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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 4714

Network Working Group                                         A. Mankin
Internet Draft
Expires: January 2007                                          S. Hayes
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           July 12, 2006


            Requirements for IETF Technical Publication Service
                        draft-mankin-pub-req-10.txt




Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2007.



Abstract

   The work of the IETF is to discuss, develop, and disseminate
   technical specifications to support the Internet's operation.
   Technical publication is the process by which that output is
   disseminated to the community at large. As such, it is important to
   understand the requirements on the publication process.






Mankin & Hayes            Expires December 12, 2007                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................2
   2. Scope..........................................................3
      2.1. Stages in the Technical Specification Publication Lifetime4
   3. Technical Publication Tasks and Requirements...................5
      3.1. Pre-approval Review or Editing............................6
      3.2. Preliminary Specification Availability....................7
      3.3. Post-approval Editorial Cleanup (Non-author Editing)......7
      3.4. Validation of References..................................9
      3.5. Validation of Formal Languages...........................10
      3.6. Insertion of Parameter Values............................10
      3.7. Post-approval, Pre-publication Technical Corrections.....11
      3.8. Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers...............12
      3.9. Document Format Conversions..............................12
      3.10. Language Translation....................................13
      3.11. Publication Status Tracking.............................13
      3.12. Expedited Handling......................................14
      3.13. Exception Handling......................................15
      3.14. Notification of publication.............................15
      3.15. Post-publication Corrections............................15
      3.16. Indexing: Maintenance of the Catalog....................16
      3.17. Access to Published Documents...........................17
      3.18. Maintenance of a Vocabulary Document....................17
      3.19. Providing Publication Statistics and Status Reports.....18
      3.20. Process and Document Evolution..........................18
      3.21. Tutorial and Help Services..............................19
   4. Technical Publisher Performance Goals.........................20
      4.1. Publication Timeframes...................................20
      4.2. Publication Throughput...................................21
   5. IETF Implications of Technical Publication Requirements.......21
   6. IANA Considerations...........................................22
   7. Security Considerations.......................................22
   8. Acknowledgments...............................................23
   Author's Addresses...............................................23
   Intellectual Property Statement..................................23
   Disclaimer of Validity...........................................24
   Copyright Statement..............................................24
   Acknowledgment...................................................24

1. Introduction

   The work of the IETF is to discuss, develop, and disseminate
   technical specifications to support the Internet's operation.
   Therefore an important output of the IETF is published technical
   specifications. The IETF technical publisher is responsible for the


Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   final steps in the production of the published technical
   specifications.  This document sets forth requirements on the duties
   of the IETF technical publisher and how it interacts with the IETF in
   the production of those publications.

   The term "technical specification" is used here purposefully to refer
   to the technical output of the IETF. This document does not engage in
   the debate about whether it is expressed as RFCs or otherwise, what
   "is" an RFC, how to classify them, etc.  These issues are considered
   out of scope.

   The intention of this document is to clarify the IETF's consensus on
   its requirements for its technical publication service.  It is
   expected to be used in the preparation of future contracts.  This
   document is not a discussion of how well the current technical
   publisher (the RFC Editor) fulfils those requirements.

2. Scope

   The scope of this document is the requirements for the technical
   publication process for IETF.  Requirements on a technical publisher
   can be expressed in terms of both what tasks the IETF technical
   publisher is responsible for and performance targets the IETF
   technical publisher should meet.  The functions provided by the
   technical publisher are sometimes referred to as editorial management
   (RFC2850).

   This draft specifically addresses those documents published by the
   IETF technical standards process.  In all cases, the requirements
   have been written in generic terms, so that they may be used to
   express the requirements of other publication streams, elsewhere.

   The list of potential technical publication tasks was derived by
   considering the tasks currently performed by the RFC editor as well
   as the responsibilities of the technical publishers in other
   standards organizations including 3GPP, ATIS, ETSI, IEEE, and ITU.

   This requirements documents focuses on process issues in how the IETF
   technical publisher serves the IETF.  There are related issues
   regarding non-technical aspects of document content that are not
   addressed in this requirements document.  Issues not addressed in
   this document are:

   o  Policies governing the acceptable input and output document
      formats (including figures, etc.),



Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   o  Policies governing the acceptable character sets
      (internationalization)

   o  Policies governing the layout and style of published documents

   o  Policies governing the contents of non-technical sections
      (acknowledgement sections, reference classifications, etc.)

   It is realized that the above policies are also an important aspect
   in determining the final published product from IETF.  These policies
   are likely to evolve as part of the ongoing IETF dialog.  The IETF
   technical publisher should be part of the discussions of these
   policies and be prepared to implement and facilitate policy changes
   as they are determined by IETF consensus.  This requirement is
   captured under the discussion of process and document evolution.

2.1. Stages in the Technical Specification Publication Lifetime

   Figure 1 below provides a useful summary of where technical
   publication falls in the current lifetime of a document in the IETF
   standards process.  This figure shows a Working Group (WG) document
   and the reviews including Working Group Last Call (WGLC), Area
   Director (AD) review, IETF Last Call (IETF LC), IANA review, and IESG
   review.  The document shepherd (shown in the diagram as "Shepherd" is
   an individual designated by the IESG to shepherd a document through
   the reviews and the publication process.  The lifetime is very
   similar for AD-sponsored IETF documents, such as documents that
   update IETF protocols where there is no longer a working group, or
   documents on interdisciplinary topics.




















Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006




              Actors      Formal       Actors            Actors
                          Reviews


           |  Author,   | WGLC      | IESG,      |    |  IANA,
           |  Editor,   | AD        | Shepherd,  |  A |  Tech
           |  IETF Sec- | IETF LC   | Editor,    |  P |  Publisher,
           |  retariat  | IANA      | WG         |  P |  input from
           |            | IESG      |            |  R |  authors, et al
           |            |           |            |  O |
   Actions |  Creation, |           | Resolution |  V |  non-author
           |  Editing,  |           | of all     |  A |  editing,
           |  Draft Pub,|           | reviews    |  L |  other
           |  Tracking  |           |            |    |  publication

           |---------------| |---------------------| |----------------|

                In WG               Out of WG          Post-approval

               Figure 1: Stages of a Working Group Document

   Note that in some cases a single submission may actually consist of
   multiple source documents (supporting files, code, etc.).

   Under the IETF standards process stream the post-approval processing
   is initiated by the IESG after technical approval.

3. Technical Publication Tasks and Requirements

   Standards development organizations all have technical publication as
   part of their process.  However, the boundaries between what is done
   by the technical committees and the technical publisher vary.

   The following are potential tasks of a technical publisher.  The
   following list was derived after analyzing the technical publication
   policies of the IETF and other standards development organizations.

   1.  Pre-approval review or editing

   2.  Preliminary specification availability

   3.  Post-approval editorial cleanup

   4.  Validation of references



Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   5.  Validation of formal languages

   6.  Insertion of parameter values

   7.  Post-approval, pre-publication corrections

   8.  Allocation of permanent stable identifiers

   9.  Document format conversions

   10. Language translation

   11. Publication status tracking

   12. Expedited handling

   13. Exception handling

   14. Notification of publication

   15. Post-publication corrections (errata)

   16. Indexing: maintenance of the catalog

   17. Access to published documents

   18. Maintenance of a vocabulary document

   19. Providing publication statistics and status reports

   20. Process and document evolution

   21. Tutorial and help services

   For each of these tasks we discuss its relevance to IETF and how it
   is realized within the IETF processes.  Based upon this information
   we derive requirements on the IETF technical publisher

3.1. Pre-approval Review or Editing

   Task Description: In many cases the technical publisher may provide a
   review or editing service to improve document quality prior to the
   approval of a document.  This review process would normally address
   issues such as grammar, spelling, formatting, adherence to pre-
   approval boilerplate, document structure, proper use of keywords (RFC
   2119), etc.



Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   The primary advantage of pre-approval review is that review of the
   changes is handled as part of the regular review and approval
   process.

   Discussion: Pre-approval review is not part of the normal process
   flow with the IETF but this concept has been explored in the early
   copy editing experiment.  Early feedback from the experiment has been
   promising, however, the effectiveness of early copy-editing is still
   being evaluated.

   Derived Requirements:

   Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should be capable of
   performing an editorial review of documents early enough to allow any
   changes to be reviewed within the technical review process.  This
   review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with
   previously published documents. For the IETF standards process stream
   this review is expected to be performed before WG last call and
   provide feedback to the authors to improve quality of the documents.
   For the IETF standards process stream the publisher should not
   perform a technical review of the document.

3.2. Preliminary Specification Availability

   Task Description: Some standards organizations require their
   publisher to make available a preliminary version of a document (with
   appropriate caveats) to make the information available to the
   industry as early as possible.  This document is provided "as is"
   after the approval.  This document is withdrawn once the final
   document is published.

   Discussion: This is not required.  A final approved version is
   available as a draft.  If publication can take more than 6 months, it
   may be necessary to request that the draft version remains available.

   Derived Requirements: none

3.3. Post-approval Editorial Cleanup (Non-author Editing)

   Task Description: Most technical publishers do an editorial review to
   ensure the quality of published documents.  Typically this may
   address issues such as grammar, spelling, readability, formatting,
   adherence to boilerplate, document structure, proper use of keywords,
   etc.  Since any proposed changes occur after approval, a review and
   signoff mechanism should usually be established to ensure that the
   required changes are truly editorial.  Since such changes occur
   outside of the normal approval process, it is desirable that such


Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   changes are minimized.  Most standards organizations target "light"
   editing due to the dangers of changing agreed text.

   Discussion: Within IETF, the RFC Editor does post-approval cleanup
   review and editing.  The ambition level for cleanup can vary from:

   o  Corrections to errors only,

   o  Light rewriting,

   o  Significant editing of documents with less skillful WG editors,
      and minimal editing when the WG editors were skilled,

   o  Rewriting of all documents to the dictates of a style manual

   At times in the past year, stylistic editing has resulted in a
   substantial number of changes in many documents.  These changes must
   then be vetted by all the authors followed by subsequent rounds of
   author acceptance and re-vetting.  This can add up to a substantial
   delay in the publication process which must be weighed against the
   incremental gain in communication improvement accomplished by the
   cleanup.

   Changes to improve readability (or possibly even grammar) can end up
   inadvertently affecting consensus wording or technical meaning.  Note
   that pre-approval editing to some extent avoids this problem.

   In specific instances it may be necessary to require that text be
   published "verbatim" even if doing so introduces what is perceived as
   poor readability or stylistic inconsistency.  Examples of this
   include:

   - "Boilerplate" agreed on in an IETF working group to apply to all
   instances of derivative works (e.g., IANA registration documents,
   Management Information Bases (MIBs), etc.)

   - Text referring to other organizations' work - which has been
   carefully phrased and arranged with representatives of that other
   organization to deal with some politically sensitive issue.

   If pre-approval editing or review is done it may be possible to
   reduce or even eliminate entirely the post-approval editing task in
   some cases.  Pre-approval editing may be more efficient since a
   separate change control process is not required.

   Derived Requirements:



Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   o  Req-POSTEDIT-1 - The IETF technical publisher should review the
      document for grammar, spelling, formatting, alignment with
      boilerplate, document structure, proper use of keywords, etc. The
      review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with
      previously published documents. In the IETF standards process
      stream, the publisher should not perform a technical review of the
      document.

   o  Req-POSTEDIT-2 - All changes made to post-approval documents
      should be tracked and the changes must be signed off on by the
      appropriate technical representatives.  For the IETF standards
      process stream this includes the authors and an individual
      authorized to approve changes (an Area Director or document
      shepherd.

   o  Req-POSTEDIT-3 - The IETF technical publisher should exercise
      restraint in making stylistic changes that introduce a substantial
      review load but only provides incremental increase in the clarity
      of the specification.  Specific guidelines on the types of changes
      allowed may be further specified, but ultimately restraint in
      editing must be imposed by the IETF technical publisher.  Changes
      for stylistic consistency should be done only when there are major
      problems with the quality of the document.

   o  Req-POSTEDIT-4 - The IETF technical publisher should exercise
      restraint in making changes to improve readability that may change
      technical and consensus wording.  Specific guidelines on the types
      of changes allowed may be further specified, but ultimately
      restraint in editing must be imposed by the IETF technical
      publisher.

   o  Req-POSTEDIT-5 - In specific instances, where some or all of
      document text is the result of a careful negotiation of
      contributions (within or between working groups, reviewers,
      etc.), the technical publisher may be required to publish that
      text verbatim.   In the IETF standards process verbatim
      publication may be requested by the IESG.  It is the expectation
      of the IETF community that this will not be done often.

3.4. Validation of References

   Task Description: Most standards organizations require that normative
   references be publicly available.  Some technical publishers verify
   the validity and availability of references (including referenced
   clauses and figures).  Although some editorial clean-up of references
   may be obvious, the issue becomes more severe when reference links
   are broken, are not publicly available, or refer to obsoleted


Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   documents.  Such faults may be viewed as a post-approval fault found
   in the document.  Most publishers have the ability to put a document
   on hold awaiting the publication of a reference expected to be
   available soon.

   Discussion: The RFC Editor may put a document on hold waiting for the
   availability of other IETF documents.  Incorrect references are
   handled like any other fault detected in the editorial review.

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-REFVAL-1 - The IETF technical publisher should ensure that all
      references within specifications are currently available and are
      expected to remain available.

   o  Req-REFVAL-2 - The IETF technical publisher should delay
      publication until all required (normative) references are ready
      for publication.

3.5. Validation of Formal Languages

   Task Description: If the Specification contains a formal language
   section (such as a MIB), the technical publisher may be required to
   validate this using a tool.

   Discussion: The RFC Editor syntactically validates sections of a
   document containing MIBs, Augmented Backus Naur Form (ABNF),
   eXtensible Markup Language (XML), Abstract Syntax Notation One
   (ASN.1) and possibly other formal languages.

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-FORMALVAL-1 - The IETF technical publisher should validate the
      syntax of sections of documents containing formal languages.  In
      particular ASN.1, ABNF, and XML should be verified using
      appropriate tools.

3.6. Insertion of Parameter Values

   Task Description: The Technical Publisher is expected to work with
   IANA (or possibly other organizations maintaining registries) to
   populate assigned protocol parameter values when required, prior to
   publication.  The population of these parameters values should not
   require technical expertise by the technical publisher.

   Discussion: Within IETF, IANA normally does its allocations as an
   early step in the technical publication process.


Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-PARAMEDIT-1 - The IETF technical publisher should work with
      IANA in the population of required parameter values into
      documents.

3.7. Post-approval, Pre-publication Technical Corrections

   Task Description: Regardless of efforts to minimize their occurrence,
   it is always possible that technical flaws will be discovered in the
   window between document approval and publication.  The technical
   publisher may be requested to incorporate technical changes into the
   document prior to publication.  Such changes necessitate a review and
   sign-off procedure.  Another option is to disallow such corrections
   and treat them as you would post-publication errata.  Note that this
   task is distinct from post-approval changes that might originate due
   to editorial review because they originate from outside the technical
   publisher.  For severe flaws, it should always be possible to
   withdraw the document from the publication queue (See section 3.13).

   Discussion: IETF allows minor technical corrections during the
   publication process.  This should ideally be a rare occurrence.
   Since any changes introduced during the post-approval phase can lead
   to publication delays it is important that only changes with
   technical merit be permitted.  In particular stylistic changes should
   be discouraged.  IETF processes must be in place to vet changes
   proposed by the author, but this is not specifically a requirement on
   the technical publisher.

   The interaction between the authors and the technical publisher must
   be sufficiently well policed that untracked and unapproved changes
   cannot be introduced by the author or other parties.

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-POSTCORR-1 - The IETF technical publisher should permit the
      incorporation of technical changes detected after approval, but
      pre-publication.

   o  Req-POSTCORR-2 - The IETF technical publisher should only allow
      post-approval technical changes which have been approved by the
      appropriate party.  In the IETF standards process stream this
      includes the individual designated by the IESG (sometimes referred
      to as the document shepherd and currently an AD).





Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   o  Req-POSTCORR-3 - The IETF technical publisher should alert the
      appropriate authority when it feels that a requested change is
      suspect (e.g., an unapproved technical alteration) or
      unreasonable (e.g., massive editorial changes).  Further
      processing of the draft should be suspended pending a response by
      that authority.  For the IETF standards process stream, that
      authority is appointed by the IESG and is usually the document
      shepherd.

   o  Req-POSTCORR-4 - The IETF technical publisher should ensure that
      any source documents associated with a publication are updated in
      conjunction with their associated specifications.

3.8. Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers

   Task Description: For a document to be referenced, it must have a
   unique permanent identifier.  In some standards organization, it is
   the technical publisher that generates this identifier.  In other
   cases the identifier may be allocated earlier in the process.

   Discussion: Currently, the RFC Editor allocates RFC numbers and other
   identifiers (the current IETF stable identifiers) when the document
   is near the end of the publication process.  Having identifiers
   allocated early was considered, but a definite need could not be
   established.

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-PERMID-1 - The IETF technical publisher should allocate stable
      identifiers as part of the publication process.

   o  Req-PERMID-2 - The IETF technical publisher should assign
      additional permanent identifiers associated with various classes
      of documents as directed by the appropriate authority.  For the
      IETF standards process stream, that authority is the IESG.

3.9. Document Format Conversions

   Task Description: The technical publisher is responsible for
   converting the documents into one or more output formats (text,
   portable document format (pdf), etc.).  In some standards
   organizations, the technical publisher may be required to accept
   input documents in various formats and produce a homogeneous set of
   output documents.

   Discussion: Currently, the RFC Editor accepts input as an ascii text
   file.  The RFC editor has also accepted supplementary formats that


Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   were used to generate the ascii text (xml and nroff). The documents
   are published as ascii text and pdf files.

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-DOCCONVERT-1 - The IETF technical publisher should accept as
      input ascii text files and publish documents as ascii text files
      and pdf files.

   o  Req-DOCCONVERT-2 - The technical publisher should accept
      supplemental files that may contain information such as: code,
      formal descriptions (XML, ASN.1, etc.) graphics, data files, etc.
      Supplemental files may also include enhanced versions of the
      document containing graphics or sections not presentable in text
      format.  Any supplemental files, barring any changes to the IETF
      process rules, will be associated with the published IETF
      documents, but may not be editable by the publisher.

3.10. Language Translation

   Task Description: Some standards organizations require publication of
   documents in multiple languages.  This translation is the
   responsibility of the technical publisher.

   Discussion: IETF specifications are published only in English.

   Derived Requirements: none

3.11. Publication Status Tracking

   Task Description: The technical publisher should have the ability to
   provide status information on the status of a document.  This may
   involve developing a process model or a checklist and providing
   information on a document's state, outstanding issues, and
   responsibility tokens.  Depending on the need for transparency, this
   information may need to be available online and continuously updated.

   Discussion: The RFC Editor currently provides status information via
   the RFC editor queue.  Each document is attributed a status (AUTH48,
   RFC-EDITOR, IANA, ISR, etc.)  Items may stay on the queue for a long
   time without changing status.  This status tracking information is
   not integrated with the IESG tracking tools.  Within the IETF, the
   PROTO team is considering requirements for marking the token-holder
   accurately during long waiting periods, and others are looking into
   improved notification tools. Requirements on the IETF technical
   publisher for improved status integration and visibility could be met



Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   by collaborations with these efforts, or by providing public access
   to email logs regarding publications, or by some other proposal.

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-STATUSTRK-1 - The IETF technical publisher should make state
      information publicly available for each document in the
      publication process. It is desirable that this information be
      available through a documented interface to facilitate tools
      development.

   o  Req-STATUSTRK-2 - The IETF technical publisher should integrate
      its state information with the IETF tools to provide end-to-end
      status tracking of documents.  For the documents in the IETF
      standards process stream it is expected that documents should be
      able to move seamlessly from the IETF standards tracking system
      into the technical publication tracking system.

   o  Req-STATUSTRK-3  - The IETF technical publisher should provide
      external visibility of not only the fact that a document is in an
      extended waiting period, but also the token-holder and
      circumstances of the wait.

3.12. Expedited Handling

   Task Description: In some cases (such as when the documents are
   needed by another standards body), it should be possible for the
   approving organization to request expedited publication of a
   document.  Ideally, this should not skip any of the publication
   steps, but allocates it higher priority in the work queue to ensure
   earlier publication than normal.  Expedited publication should be
   used sparingly since as with any priority scheme, overuse will negate
   its benefits.

   Discussion: The fast-tracking procedure is used to expedite
   publication of a document at the request of the IESG. Fast-tracking
   is generally employed when an external organization has a looming
   publication deadline and a need to reference a document currently in
   the RFC editors queue.  Having short publication times would likely
   reduce the need for fast-tracking.

   Since fast tracking is disruptive to the workflow it is recommended
   that expedited handling be phased out as soon as alternative ways of
   achieving timely publication are in place.

   Derived Requirements:



Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   o  Req-EXPEDITE-1 - The IETF technical publisher should expedite the
      processing of specific documents at the request of an appropriate
      authority.  For the IETF standards process stream, that authority
      is the IESG or the IAB.

3.13. Exception Handling

   Task Description: It should be possible for various reasons for a
   document to be withdrawn from publication or the publication put on
   hold.  Reasons for this could be due to an appeals process, detection
   of a serious technical flaw, or determination that the document is
   unsuitable for publication.

   Discussion: For various reasons a document can be withdrawn before
   publication.

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-EXCEPTIONS-1 - The IETF technical publisher should permit
      documents to be withdrawn from publication at the direction of an
      appropriate authority.  For the IETF standards process stream,
      that authority is the IESG.

   o  Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 - The IETF technical publisher should permit
      documents to be put on hold awaiting the outcome of an appeal at
      the direction of an appropriate authority.  For the IETF standards
      process stream, that authority is the IESG.

3.14. Notification of publication

   Task Description: The technical publisher should provide a mechanism
   for alerting the community at large of the availability of published
   documents.

   Discussion: The RFC Editor notifies of document publication on the
   rfc-dist and ietf-announce mailing lists.

   o  Req-PUBNOTIFY-1 - The IETF technical publisher should announce the
      availability of published documents.

3.15. Post-publication Corrections

   Task Description: If corrections are identified after publication,
   the technical publisher should be able to publish errata that can be
   linked with the original document.




Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   Discussion: The RFC Editor maintains a list of errata.  Pointers to
   relevant errata are presented as output from the RFC Editor search
   engine.

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-ERRATA-1 - The IETF technical publisher should maintain errata
      for published documents. The process for review, updating, and
      approval of errata for IETF documents will be defined by the IETF.

   o  Req-ERRATA-2 - The IETF technical publisher should provide
      information on relevant errata as part of the information
      associated with a RFC.

3.16. Indexing: Maintenance of the Catalog

   Task Description: The technical publisher normally provides and
   maintains the master catalog of publications of that organization.
   As the publishers of the organization's output, the technical
   publisher is expected to be the definitive source of publications and
   maintainer of the database of published documents.   This also
   includes the cataloging and storage of meta-information associated
   with documents such as its history, status (updated, obsoleted,
   etc.), document categories (standard, draft standard, bcp, etc.)

   Discussion: The RFC Editor maintains the catalog.  The RFC editor is
   also responsible for the permanent archival of specifications.  Meta
   information associated with an RFC should also be maintained.  Since
   this is the definitive archive, sufficient security should be in
   place to prevent tampering with approved documents.

   o  Req-INDEX-1 - The IETF technical publisher should maintain the
      index of all IETF published documents. It is desirable that the
      interface to the index be documented to facilitate tools
      development.

   o  Req-INDEX-2 - The IETF technical publisher should provide the
      permanent archive for published documents.

   o  Req-INDEX-3 - Meta information associated with a published
      document must be stored and updated as its status changes.

   o  Req-INDEX-4 - The archive must be sufficiently secure to prevent
      the modification of published documents by external parties.





Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   o  Req-INDEX-5 - The IETF technical publisher should provide the
      permanent archive of any source documents associated with a
      published specification.

   o  Req-INDEX-6 - An appropriate authority can indicate to the
      publisher that it should change the status of a document (e.g.,
      to Historical) and this should be reflected in the index.  For
      the IETF standards process stream, the indicating authority is the
      IESG.

3.17. Access to Published Documents

   Task Description: The technical publisher should facilitate access to
   the documents published.  It is assumed that the technical publisher
   will provide online tools to search for and find information within
   the archive of published documents.  These access tools should
   facilitate understanding the state of the document (identification of
   replacement or updated documents, linkage to pertinent errata)

   Discussion: Documents and status may be accessed via the RFC Editor's
   web page

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-PUBACCESS-1 - The IETF technical publisher should provide
      search tools for finding and retrieving published documents.

   o  Req-PUBACCESS-2 - The IETF technical publisher tool should return
      relevant meta information associated with a published document
      (e.g., category of document, type of standard (if standards
      track), obsoleted by or updated by information, associated
      errata).

   o  Req-PUBACCESS-3  - The IETF Technical Publication search tools
      should be integrated with the IETF search tools.  For the IETF
      standards process stream, this refers to integration with the
      search tools used by the IETF standards process.

3.18. Maintenance of a Vocabulary Document

   Task Description: Some standards organizations require the technical
   publisher to maintain a publicly available vocabulary document or
   database containing common terms and acronyms. The goal is provide
   consistency of terminology between documents.

   Discussion: The RFC Editor does not maintain a public document or
   database of terms or acronyms.


Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   Derived Requirements: none

3.19. Providing Publication Statistics and Status Reports

   Task Description: The technical publisher may be required to
   periodically or continuously measure their performance.  In many
   standards organizations performance targets are set in terms of
   timeliness, throughput, etc.

   Discussion: The IETF technical publisher currently provides monthly
   statistics on arrivals and completions of documents by category.  In
   addition a status report is provided at each IETF meeting.  Other
   statistics can be used to judge the health of the editing process.
   Many of these statistics could be gathered using sampling techniques
   to avoid excessive load on the technical publisher.

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-STATS-1 - The IETF technical publisher should provide publicly
      available monthly statistics on average queue times and documents
      processed.  The presentation should provide a historical context
      to identify trends (see Goal-THROUGHPUT-1).  For the IETF
      standards process, this should include queue arrivals,
      completions, documents on the queue, and the number of documents
      in each state at the end of the month.

   o  Req-STATS-2 - The IETF technical publisher should provide periodic
      status reports to the IETF meetings to apprise the community of
      their work and performance.

   o  Req-STATS-3 - The IETF technical publisher should provide publicly
      available monthly statistics on the types of editorial corrections
      being found during reviews as well as the percent of corrections
      which are rejected by the authors.

   o  Req-STATS-4 - The IETF technical publisher should provide publicly
      available monthly statistics on author requested changes to
      documents under publication.  This statistic should also include
      changes required by other authorities outside of the technical
      publisher empowered to make changes.  For the IETF standards
      process, the designated authority would be the IESG or its
      designees.

3.20. Process and Document Evolution

   Task Description: The guidelines and rules for an organization's
   publication output will change over time.  New sections will be added


Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   to documents, styles and conventions will change, boilerplate will be
   changed, etc.  Similarly, the specific processes for publication of a
   specification will change.  The technical publisher is expected to be
   involved in these discussions and accommodate these changes as
   required.

   Discussion: Over time, the IETF consensus on what should be in a
   published document has changed.  Processes interfacing with the
   publisher have also changed.  Such changes are likely to continue in
   the future.  The RFC editor has been involved in such discussions and
   provided guides, policies, faqs, etc. to document the current
   expectations on published documents.

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-PROCESSCHG-1 - The IETF technical publisher should participate
      in the discussions of changes to author guidelines and publication
      process changes.

   o  Req-PROCESSCHG-2 - The IETF technical publisher should
      participate in and support process experiments involving the
      technical publication process.

3.21. Tutorial and Help Services

   Task Description: The technical publisher may be required to provide
   tutorials, mentoring, help-desks, online tools, etc. to facilitate
   smooth interaction with the technical publisher and IETF community
   awareness of document guidelines, procedures, etc.  In many
   organizations the publisher maintains a style manual giving explicit
   guidance to authors on how to write a specification.

   Discussion: Guidelines are provided to the authors on how to write a
   RFC as well as occasional tutorial presentations.  The RFC Editor
   provides a help desk at IETF meetings.

   Derived Requirements:

   o  Req-PUBHELP-1 - The IETF technical publisher should provide and
      maintain documentation giving guidance to authors on the layout,
      structure, expectations, etc. required to develop documents
      suitable for publication.  For the IETF standards process stream,
      the technical publisher should follow IESG guidance in specifying
      documentation guidelines.





Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   o  Req-PUBHELP-2 - The IETF technical publisher should provide
      tutorials to the IETF community to educate authors on the
      processes and expectations of the IETF technical publisher.

   o  Req-PUBHELP-3 - The IETF technical publisher should provide a
      contact e-mail address and correspond as required to progress the
      publication work.  The publisher should address queries from both
      inside and outside of the IETF community.

   o  Req-PUBHELP-4 - The IETF technical publisher should provide a
      help desk at IETF meetings.

4. Technical Publisher Performance Goals

   A Technical Publisher is typically measured not only on what they do
   but how well they perform the tasks.  The expectations in this
   section are treated as goals instead of requirements because:

   - Achieving a given level of performance is not totally under the
     control of the technical publisher.  Publication is a process and
     the goals are of the process, not just the publisher.

   - The actual performance objectives will be set contractually.  The
     values herein represent values which the IETF community feels are
     desirable and reasonable for work progress without consideration of
     financial or other factors.

   Goals are set forth in the following areas:

   1. Publication timeframes

   2. Publication throughput

4.1. Publication Timeframes

   Goal Description: This is a measure of the time from entry into the
   RFC editor queue until the documents are published. The metrics are
   defined in (req-STATS-1).

   Discussion: Long publication times create both internal and external
   difficulties.  Internal difficulties include the migration of authors
   to other activities and the accumulation of tempting post-approval
   fixes to be added to the document.  External difficulties include the
   inability of other standards organizations to reference IETF
   publications for lack of a RFC number.

   Derived Goals:


Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   o  Goal-TIMEFRAMES-1 - The consensus of the IETF community is that
      an average publication time of under a month is desirable.  It is
      understood that in some cases there will be delays outside of the
      publisher's control. The actual performance targets and metrics
      are expected to be determined as part of the contract negotiation
      process.

   o  Goal-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The consensus of the IETF community is that
      the time required for a pre-approval review should be under 10
      days. The actual performance targets and metrics are expected to
      be determined as part of the contract negotiation process.

4.2. Publication Throughput

   Goal Description: The number of documents published during a given
   time period is a measure of publisher throughput.  Some publishers
   also provide the data in terms of pages produced.  The counts should
   be separated by categories of documents.  The metrics are defined in
   (req-STATS-1).

   Discussion: The RFC editor currently provides monthly statistics on
   the arrival and completion of documents onto the RFC queue.  This is
   sorted by category of document.  This provides a measure of the
   delays in the publication process.

   Derived Goals:

   o  Goal-THROUGHPUT-1 - Although minor variations are expected, there
      should be no long term growth trend in the length of the
      publication queue.  The actual performance targets and metrics
      are expected to be determined as part of the contract negotiation
      process.

5. IETF Implications of Technical Publication Requirements

   Requirements on technical publication process have so far been stated
   in terms of requirements on the technical publisher.  However it must
   be recognized that many of these requirements have implications on
   the processes and tools within the IETF itself.  It is anticipated
   that these processes will be documented in companion documents.

   The following is a list of potential issues that should be addressed
   within the IETF based on the requirements applied to the technical
   publisher:





Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   o  Pre- vs Post-approval Editing: If emphasis switches from post-
      approval editing to pre-approval editing, then IETF processes must
      be adapted to make use of this service.  The processes for post-
      approval editing can also be streamlined.

   o  Post-approval Editorial Cleanup: IETF must define under what
      conditions the publisher should be instructed to bypass or
      minimize post-approval editing.

   o  Approval of post-approval, pre-publication technical corrections:
      Since the technical publisher can only accept approved changes, it
      must be clear who is allowed to approve technical changes.  This
      process within the IETF needs to be decided and documented.

   o  Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers: IETF needs to clearly
      identify the naming/numbering schemes and classes of documents to
      which those names and numbers apply.  Furthermore, the
      responsibility for allocation of those names/numbers needs to be
      identified.

   o  Expedited Handling: If publication timelines can be reduced
      sufficiently, then expedited handling may no longer be needed.

   o  Post-publication Corrections: Appropriate processes must be
      defined with the IETF to ensure that errata are appropriately
      vetted and authorized.

   o  Indexing: Appropriate processes must be defined within the IETF
      to decide and inform the technical publisher of status changes to
      published documents as the result of an appeal, legal action, or
      some other procedural action.

6. IANA Considerations

   Any new requirements that result from this discussion need to be
   reviewed by IANA and the IETF to understand to what extent, if any,
   the work flow of the documents through IANA are affected.

   Interactions with IANA on parameter validation is discussed in
   section 3.6.

7. Security Considerations

   There is a tussle between the sought-for improvements in readability
   and the specific language that has often been negotiated carefully
   for the security content of IETF documents.  As with other text,
   extreme caution is needed in modifying any text in the security


Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   considerations.  This issue is assumed to have been dealt with under
   the section 3.3.

   The processes for the publication of documents should prevent the
   introduction of unapproved changes (see section 3.7).  Since the IETF
   publisher maintains the index of publications, sufficient security
   should be in place to prevent these published documents from being
   changed by external parties (see section 3.16)

8. Acknowledgments

   Bert Wijnen has provided input on the early copy edit experiment and
   made useful comments throughout the document.  Leslie Daigle has
   contributed strongly to this text.  Thanks to Steve Barclay, John
   Meredith, Yvette Ho Sang, and Sami Trabulsi for discussions of the
   publication practices of ATIS, ETSI, IEEE, and ITU.  Other
   acknowledgements to date: a discussion on the wg chairs mailing list,
   Henning Schulzrinne, Henrik Levkowetz.



Author's Addresses

   Allison Mankin
   Washington, DC
   USA

   Phone: +1 301 728 7199
   Email: mankin@psg.com
   URI: http://www.psg.com/~mankin/


   Stephen Hayes
   Ericsson
   3634 Long Prairie Rd.
   Ste 108-125
   Flower Mound, TX 75022
   USA

   Phone: +1 469 360 8500
   Email: stephen.hayes@ericsson.com


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to


Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          draft-mankin-techspec-pub-req-10              July 2006


   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.







Mankin & Hayes             Expires January 12, 2007                 [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/