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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 6635

Network Working Group                                   O. Kolkman (Ed.)
Internet-Draft
Obsoletes: 5620 (if approved)                           J. Halpern (Ed.)
Intended status: Informational                                  Ericsson
Expires: August 12, 2012                                             IAB
                                                        February 9, 2012


                      RFC Editor Model (Version 2)
                    draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-03

Abstract

   The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out
   by various people or entities.  The RFC Editor model described in
   this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
   three functions: The RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center,
   and the RFC Publisher.  The Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
   oversight by way of delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Committee
   (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship between the IETF
   Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC.  This
   document reflects the experience gained with RFC Editor Model version
   1, documented in [RFC5620] and obsoletes that document.

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 August 12, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  RFC Series Editor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.1.  Strategic Leadership and Management of the
               Publication and Production Functions . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.1.2.  Representation of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . .  7
         2.1.2.1.  Representation to the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
         2.1.2.2.  External Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.1.3.  Development of RFC Production and Publication  . . . .  9
       2.1.4.  Development of the RFC Series  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.1.5.  Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.1.6.  Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.1.7.  Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     2.2.  RFC Production Center  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     2.3.  RFC Publisher  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   3.  Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.1.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)  . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.1.1.  RSOC Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   4.  Administrative Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.1.  Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher
           Functions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.2.  Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.3.  Disagreements Among RFC Editor Related Entities  . . . . . 17
     4.4.  Issues with Contractual Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   5.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   6.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20











Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


1.  Introduction

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

   The RFC series is described in [RFC4844].  Its Section 3.1 defines
   "RFC Editor":


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

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

   RFC 4844 makes no attempt to explore the internal organization of the
   RFC Editor.  However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor
   organizational structure.  There have been several iterations on
   efforts to improve and clarify this structure.  These have been led
   by the IAB, in consultation with the community and many leadership
   bodies within the community.  This first resulted in the publication
   of [RFC5620], and then in further discussions leading to this
   document.  In undertaking this evolution, the IAB considered changes
   that increase flexibility and operational support options, provide
   for the orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the
   continuity of the RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality,
   maintaining timely processing, ensuring document accessibility,
   reducing costs, and increasing cost transparency.  The model set
   forth below describes the internal organization of the RFC Editor,
   while remaining consistent with RFC 4844.

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



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


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

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

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

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

2.  RFC Editor Model

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

   o  RFC Series Editor ("RSE").

   o  RFC Production Center.

   o  RFC Publisher.

   The structure and relationship of the components of the RFC Series
   Production and Process is schematically represented by the figure
   below.  The picture does not depict oversight and escalation
   relations.  It does include the streams and their managers (which are
   not part of the RFC Series Editor nor the production or publication
   facilities) in order to more fully show the context in which the RFC
   Series Editor operates.






Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


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

            Structure of RFC Series production and process.

                                 Figure 1



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


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

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

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

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

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

   o  The RSE will develop consensus versions of vision and policy
      documents.  These documents will be reviewed by the RFC Series
      Oversight Committee (Section 3.1 and subject to its approval
      before final publication.

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

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

2.1.  RFC Series Editor

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

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

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



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


   managers.

2.1.1.  Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication and
        Production Functions

   With respect to the Publication and Production functions, the RSE
   provides input to the IASA budget, statements of work, and manages
   vendor selection processes.  The RSE performs annual reviews of the
   Production and Publication function which are then provided to the
   RSOC the IASA, and the community.  If the IAOC concludes that it is
   necessary, private financial details may be elided from the public
   version.

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

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

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

2.1.2.  Representation of the RFC Series

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

2.1.2.1.  Representation to the IETF

   The RSE is the primary point of contact to the IETF on matters
   relating to the RFC series in general, or policy matters relating to
   specific documents.  Issues of practical details in the processing of
   specific documents are generally worked directly with the RFC
   Production Center staff.

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

   Due to the history and nature of the interaction between the RSE and



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


   the IETF, certain principles, described in the following subsections,
   must be understood and adhered to by the RSE in his or her
   interactions with the community.  These apply to the representation
   function, as well as to the leadership the RSE provides for
   Production and Series Development.

2.1.2.1.1.  Volunteerism

   The vast majority of Internet technical community work is led,
   initiated, and done by community volunteers, including oversight,
   policy-making, and direct production of, for example, many software
   tools.  The Series Editor while not a volunteer is dependent upon
   these volunteer participants.  Also, the spirit of the community is
   heavily focused on and draws from these volunteers.  As such, the
   Series Editor needs to support the vitality and effectiveness of
   volunteer participation.

2.1.2.1.2.  Policy Authority

   All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the broader
   Internet community.  The RSE is responsible for identifying
   materially concerned interest groups within the Internet community
   and reach out to them.  Those interest groups include at least the
   IETF community, the IRTF community, the network research community,
   and the network operations community.  Other interest groups might
   also be materially interested.

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

2.1.2.2.  External Representation

   From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF
   need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series.  The RSE or
   the RSE's designate serve this role.

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




Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


2.1.3.  Development of RFC Production and Publication

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

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

2.1.4.  Development of the RFC Series

   In order to develop the RFC Publication series the RSE is expected to
   develop a relationships with the Internet technical community.  With
   that community, the Editor is expected to engage in a process of
   articulating and refining a vision for the Series and its continuous
   evolution.  The RSE is expected to also engage with other users of
   the RFC series, in particular with the consumers of these documents
   such as those people who use them to specify products, write code,
   test behaviors, or other related activities.

   Concretely:

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

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

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

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



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


         engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering
         issues themselves.

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

2.1.5.  Workload

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

2.1.6.  Qualifications

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

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

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

   3.   Good communication skills.

   4.   Experience with editorial processes.

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

   6.   Independent worker.

   7.   Willingness to, and availability for, Travel.

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

   9.   Experience with and ability to participate in, and manage
        activities by email and teleconferences, not just face-to-face
        interactions

   10.  Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management
        of entire operations is desired.




Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


   11.  Experience as an RFC author desired.

2.1.7.  Conflict of Interest

   The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of
   interest or judgment in performing these roles.  As such, the RSE is
   barred from having any ownership, advisory, or other relationship to
   the vendors executing the Publication or Production functions except
   as specified elsewhere in this document.  If necessary, an exception
   can be made after public disclosure of those relationships and with
   the explicit permission of the IAB and IAOC.

2.2.  RFC Production Center

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

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

   2.   Creating records of edits performed on documents;

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

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

   5.   Creating records of dialog with document authors;

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

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

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

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

   10.  Assigning RFC numbers;

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




Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


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

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

   14.  Liaising with the streams as needed.

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

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

2.3.  RFC Publisher

   The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:

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

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

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

   4.  Providing backups.

   5.  Providing storage and preservation of records.

   6.  Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.

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

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

3.  Committees

3.1.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)

   The IAB is responsible for oversight over the RFC Series and acts as
   a body for final conflict resolution, including the process described
   in Section 4.3.

   In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the nomcom
   appointment cycle and assure that oversight includes suitable subject
   matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group that implements



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


   oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC).

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

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

   o  perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of these
      reviews to the IAB.

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

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

   For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, RSOC will
   propose a budget for the search process, and work with IASA to refine
   that budget and develop remuneration criteria and an employment
   agreement or contracting plans, as appropriate.

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

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

   The initial RSOC is charged with designing and executing a
   solicitation, search, and selection process for the first actual
   (non-transition or "acting") RSE appointment.  That process will
   inevitably involve iteration on this and related documents and
   evaluation of various strategies and options.  The RSOC is expected
   to describe the process it ultimately selects to the community and to
   involve the community in interim considerations when that is likely
   to be of value.  Upon completion of the selection process, the RSOC
   will determine the best way to share information learned and
   experience gained with the community and to determine how to best
   preserve that information for future use.




Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


3.1.1.  RSOC Composition

   The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB
   retaining final responsibility.  The IAB will delegate authority and
   responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE
   relationships evolve.  The RSOC will include people who are not
   current IAB members.  Currently, this is aligned with the IAB Program
   structure.  The IAB will designate the membership of the RSOC with
   the goals of preserving effective stability, keeping it small enough
   to be effective, but large enough to provide general Internet
   Community expertise, specific IETF expertise, Publication expertise,
   and stream expertise.  Members serve at the pleasure of the IAB and
   are expected to bring a balance between short and long term
   perspective.  Specific input about, and recommendations of, members
   will be sought from the streams, the IASA, and the RSE.

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

4.  Administrative Implementation

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























Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


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

                     Authority Structure of RFC Series

                         Legend:

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


                                 Figure 2

4.1.  Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher Functions

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

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



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2.  Budget

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

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

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

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




Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


4.3.  Disagreements Among RFC Editor Related Entities

   The RFC Series Editor, and the RFC Production and Publication
   facilities, work with the various streams to produce RFCs.
   Disagreements may arise during the execution of the RFC Editor
   operations.  In particular, different streams may disagree with each
   other, or disagree with the RFC Editor function.  Potentially, even
   the RSOC or the IAOC could find themselves in disagreement with some
   aspect of the RFC Editor operations.  Note that disagreements between
   an author and the production facility are not cross-entity issues,
   and are to be resolved by the RSE, in accordance with the rest of
   this document.

   If such cross-entity disagreements arise, the community would
   generally hope that they can be resolved politely and directly.
   However, this is not always possible.  At that point, any relevant
   party would first formally request a review and reconsideration of
   the decision.  If the party still disagrees after the
   reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or, especially
   if the RSE is involved, the party may ask the IAB Chair (for a
   technical or procedural matter) to mediate or appoint a mediator to
   aid in the discussions, although he or she not is obligated to do so.
   All parties should work informally and in good faith to reach a
   mutually agreeable conclusion.  As noted below, any such issues which
   involve contractual matters must be brought to the addition of the
   IAOC.  If the IAB Chair is asked to assist in resolving the matter,
   the Chair may ask for advice or seek assistance from anyone the Chair
   deems helpful.  The chair may also alert any appropriate individuals
   or organizations to the existence of the issue.

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

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




Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


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

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

4.4.  Issues with Contractual Impact

   If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual
   consequences it falls under BCP 101 and IASA, and thus the Series
   Editor must identify the issue and provide his or her advice to the
   IAOC and, if the RSOC has provided advice, forward that advice as
   well.  The IAOC must notify the RSOC and IAB that this action is
   being taken and then proceed to have it resolved according to its
   applicable procedures subject to any special provisions in the
   relevant contracts.

5.  IANA considerations

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

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

6.  Security considerations

   The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply.  The
   processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
   introduction of unapproved changes.  Since the RFC Editor maintains
   the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to
   prevent these published documents from being changed by external
   parties.  The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed
   to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents
   (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, originals
   that are not machine-readable) need to be secured against failure of
   the storage medium and other similar disasters.

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



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


   contracts.

7.  Acknowledgments

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

   The IAOC members at the time this RFC Editor model was approved were
   (in alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba, Eric Burger, Dave Crocker,
   Marshall Eubanks, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Ole Jacobsen, Ray
   Pelletier (non-voting), and Lynn St.Amour (ex officio).

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

   The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in
   alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba, Ross Callon, Alissa Cooper,
   Spencer Dawkins, Joel Halpern, Russ Housley, David Kessens, Olaf
   Kolkman, Danny McPherson, Jon Peterson, Andrei Robachevsky, Dave
   Thaler, and Hannes Tschofenig.  In addition, the IAB included at the
   time of approval two ex-officio members: Mary Barnes who was serving
   as the IAB Executive Director, and Lars Eggert, who was serving as
   the IRTF Chair.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

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

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



Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        RFC Editor Model (Version 2)         February 2012


              May 2000.

8.2.  Informative References

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

Authors' Addresses

   Olaf M. Kolkman

   EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl


   Joel M. Halpern
   Ericsson

   EMail: joel.halpern@ericsson.com


   Internet Architecture Board

   EMail: iab@iab.org




























Kolkman (Ed.), et al.    Expires August 12, 2012               [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/