draft-iab-publication-00.txt   rfc4845.txt 
Network Working Group L. Daigle Network Working Group L. Daigle, Ed.
Internet-Draft Ed. Request for Comments: 4845
Expires: June 24, 2007 Internet Architecture Board Category: Informational Internet Architecture Board
(IAB) (IAB)
December 21, 2006
Process for Publication of IAB RFCs Process for Publication of IAB RFCs
draft-iab-publication
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 Status of This Memo
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 June 24, 2007. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
From time to time, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) publishes From time to time, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) publishes
documents as Requests for Comments (RFCs). This document defines the documents as Requests for Comments (RFCs). This document defines the
process by which those documents are produced, reviewed, and process by which those documents are produced, reviewed, and
published in the RFC series. published in the RFC Series.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Review and Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Review and Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. IAB RFC Publication Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. IAB RFC Publication Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IAB Members at the Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IAB members at the time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
From time to time, the IAB has cause to publish documents as Requests From time to time, the IAB has cause to publish documents as Requests
for Comments (RFCs). These occasions include: for Comments (RFCs). These occasions include the following:
o documents that arise from consideration of an issue by the IAB and o documents that arise from consideration of an issue by the IAB and
are authored by the IAB through a nominated editor. are authored by the IAB through a nominated editor.
o documents that report on IAB activities, such as workshop reports o documents that report on IAB activities, such as workshop reports,
and are authored by a nominated editor, generally from among the and are authored by a nominated editor, generally from among the
activity participants. activity participants.
o documents that are not the outcome of an IETF Working Group o documents that are not the outcome of an Internet Engineering Task
effort, but which the IAB has determined would be of benefit to Force (IETF) Working Group effort but that the IAB has determined
the IETF community to publish. Such document need not necessarily would be of benefit to the IETF community to publish. Such
be authored or revised by the IAB. documents need not necessarily be authored or revised by the IAB.
The majority of documents published by the IAB will be classified as The majority of documents published by the IAB will be classified as
Informational RFCs (see [3]). Generally-speaking, the IAB does not Informational RFCs (see [RFC2026]). Generally speaking, the IAB does
publish Standards-track or Experimental RFCs. If the IAB has cause not publish Standards-Track or Experimental RFCs. If the IAB has
to publish a document as a BCP, it would fall under the approval cause to publish a document as a Best Current Practice (BCP), it
process of the IETF Standards stream of RFCs (see [1]). would fall under the approval process of the IETF standards stream of
RFCs (see [RFC4844]).
2. Review and Approval 2. Review and Approval
In many cases, the IAB publishes documents to provide a permanent In many cases, the IAB publishes documents to provide a permanent
record of an IAB statement or position. In such cases, the IAB uses record of an IAB statement or position. In such cases, the IAB uses
its internal discussion processes to refine the expression and its internal discussion processes to refine the expression and
technical content of the document, and the document is approved for technical content of the document, and the document is approved for
publication if, and only if, the IAB is in agreement on its publication if, and only if, the IAB is in agreement on its
substantive content. substantive content.
For certain documents, it may not be appropriate for the IAB to take For certain documents, it may not be appropriate for the IAB to take
responsibility for technical correctness. For example, where the IAB responsibility for technical correctness. For example, where the IAB
has sponsored a workshop where not all the participants were members has sponsored a workshop in which not all the participants were
of the IAB and/or not all the members of the IAB were present, members of the IAB and/or not all the members of the IAB were
approval by the IAB of a report of the workshop is used only to present, approval by the IAB of a report of the workshop is used only
assert that the report is a faithful report of the proceedings of the to assert that the report is a faithful report of the proceedings of
workshop and that the matter is of interest to the community. the workshop and that the matter is of interest to the community.
Documents for which the IAB takes responsibility for technical Documents for which the IAB takes responsibility for technical
correctness (the most usual case) will be indicated by noting the IAB correctness (the most usual case) will be indicated by noting the IAB
as an author of the document, with individuals noted as editors or as an author of the document, with individuals noted as editors or
text authors. Other documents, such as workshop reports, will not text authors. Other documents, such as workshop reports, will not
specify the IAB as an author (although this does not preclude specify the IAB as an author (although this does not preclude
individual IAB members from being authors or editors). individual IAB members from being authors or editors).
In general, the document (introductory) text should make plain the In general, the document (introductory) text should make plain the
role of the IAB in publishing and supporting the text. Should the role of the IAB in publishing and supporting the text. Should the
skipping to change at page 5, line 21 skipping to change at page 3, line 26
described in Section 1. described in Section 1.
2. The IAB publishes an IAB draft (draft-iab-*). Comments on the 2. The IAB publishes an IAB draft (draft-iab-*). Comments on the
draft are reviewed and may be integrated into successive draft are reviewed and may be integrated into successive
iterations of the draft. In addition to considering comments iterations of the draft. In addition to considering comments
received on the draft, the IAB may elect to refer the document to received on the draft, the IAB may elect to refer the document to
individuals or groups and explicitly solicit comments as individuals or groups and explicitly solicit comments as
appropriate. appropriate.
3. For documents intended to be published as BCPs, the document is 3. For documents intended to be published as BCPs, the document is
passed to the IESG with a sponsoring Area Director (AD), and passed to the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) with a
follows the process outlined in [2]. sponsoring Area Director (AD), and follows the process outlined
in [SPONSOR].
4. For documents intended to be Informational RFCs, the remainder of 4. For documents intended to be Informational RFCs, the remainder of
this process is followed. this process is followed.
5. The chair of the IAB issues an IETF-wide Call For Comment on the 5. The chair of the IAB issues an IETF-wide Call for Comment on the
IETF Announce mailing list. The comment period is normally no IETF Announce mailing list. The comment period is normally no
shorter than four weeks. shorter than four weeks.
6. Comments received are considered for integration into the draft. 6. Comments received are considered for integration into the
The IAB shall determine whether the document is ready for document. The IAB shall determine whether the document is ready
publication based on the comments received, or whether another for publication based on the comments received, or whether
round of document editing and, optionally, a further call for another round of document editing and, optionally, a further call
input is required. for input is required.
7. The document is passed to the RFC editor for publication as an 7. The document is passed to the RFC Editor for publication as an
IAB document Informational RFC. IAB document Informational RFC.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document does not discuss matters with any particular security This document does not discuss matters with any particular security
implications. implications.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IAB Members at the Time of Approval
This document requires no action on IANA's part.
6. IAB members at the time of approval
To be filled in. Bernard Aboba
Loa Andersson
Brian Carpenter
Leslie Daigle
Elwyn Davies
Kevin Fall
Olaf Kolkman
Kurtis Lindqvist
David Meyer
David Oran
Eric Rescorla
Dave Thaler
Lixia Zhang
7. References 6. References
[1] Daigle, L., "The RFC Series and RFC Editor", [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
draft-iab-rfc-editor (work in progress), December 2006. 3", RFC 2026, BCP 9, October 1996.
[2] Arkko, J., "Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents", [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed., "The RFC Series and RFC Editor",
draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (work in progress), RFC 4844, July 2007.
October 2006.
[3] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", [SPONSOR] Arkko, J., Ed., "Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of
RFC 2026, October 1996. Documents", ION, May 2007.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Leslie L. Daigle Leslie L. Daigle (editor)
Ed.
Email: ledaigle@cisco.com, leslie@thinkingcat.com EMail: ledaigle@cisco.com, leslie@thinkingcat.com
(IAB) (IAB)
Email: iab@iab.org EMail: iab@iab.org
URI: http://www.iab.org/ URI: http://www.iab.org/
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
skipping to change at page 11, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Internet Society.
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
84 lines changed or deleted 67 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/