[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                     G. Kowack, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                 Riveronce
Expires: May 27, 2011                                  November 23, 2010


                       RFC Editor Model Version 2
              draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-overview-00

Abstract

   The RFC Editor is a set of functions that accepts draft documents
   from the community, makes edits and other changes for clarity and
   formal correctness, and publishes and archives openly-accessible
   RFCs.  Editorial services are provided by a Production Center,
   publication and access services by a 'Publisher'.  The RFC Series
   Editor is responsible for ensure ongoing operations as well as
   development of the Editor function and the Series.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 27, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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



Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  The RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2.  Flexible Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Internal Reporting Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4.  RFC Editor Editorial Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  RFC Editor Core Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  RFC Publisher  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  RFC Production Center  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  Contractor Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  RFC Series Editor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Appointment, Reporting, and Duration . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Series Editor Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.3.  General Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.4.  Series Editor Professional Qualifications  . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1.  RFC Editor Oversight Committee (REOC)  . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2.  RFC Series Advisory Group  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  Resolution of Disagreements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.1.  Disagreements between RFC Editor Components and Model
           Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.2.  Series Editor Review of Inter-Stream Conflicts . . . . . . 14
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix A.  RFC End-User Groupings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


















Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


1.  Background

   This memo presents version 2 of the RFC Editor model.  Version 1 of
   the model was described in [RFC5620].  This version of the model is
   based on version 1 and on the experence of the Transitional RFC
   Series Editor (TRSE).  This document brings together all previous
   documents on this subject, and is intended to be the basis for
   community discussion during this period.

   This document does not detail TRSE observations or motivations on
   which this specification is based.  Those, and differences from RFC
   5620, will be described in an upcoming document.


2.  RFC Editor

   A block diagram of the RFC Editor, and major entities with which it
   interacts, is shown in Figure 1.  Documents are created and approved
   by a number of "streams", which today includes the Internet
   Engineering Task Force (IETF) -- publications approved by the Interet
   Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the Internet Architecture Board
   (IAB), the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) -- publications
   approved by the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG), and the
   general Internet community -- publications approved by the
   Independent Submission Editor (ISE).  The approved are edited for
   clarity and formal correctness by the RFC Production House and
   published as RFCs by the RFC Publisher.

2.1.  The RFC Editor Model

   The RFC Editor serves the community via two sets of customers:

   o  on the input side, the streams,

   o  on the output side, readers of RFCs, including users of the RFC
      editor web site and access services.

   The RFC Editor divides into services and executive management.
   Today, RFC Editor services are provided by an:

   o  RFC Publisher (RFC Pub), and

   o  RFC Production Center (RPC).

   Executive management of the RFC Editor function is provided by the:

   o  RFC Series Editor, with support from an Oversight Committee.




Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


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

                         The RFC Editor Structure

   In the figure above:

   o  production flows are indicated by one-way, dashed, horizontal
      arrows ("+--->"),





Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


   o  lines of coordination are indicated by two-way, dashed, horizontal
      arrows ("<-->"),

   o  lines of advice are indicated by two-way, dotted, horizontal
      arrows ("<..>"), and

   o  reporting lines are indicated by vertical, dashed arrows.

2.2.  Flexible Implementation

   This memo uses the term 'function', following the practice
   established in [RFC4844], to indicate that a specific service may be
   flexibly implemented.  For example, RFC Editor functions could be
   implemented under separate or joint contractual arrangements, and
   bidders may make proposals that could include one or more
   contractors.  Determining the acceptability of various
   implementations is the responsibility of the RFC Series Editor and
   the IAOC, in consultation with the Policy Council.

2.3.  Internal Reporting Structure

   RFC Editor internal reporting structure is subject to change over
   time depending, for example, on plans and the manner in which
   contracts are awarded.  The Series Editor may make such changes, but
   only in coordination with the RFC Editor Oversight Committee, and,
   when contracts are affected, the IAOC To preclude conflicts of
   interest, the Series Editor must not be from an organization that
   provides RFC Editor services.  The IAB may, however, override this
   provision in specific instances, but only after reviewing the matter
   with the REOC and IAOC and informing the community.

2.4.  RFC Editor Editorial Practices

   The substantive technical content of individual documents is the
   exclusive responsibility of the submitting stream.


3.  RFC Editor Core Services

   "Core services" are major and long-standing functions within the RFC
   Editor, as distinct from RFC Editor services which may be minor,
   developmental, or of limited duration.  As of this date, the Core
   Services are provided by the RFC Publisher and RFC Production Center.

3.1.  RFC Publisher

   The RFC Publisher is as described in RFC 5620, with the addition that
   the Publisher will need to allocate resources to interact with the



Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


   Series Editor.

3.2.  RFC Production Center

   The RFC Production Center is as described in RFC 5620, with the
   addition that the Production Center will need to allocate resources
   to interact with the Series Editor.

3.3.  Contractor Selection

   RFC Publisher and RFC Production Center contractors are recommended
   by the Series Editor and IAOC after an open RFP process, and approved
   by the IAB.  The RSE and IAOC will seek bidders who, among other
   things, are able to provide a professional, quality, timely, and
   cost- effective service against the established style and production
   guidelines and adaptable to changes.  Contract terms, including
   length of contract, extensions and renewals, shall be as defined in
   an RFP.  The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available.


4.  RFC Series Editor

4.1.  Appointment, Reporting, and Duration

   The RFC Series Editor appointee is an individual.  The Series Editor
   is designated by the IAB, and may be removed by the IAB, subject to
   contractual requirements.  The Series Editor reports to the REOC
   (Section 5.1.3).

   The initial term of office is three years with no restrictions on
   renewals.  Individual contract periods may be shorter due to
   practical constraints (e.g,. applicant availability), as determined
   by the IAB in cooperation with the IAOC.  To maintain institutional
   memory, terms of office for the RSE, ISE, and RFC Production Center
   should be adjusted to minimize concurrent transitions.

4.2.  Series Editor Responsibilities

   The Series Editor acts as a single point of responsibility to the
   community for the:

   o  overall, ongoing operation of the RFC Editor,

   o  refinement and development of RFC Editor processes and services,

   o  maintenance of quality and advancement of the Series,





Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


   o  representation of the Series to the community, and

   o  representation of the Series to the rest of the world.

   The Series Editor is responsible for ensuring that the Editor
   policies are adhered to and developed in line with community
   interests.  When policies are insufficient, the Series Editor
   initiates an RFC Editor policy review and development activity.

4.2.1.  RFC Editor Operations

   RFC Editor operations include ongoing operations and longer-term
   review, planning and executive activities.  RFC Editor ongoing
   operations consist of:

   o  monitoring operations for compliance with policies and practices,
      and providing direction as necessary,

   o  advising service provider management when existing policies appear
      to be insufficient,

   o  handling complaints, exceptions, and unexpected events such as
      escalation procedures, and

   o  organizing and leading meetings, including RFC Editor internet
      meetings, as well as coordination meetings (including, e.g.,
      telechats) with the streams (production-side customers).

   Longer-term planning and executive activities include:

   o  reviewing staff and contractor performance (including formal
      reviews) and providing feedback, including participatin in IAB-
      initiated reviews of the RFC Editor,

   o  leading development of statistics and other performance measures,

   o  reviewing contracts for update or renewal, preparing RFPs, and

   o  reviewing bids and making recommendations.

4.2.2.  Internal Processes and Services Development

   Internal process and services development looks for opportunities to:

   o  improve RFC Editor services to improve quality, reduce costs, or
      improve service to customers, and





Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


   o  new and modified services to output-side customers, e.g, improved
      RFC access tools.

4.2.3.  Series Quality Maintenance and Advancement

   Series maintenance and advancement is comprised of:

   o  ensuring and improving constancy of output,

   o  improving the (editorial) quality of produced text,

   o  innovations to improve efficiency, coordination, and transparency,
      including process experiments,

   o  ensuring availability of the Series, including refinement of the
      community model of universal RFC access, and that the RFC Series
      is accessible via conventional means, such as electronic card
      catalogs, and ISSN numbers, which must be kept current,

   o  improving access tools, including search tools, and.

   o  consideration of support of formats for new access methods.

4.2.4.  Represent the Series to the Community

   The RSE must:

   o  provide all necessary points of contact and services to support
      policy inputs and questions from the community, including
      production-side and end-user customers,

   o  take part in (or delegate attendance at) formal meetings,
      telechats, and other communications among entities (e.g., IESG and
      IAB), as well as general meetings such as the IETF, or retreats,
      as required,

   o  provide consistent communication of the status and plans of the
      Editor,

   o  liaise and work with the IAB so that the IAB may be confident
      there has been sufficient community review before significant
      policies or policy changes are adopted, and

   o  engage all team members and the community with a spirit of common
      purpose, accomplishment, and teamwork.






Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


4.2.5.  Represent the Series to the Rest of the World.

   The Series Editor is the point of contact and presentation for those
   from outside the community.  Increasing the stature of the Series
   reinforces other community initiatives.  The Series Editor should:

   o  be available to entities that seek representation of the series,
      including the press, and

   o  be open to support low-cost high-impact opportunities to promote
      the series.

4.3.  General Responsibilities

   The Series Editor is responsible for maintaining series continuity
   and quality, providing training to authors, and cooperating with the
   IAOC.

4.3.1.  Continuity

   The RFC Editor has sustained operations for more than forty years.

4.3.1.1.  Series Continuity

   Series continuity is the maintenance and development of the editorial
   character of the Series (e.g., look and feel, usage) in a way that
   preserves series constancy.  That is, changes must be made in a
   deliberate, evolutionary way that respects long-standing editorial
   practices.  Changes must be well-motivated.  Changes will be made
   with input from editorial staff, and subject to community review.

   The RFC Series Style Manual is the primary vehicle for maintaining,
   and making changes to, editorial continuity.  The Series Editor is
   responsible for preparing and maintaining the RFC Style Manual to
   describe clearly the grammar, style, usage, typography, punctuation,
   and spelling standards that will guide the drafting and editing of
   RFCs, so that all publications will appear in clear, concise
   technical prose.  The primary audiences for the Style Manual are
   authors, editors, the stream managers, and the RFC Production Center.

4.3.1.2.  Operational Continuity

   Operational continuity means consistent, uninterrupted RFC
   production.  The RFC Series Procedures Manual is the primary document
   for maintaining operational continuity.

   If editorial services are disrupted, the RFC Series Editor, with the
   support of the IAOC, is responsible for promptly acquiring and



Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


   directing new resources to maintain RFC output.  Service from new
   teams of editors or additional contractors may be acquired.  The RSE
   must keep the RFC Editor Procedures Manual and Style Manual up to
   date to provide sufficient direction to alternate editors.  The
   Series Editor must maintain sound understanding of those processes in
   order to direct new resources when required.  Maintaining editorial
   output during a disruption is referred to as "exceptional
   continuity".

4.3.2.  Quality

   For the RFC Editor quality is comprised of:

   o  editorial quality - the quality of output text,

   o  production service quality - as provided to the streams, and

   o  RFC Archive accessibility and access services quality.

4.3.2.1.  Policies and Practices

   RFC Editor functions follow documented policies and practices that
   have been reviewed by the community.  Whenever procedural
   documentation is insufficient (e.g., fails to address an issue), the
   Series Editor is responsible for directing the relevant service
   provider (e.g., Production Center) and maintaining ongoing operations
   and updating policies and procedures in cooperation with the RFC
   Editor Oversight Committee and the community.

   The two primary documents that define the practices and procedures of
   the RFC Editor are the RFC Style Manual, and the RFC Procedures
   Manual.

4.3.2.2.  Editorial Quality

   Editorial quality must meet the requirements of three groups:

   o  authoritative community entities (e.g., the IETF Trust regarding
      IP notices),

   o  authors and streams ("producer-side service quality"), and

   o  re-distributors and end users of RFCs ("consumption-side quality")

   During 2010, it was determined that the community has only limted
   knowledge of the demographics of RFC end-users, how they use RFCs, or
   end-user requirements.  To make informed decisions about quality, the
   RSE should seek to learn more about how RFC end-users may cluster,



Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


   and how each uses RFCs.

4.3.2.3.  Production Quality

   In principle, the RFC Editor provides only one level of editing and
   support, which does not vary according to the needs of particular
   drafts.  The RSE will explore whether an additional level of service
   is required.  Available on authors' request, this service would give
   special attention, and possibly early review, to drafts thought to be
   particularly complex, extensive, or to have an especially critical
   audience.

4.3.2.4.  Access Quality

   Access quality concerns the suitability, completeness, accuracy, and
   stability of tools for accessing the RFC Series.

4.3.3.  Author Guidance and Training

   The RFC Production Center will continue to support tutorials for the
   community.

4.3.4.  Coordination with the IAOC

   The Series Editor must support the IAOC on request regarding legal
   and financial matters.

4.4.  Series Editor Professional Qualifications

   The RFC Series Editor provides general and editorial leadership of
   the RFC Editor, and meets the following qualifications:

   1.  experience as a executive with expertise in technical writing,
       technical publications, and technical series development,

   2.  experience with complex organizations with extensive group
       processes.  The RSE must be skilled at participating in group
       processes, and getting value from them.  The RSE must understand
       and appreciate delegation,

   3.  good understanding of the English language and technical
       terminology related to the Internet,

   4.  excellent skill at communication and, especially, listening,

   5.  independent worker,





Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


   6.  prior experience with and understanding of the IETF, RFC
       processes, and the community, is desirable, and

   7.  experience as an RFC author is desirable.


5.  Committees

5.1.  RFC Editor Oversight Committee (REOC)

5.1.1.  Duties

   The REOC has the following duties:

   o  support the RSE in the process of community consultation,

   o  support the RSE in developing new or modified policy proposals on
      an "advise and consent" model,

   o  support the RSE in presenting general policy proposals for
      approval by the IAB,

   o  receive and review regular progress reports from the RSE,

   o  support the RSE in regular reporting to the community,

   o  promptly bring any serious issues with the Series to the IAB's
      attention,

   o  when required, participate with the IASA in the RFP and
      contracting process for components of the RFC Editor function, and

   o  when required, act as the hiring committee for the RSE, in
      cooperation with the iAB and in liaison with IASA.

5.1.2.  Membership

   The REOC will be a small committee, defined by the IAB.  Terms will
   be two years renewable (with several one year terms initially, to
   stagger the renewals).  The membership will have the following skills
   or backgrounds (members may satisfy more than one of these criteria):

   o  substantive knowledge of technical writing and publications,

   o  substantial experience at using RFC Editor services as a author or
      editor,





Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


   o  none may be from current streams approving bodies,

   o  there may be a non-voting IASA liaison member.

   The REOC will elect its chair among the regular (non-liaison)
   members.

5.1.3.  The Series Editor and the REOC

   The RSE will report to the regular (non-liaison) membership of the
   REOC.

5.2.  RFC Series Advisory Group

   The RSE may, but is not required to, appoint an RFC Series Advisory
   Group (RSAG) at his discretion, with no powers other than to advise
   the RSE.  The Series Editor will publish the names of members of the
   Advisory Group.


6.  Resolution of Disagreements

6.1.  Disagreements between RFC Editor Components and Model
      Participants

   If during the execution of their activities, a disagreement arises
   over an implementation decision made by one of the participants in
   the model, any relevant party should first request a review and
   reconsideration of the decision with the other party or parties, and
   inform the RSE of such a request.  All parties should work informally
   and in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion.  If the
   parties resolve the issue, they should inform the RSE of the
   resolution and specify any procedural or other changes that it may
   entail.

   If one party still disagrees after the reconsideration, that party
   should ask the Series Editor to undertake a formal review.  The RSE
   must inform and engage the REOC in their oversight capacity, and may
   call for a review committee including members of the REOC.  The RSE
   and REOC should seek to reach rough consensus on the resolution of
   the matter.

   If there is a technical or procedural matter that concerns the IAB,
   or an administrative, legal, or financial issue that concerns the
   IAOC, the RSE may request the guidance or participation of either or
   both of those bodies.  If the disagreement directly involves the RSE,
   the RSE may ask the IAB to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in
   the discussions.  The REOC should be used in this capacity unless



Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


   there is good reason it should not (such as if the REOC itself is a
   party to the disagreement).

   If a timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation,
   and mutual agreement, the Series Editor is expected to make whatever
   decisions are needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC
   Editor function.  Such decisions must follow proper community-
   oriented practices as described in Section 4.

   RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the RFC
   Editor processes and evaluation of whether current policies are being
   implemented appropriately or need adjustment.  As described in
   Section 4, final decisions about the technical content of individual
   documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream approvers
   for those documents.

   If a disagreement or decision has immediate or anticipated future
   contractual consequences, the Series Editor must identify the issue
   to the IAOC and, if the REOC has provided related advice, the RSE
   should forward that to the IAOC.

6.2.  Series Editor Review of Inter-Stream Conflicts

   The streams are encouraged to resolve conflicts on their own.  Any
   stream approver may request a Series Editor review of an inter-stream
   conflict at any time.  Review by the Series Editor must include
   assembling a review committee of four disinterested REOC members plus
   the RSE, who will chair the committee.


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor
   structure, and it places the day-to-day coordination of registry
   value assignments with the RFC Production Center under the direction
   of the RSE.  The IAOC will continue to facilitate the relationship
   between the RFC Editor and IANA.

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


8.  Security Considerations

   The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply.  The
   processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
   introduction of unapproved changes.  Since the RFC Editor maintains
   the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to



Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


   prevent these published documents, and the index itself, from being
   changed by external parties.  The archive of RFC documents, any
   source documents needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any
   associated original documents (such as lists of errata, tools, and,
   for some early items, non- machine-readable originals) need to be
   secured against failure of the storage medium and other similar
   disasters.

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


9.  Acknowledgments

   [ed., TBD]


10.  Normative References

   [RFC4844]  Daigle, L. and IAB, "", 4844 RFC, July 2007.

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


Appendix A.  RFC End-User Groupings

   Work to date suggests that the end-user community may group into the
   following:

   o  RFC implementers.  This group intersects with working group
      participants.  The latter is an unknown proportion of the former,

   o  network operators (of RFC implementations),

   o  academics, researchers and students,

   o  marketers, and requirements writers,

   o  policy-makers, and

   o  re-distributors (e.g., mirror site operators) and publishers.









Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft     RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview     November 2010


Author's Address

   Glenn Kowack (editor)
   Riveronce

   Email: glenn@riveronce.com













































Kowack                    Expires May 27, 2011                 [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/