does not have the direct authority
   to hire or fire RFC Editor contractors or personnel.

2.1.  RFC Series Editor

   The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall responsibility
   for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series.

   The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the IAOC.  The
   IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the RSOC, which it
   appoints.



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IAOC and the stream
   managers.

2.1.1.  Executive Management of the Publication and Production Functions

   With respect to the Publication and Production functions, the RSE
   provides input to the IASA budget, statements of work, and manages
   vendor selection processes.  The RSE performs annual reviews of the
   Production and Publication function which are then provided to the
   RSOC and the IASA.

   The RSE is responsible for the performance of the Production Center
   and Publisher.  The RSE is responsible for issues that go beyond the
   production or publication functions, such as cross-stream
   coordination of priorities.  Issues that require changes to the
   budget or contracts shall be brought to the IAD by the RSE.

   The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and structures
   that will allow for the RFC Series' continuity in the face of changes
   in contracts and personnel.

   Vendor selection for these functions is done in cooperation with the
   streams and under final authority of the IASA.  Details on this
   process can be found in Section 4.1.

2.1.2.  Representation of the RFC Series

   The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series.  This
   representation is important both internally, relative to the IETF,
   and externally.

2.1.2.1.  Representation to the IETF

   The RSE is the primary point of contact to the IETF on matters other
   than the practicalities of producing individual RFCs (which are
   worked with the RFC Production Center staff.)

   This includes providing suitable reports to the community at large;
   providing email contact for policy questions and inputs; and enabling
   and participating in suitable on-line forums for discussion of issues
   related to the RFC Series.

   Due to the history and nature of the interaction between the RSE and
   the IETF, certain principles must be understood and adhered to by the
   RSE in his or her interactions with the community.  These apply to
   the representation function, as well as to the leadership the RSE
   provides in Production and Series Development.




Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


2.1.2.1.1.  Volunteerism

   The vast majority of Internet technical community work is led,
   initiated, and done by community volunteers, including oversight,
   policy-making, and direct production of, for example, many software
   tools.  The Series Editor role relies on volunteer participation and
   needs to support the vitality and effectiveness of volunteer
   participation.

2.1.2.1.2.  Policy Authority

   All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the Internet
   community.  The IETF community is the arbiter of policy.  The RSE
   must consult with the IETF community on policy issues.  The RSE works
   with the IETF community to achieve policy that meets the overall
   quality, continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is charged with
   meeting.  As described below in Section 3.1 the RSE reports the
   results of such interactions to the RSOC, including the specific
   recommendations on policy.  This enables the RSOC to provide the
   oversight the IAB is required to apply, as well as to confirm that
   the IETF community has been properly consulted and considered in
   making policy.

2.1.2.2.  External Representation

   From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF
   need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series.  The RSE is
   that individual.

   Over time, the RSE should determine what if any means should be
   employed to increase end-user awareness of the series, and to
   reinforce the stature of the Series, and will be the contact point
   for outside parties seeking information on the Series or the Editor.

2.1.3.  Development of RFC Production and Publication

   Closely related to providing executive management to the RFC
   Production and Publication functions is the need to develop and
   improve those functions.  The RSE is responsible for ensuring that
   such ongoing development takes place.

   This effort must include the dimensions of document quality,
   timeliness of production, and accessibility of results.  It must also
   specifically take into account issues raised by the IETF community,
   including all the RFC Streams.






Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


2.1.4.  Development of the RFC Series

   In order to develop the RFC Publication series the RSE is expected to
   develop a relationships with the Internet technical community.  With
   that community, the Editor is expected to engage in a process of
   articulating and refining a vision for the Series and its continuous
   evolution.

   Concretely:

      The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on
      Series evolution among the Series' Stream participants and the
      broader Internet technical community.

      In time the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision for the
      RFC Series, including examining:

         the technical specification series, as it continues to evolve.
         The RSE is expected to take a broad view and be looking for the
         best ways to evolve the series for the benefit of the entire
         Internet Community.  As such, the RSE may even consider
         evolution beyond the historical 'by engineers for engineers'
         emphasis; and

         its publication-technical environment: looking at whether it
         should be slowly changing in terms of publication and archiving
         techniques; particularly to better serve the communities that
         produce and depend on the RFC Series.  For example, all of
         those communities have been slowly changing to include
         significant multi-lingual and non-native-English populations.
         Another example is that some of these constituencies also have
         a shifted to include significant groups of members whose
         primary focus is on the constraints and consequences of network
         engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering
         issues themselves.

   For this type of responsibility the RSE cooperates closely with the
   community and under oversight of the RSOC and thus ultimately under
   oversight of the IAB.

2.1.5.  Workload

   The job is expected initially to take on average half of an FTE
   (approx 20 hrs per week), with the workload per week near full time
   during IETF weeks, over 20 hours per week in the first few months of
   the engagement, and higher during special projects.





Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


2.1.6.  Qualifications

   The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional.  The
   following qualifications are desired:

   1.  Executive management experience fulfilling the requirements
       outlined in this document, the many aspects of this role, and the
       coordination of the overall RFC Editor process.

   2.  Good understanding of the English language and technical
       terminology related to the Internet.

   3.  Good communication skills.

   4.  Experience with editorial processes.

   5.  Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC
       process.

   6.  Independent worker.

   7.  Experience as an RFC author desired.

   8.  Willingness to Travel.

   9.  The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and matrixed
       environment with divided authority and responsibility similar to
       that described in this document.

2.1.7.  Conflict of Interest

   The RSE is barred from having any ownership, advisory, or other
   relationship to the vendors executing the Publication or Production
   functions except as specified elsewhere in this document in order to
   prevent actual or apparent problems with conflicts of interest or
   judgment.  If necessary, an exception can be made after public
   disclosure of those relationships and with the explicit permission of
   the IAB and IAOC.

2.2.  Independent Submission Editor

   The Independent Submission Editor (ISE) is the head of the
   Independent Submission Stream of RFCs, as defined by [RFC4844].  The
   Independent Stream and the Independent Submission Editor are not
   under the authority or direction of the RSE.  As noted below, the ISE
   is appointed by and is responsible directly to the IAB.

   The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   assistants and who is responsible for:

   1.  Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission
       stream.

   2.  Reviewing, approving, and processing Independent Submissions.

   3.  Forwarding draft RFCs in the Independent Submission Stream to the
       RFC Production Center.

   4.  Reviewing and approving Independent Submissions RFC errata.

   5.  Coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies
       as specified by the IAB and RSE.

   6.  Providing statistics and documentation as requested by the RSE
       and/or IAOC.

   The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the
   following qualifications are desired:

   1.  Technical competence, i.e., broad technical experience and
       perspective across the whole range of Internet technologies and
       applications, and specifically, the ability to work effectively
       with portions of that spectrum in which no personal expertise
       exists.

   2.  Thorough familiarity with the RFC series.

   3.  An ability to define and constitute advisory and document review
       arrangements.  If those arrangements include an Editorial Board
       similar to the current one or some equivalent arrangement, assess
       the technical competence of potential Editorial Board members.

   4.  Good standing in the technical community, in and beyond the IETF.

   5.  Demonstrated editorial skills, good command of the English
       language, and demonstrated history of being able to work
       effectively with technical documents and materials created by
       others.

   6.  The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment with
       divided authority and responsibility similar to that described in
       this document.

   The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an advisory
   board (see Section 3.2) and may form a team to perform the activities
   needed to fulfill their responsibilities.



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   The individual with the listed qualifications will be selected by the
   IAB after input is collected from the community.  An approach similar
   to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year
   as described in [RFC4333] should be used.  While the ISE itself is
   considered a volunteer function, the IAB considers maintaining the
   Independent Submission stream part of the IAB's supported activities,
   and will include the expenses made for the support of the ISE in its
   IASA-supported budget.

2.3.  RFC Production Center

   RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor
   responsibilities include:

   1.   Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style
        Manual, under the direction of the RSE;

   2.   Creating records of edits performed on documents;

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

   4.   Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds, IANA,
        and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed;

   5.   Creating records of dialog with document authors;

   6.   Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;

   7.   Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed;

   8.   Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC
        Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external
        reviews of the RFC Editor initiated by the IAB or IAOC;

   9.   Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry
        actions;

   10.  Assigning RFC numbers;

   11.  Establishing publication readiness of each document through
        communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA and/or
        stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series
        Editor;

   12.  Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher;





Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   13.  Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC
        Publisher so these can be preserved;

   14.  Liaising with the streams as needed.

   All these activities will be done under the general direction, but
   not day to day management, of the RSE and need some level of
   coordination with various submission streams and the RSE.

   The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through an
   IASA RFP process as described in Section 4.1.

2.4.  RFC Publisher

   The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:

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

   2.  Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata.

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

   4.  Providing backups.

   5.  Providing storage and preservation of records.

   6.  Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.

   All these activities will be done under the general direction, but
   not day to day management, of the RSE and need some level of
   coordination with various submission streams and the RSE.

   The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through an IASA RFP
   process as described in Section 4.1.

3.  Committees

3.1.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)

   The IAB is responsible for oversight over the RFC Series and acts as
   a body for appeal and conflict resolution.

   In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the nomcom
   appointment cycle and assure that oversight is informed through
   subject matter experts the IAB will establish a group that implements
   oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC).

   The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: In general



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision
   documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the
   community.  While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due
   diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed
   the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB.
   Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and
   recommendations the benefit of the doubt.

   In those general cases the IAB is ultimately responsible for
   oversight and acts as a body for appeal and resolution.

   For all aspects that affect the RSE itself (e.g. hiring and firing)
   the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB but final decision is
   the responsibility of the IAB.  For instance the RSOC would:

   o  perform annual reviews of the RSE and reports to the IAB.

   o  manage RSE candidate selection and advises the IAB on candidate
      appointment (in other words select the RSE, subject to IAB
      approval)

   RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of
   interest and behave accordingly.

   RSOC will also work with the IASA, proposing a budget, and the
   remuneration and employment agreement of the RSE position.

   The RSOC will be responsible to ensure that the RFC Series is run in
   a transparent and accountable manner.

   The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order.

   One of the first responsibilities of the RSOC will be to define in
   detail the solicitation and selection process for the next RSE.  The
   RSOC is expected to document to the community the process it selects.
   Upon completion of the selection, the RSOC should determine the best
   way to preserve this information for future use.

3.1.1.  RSOC Composition

   The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB
   retaining final responsibility.  The IAB will delegate authority and
   responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE
   relationships evolve.  The RSOC will include people who are not
   current IAB members.  Currently, this is aligned with the IAB Program
   structure.  The IAB will designate the membership of the RSOC with
   the goals of preserving effective stability, keeping it small enough
   to be effective, but large enough to provide general Internet



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   Community expertise, specific IETF expertise, Publication expertise,
   and stream expertise.  Members serve at the pleasure of the IAB and
   are expected to bring a balance between short and long term
   perspective.  Specific input about, and recommendations of, members
   will be sought from the streams, the IASA, and the RSE.

   The IAOC will appoint an individual to serve as its Liaison to the
   RSOC.  The RSE and this Liaison will serve as non-voting ex-officio
   members of the RSOC.  Either or both can be excluded from its
   discussions if necessary.

3.2.  Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board

   The Independent Submission Editor is supported by an Editorial Board
   for the review of Independent Submission stream documents.  This
   board is known as the Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board.
   This volunteer Editorial Board exists at the pleasure of the ISE, and
   the members serve at the pleasure of the ISE.  The existence of this
   board is simply noted within this model, and additional discussion of
   such is considered out of scope of this document.

4.  Administrative Implementation

   The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
   activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF
   Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC, [RFC4071]) in cooperation
   with the RFC Series Editor.  The authority structure is described in
   Figure 2 below.























Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


                   +----------------+       +----------------+
                   |                |       |                |
                   |      IAB       |       |     IAOC       |
                   |                |       |                |
                   +==========+--+--+       +-+-----------+--+
                   |          |  |            .           .
                   |   RSOC   |  |            .           .
                   |          |  |            .           .
                   +----+-----+  |            .           .
                        |        +-------------------+    .
                        |                     .      |    .
                        |   ...................      |    .
                        |   .                 .      |    .
               +--------V---V----+            .   +--V----V--------+
               |                 |            .   |                |
               |       RFC       |            .   |   Independent  |
               |      Series     |            .   |     Series     |
               |      Editor     |            .   |     Editor     |
               |                 |            .   |                |
               +--------+--------+            .   +----------------+
                        |                     .
                        |        .................
                        |        .               .
                        +--+----------------+    .
                           |     .          |    .
                           |     .          |    .
                       +---V-----V--+    +--V----V---+
                       |    RFC     |    |    RFC    |
                       | Production |    | Publisher |
                       |   Center   |    |           |
                       +------------+    +-----------+

                     Authority Structure of RFC Series

                         Legend:

                         -------    IAB RFC Series Oversight
                         .......    IAOC Contract/Budget Oversight


                                 Figure 2

4.1.  Vendor Selection

   As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation with the
   streams and under the final authority of the IAOC.

   The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   participates in the IASA Vendor selection process.  The work
   definition is created within the IASA budget and takes into account
   the stream managers and community input.

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

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

   o  The IAOC establishes the Selection Committee, which will consist
      of the RSE, the IAD, and other members selected by the RSOC and
      the IAOC.  The Committee shall be chaired by the RSE.

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

   o  The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher either through
      the IASA RFP process, or, at the Committee's option, the Committee
      may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC Publisher services,
      subject to negotiations in accordance with the IASA procedures.

4.2.  Budget

   The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses.  They
   have been and remain part of the IETF Administrative Support Activity
   (IASA, [RFC4071]) budget.

   The RFC Series portion of the IASA Budget shall include entries for
   the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher.  The
   IASA Budget shall also include entries for the streams, including the
   independent stream.

   The IAOC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor
   budget (and the authority to deny it.)  The RSE must work within the
   IAOC budgetary process.

   The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor to operate within
   those budgets.  If product needs change, the RSE is responsible for
   working with the Production Center to determine what the correct
   response should be.  If they agree that a budgetary change is needed,
   that needs to be taken to the IAD and the IAOC.






Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


4.3.  Disagreements Among RFC Editor Entities

   If during the execution of their activities, a disagreement arises
   over an implementation decision made by one of the entities in the
   model, any relevant party should first request a review and
   reconsideration of the decision.  If that party still disagrees after
   the reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or,
   especially if the RSE is involved, that party may ask the IAB Chair
   (for a technical or procedural matter) to mediate or appoint a
   mediator to aid in the discussions, although not is obligated to do
   so.  All parties should work informally and in good faith to reach a
   mutually agreeable conclusion.

   If such a conclusion is not possible through those informal
   processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC Series
   Oversight Committee.  The RSOC may choose to offer advice to the RSE
   or more general advice to the parties involved and may ask the RSE to
   defer a decision until it formulates its advice.  However, if a
   timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation, and
   mutual agreement, the Series Editor is expected to make whatever
   decisions are needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC
   Editor function; those decisions are final.

   RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the
   process and evaluation of whether current policies are appropriately
   implemented in the decision or need adjustment.  In particular, it
   should be noted that final decisions about the technical content of
   individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream
   approvers for those documents, as shown in the illustration in
   Figure 1.

   If informal agreements cannot be reached, then formal RSOC review and
   decision making may be required.  If so, the the RSE must identify
   the issues involved to the community, so that the community is aware
   of the situation.  The RSE will the report the issue to the RSOC for
   formal resolution by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its
   oversight capacity.

   IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected
   to inform future changes to Series policies including possible
   updates to this document.

4.4.  Issues with Contractual Impact

   If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual
   consequences it falls under BCP 101 and IASA, and thus the Series
   Editor must identify the issue and provide his or her advice to the
   IAOC and, if the RSOC has provided advice, forward that advice as



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   well.  After the IAOC has notified the IAB, the IAD, as guided by the
   IAOC, has the responsibility to resolve these contractual issues
   under applicable procedures in BCP 101 and such appropriate
   contracts.

5.  IANA considerations

   This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor
   structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of
   registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center.  The IAOC
   will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC
   Production Center and IANA.

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

6.  Security considerations

   The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply.  The
   processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
   introduction of unapproved changes.  Since the RFC Editor maintains
   the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to
   prevent these published documents from being changed by external
   parties.  The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed
   to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents
   (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, non-
   machine readable originals) need to be secured against failure of the
   storage medium and other similar disasters.

   The IAOC should take these security considerations into account
   during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC Editor model
   contracts.

7.  Acknowledgments

   The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on
   mail lists.  The first iteration of the text on which this document
   is based was first drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ray
   Pelletier.  In addition to the members of the IAOC and IAB in
   conjunction with those roles, major and minor contributions were made
   by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy
   Ginoza, Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman,
   John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim Schaad.

   The IAOC members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were
   (in alphabetical order): Fred Baker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Ole
   Jacobsen, Ed Juskevicius, Olaf Kolkman, Ray Pelletier (non-voting),
   Lynn St.Amour, and Jonne Soininen.  In addition, Marshall Eubanks was



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   serving as the IAOC Scribe.

   The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved
   were (in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo,
   Stuart Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry
   Leiba, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran,
   Dave Thaler, and Lixia Zhang.  In addition, the IAB included two ex-
   officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive
   Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.

   The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in
   alphabetical order): Marcelo Bagnulo, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart
   Cheshire, Vijay Gill, Russ Housley, John Klensin, Olaf Kolkman,
   Gregory Lebovitz, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Jon
   Peterson, and Dave Thaler.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4844]  Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
              Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.

   [RFC4071]  Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF
              Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
              RFC 4071, April 2005.

   [RFC2850]  Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of
              the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850,
              May 2000.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4333]  Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, "The IETF Administrative
              Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and
              Process", BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005.

   [RFC5620]  Kolkman, O. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
              RFC 5620, August 2009.

Appendix A.  Internet Draft editing details

   [This appendix is to be removed at publication]

   $Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 55 2009-06-08 12:32:59Z olaf $






Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


A.1.  Section 00->01

   Added Sandy and Alice to the acknowledgment section, they were
   accidentally omitted

   Added text so that the selection mechanism is explicitly documented.
   The selection mechanism documents the use of an advisory committee
   and is explicit about the fact that the community expands beyond the
   IETF community.

   Modified the RFC Editor Function name to "RFC Series Editor" in order
   to minimize confusion between the collective of functions (RFC
   Editor) and the function (Series Editor).

   Added wording for specifying the technical competence needed by the
   indep.subm.editor as suggested by JCK

   Clarified the responsibilities of the production function in
   Section 2.3

   Enumerated qualifications of the RFC Editor

A.2.  Section 01->02

   Various nits corrected

   Inconsistency in the use of RFC Production house and RFC Production
   fixed: RFC Production Center used as term

   Oversight over RFC consistency with the style manual has been made
   explicit.

   Clarified that the Independent Submission Stream Editors budget is
   independent from the IETF/IASA.

   Improved the language that clarified that the RFC Series editors and
   Independent Submission Stream editor do not necessarily need to work
   without assistants, while they bear the responsibility.

A.3.  Section 02->03

   Added Joel to the acknowledgments

   Added the Advisory committee charter as a FYI

   Added editorial skill and command of English as a requirement for the
   ISE




Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


   In the responsibilities for the RFC series: Change "Participate in"
   to "Provide input in" for IAOC Review.  This makes the text more
   implementation neutral.

   Typo: Model is consistent with RFC4844 instead of 4884

   Added "Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission
   stream" as an explicit responsibility for the ISE.

A.4.  section 03->04

   [omitted by accident]

A.5.  section 04->05

   Introduced the concept of the RFC Series Advisory Group and reworked
   the text to take this into account.  This also caused the renaming of
   the advisory group to an explicit "Independent Submission Stream
   Editorial Board".

   Rewrote the appeal process to take the RSAG into account

   Extended the appointment period to 3 years

A.6.  section 05->06

   This version documents decisions made by the IAB during prior to
   approval during its April 27-28 retreat

   Addressed some nits

   Rewritten details of dispute resolution.  Also stopped using the
   words appeal or dispute resolution as they have a specific meaning in
   the standards process

   The ISE's expenses are covered from the IASA budget.

   The envisioned size of the RSAG is changed from 6 to un-specified,
   the RSAG is allowed to advice on the size later

   Rewrote/clarified requirements for RSE and ISE function

A.7.  section 06->07

   Fixed nits

   Addressed some IAB concerns that were accidentally omitted in version
   06



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


A.8.  section 07->08

   pen handed to Joel Halpern, added as Editor

   clarified text on RSE non-authority to hire and fire.

   Replaced structure diagram in section 3 with diagram developed by
   Glenn Kowack.

   Replaced responsibilities section (3) with a structure to match the
   ongoing SoW, with content largely derived by Olaf Kolkman.

   replaced RSAG section (4.1) with RSOC section, with new procedures
   and responsibilities.

   Removed description of 2009 selection process.

A.9.  v2-00->v2-01

   Editorial corrections and reference additions.

   Rewriting text on the vision for the development of the RFC Series.

   Clean up the text explaining the relationship between RSE management
   and IAOC budgetary authority.

   cleaned up text to better explain the RSE's role in judging community
   policy consensus.

   Clarified the general but not day to day managerial relationship of
   the RSE with the production and publication facilities.

   Highlight special handling of disagreements with contractual
   implications.

   Clarify that the ISE is part of the RFC Editor function, but not
   under the authority of the RSE.

A.10.  v2-01->v2-02

   Extensive reorganization of the text

   Significant clarification of the vendor selection process.

   Clarify which community the RFC Editor policies are supposed to
   serve, and which community is consulted in setting those policies.





Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)             June 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Olaf M. Kolkman

   EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl


   Joel M. Halpern
   Ericsson

   EMail: joel.halpern@ericsson.com


   Internet Architecture Board

   EMail: iab@iab.org



































Kolkman (Ed.), et al.   Expires December 29, 2011              [Page 25]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/