RFC Editor Model (Version 1)olaf@nlnetlabs.nliab@iab.orgRFC
The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be
carried out by various persons or entities. The RFC Editor
model presented in this document divides the responsibilities
for the RFC Series into four functions: The RFC Series Editor,
the Independent Submission Editor, RFC Production Center, and
the RFC Publisher. It also introduces the RFC Series Advicory
group and an (optional) Independent Stream Editorial Board. The model
outlined here is intended to 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 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 IAOC about providing the necessary services in
a cost effective and efficient manner.
The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844
. Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor":
| 3.1. RFC Editor
|
| Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC
| Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now
| requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are RFC
| Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be
| multiple organizations working together to undertake the work
| required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without
| attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them,
| this document refers to this collection of experts and organizations
| as the "RFC Editor".
|
| The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor,
| acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC
| Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the
| RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition,
| the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in
| discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving
| RFCs.
RFC 4844 makes no attempt to explore the internal organization
of the RFC Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the
RFC Editor organizational structure. In discussion with the
Internet community, the IAB considered changes that increase
flexibility and operational support options, provides for the
orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensures the
continuity of the RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality,
maintaining timely processing, ensuring document
accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost
transparency. The model set forth below is the result of those
discussions, and examines 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
Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which
this memo provides a model for internal organization. This
memo introduces the term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series
Editor" for one of the organizational components.
The IAB approved the the initial version of this RFC Editor
model on October 1, 2008, the model has received
clarifications since. It should be noted that the publication
of the document as an RFC does not cast the model in stone, as
the primary purpose of this document, throughout the
publication procession, is to encourage normal community
review in order to ascertain consensus to work to this model
as a first step. The document, and the resulting structures,
will be modified as needed through normal procedures. The IAB
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 model is constructed in such a way that it allows for all
these functions to be implemented jointly or under separate
contractual arrangements. In fact, a bidder could put together
a proposal that includes one or more subcontractors. The
reporting structure will depend on the manner that the
contracts are awarded, and they are subject to change over
time. As a result, the model describes only responsibilities,
procedures, and process. The exact implementation is a
responsibility of the IAOC.
The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses.
They are part of the IASA budget. Today, these expenses are
part of the RFC Editor contract with ISI.
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for
the RFC Series into the following components:
RFC Series EditorIndependent Submission EditorRFC Production CenterRFC Publisher
The RFC Series Production and Process under this structure is
schematically represented by the figure below.
In this model the RFC Series Editor (RSE or Series Editor) will
exercise executive-level management over many of the
activities of the RFC Publisher and the RFC Production Center
(which can be seen as back office functions) and will be the
entity that:
faces the community;works with the IAOC for contractual responsibilities;and in collaboration with the RFC Series Advisory Group,
identifies and leads community discussion of important issues
and opportunities facing the RFC Series;
while the IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered
responsibility. More details about the collaboration with the
RSAG and the IAB responsibilities can be found in .
The RSE does not have the authority to hire or fire RFC Editor contractors or personnel.
The RFC Series Editor, is an individual who may have
assistants and who will regularly be provided support from
an advisory group (see ). The RSE is
responsible for:
Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series
continuity
Exercising executive-level management over the
implementation of policies, processes and procedures
established to ensure the quality and consistency for
the RFC Series. The RFC Series Editor will work with
the RSAG, and, where appropriate, the IAB and IAOC to develop, new policy and see that
contractual agreements are met.
Taking proposed changes to the community, and working with
the IAB so that the IAB can ensure that there is
sufficient community review before significant policies or policy changes are
adopted.
Coordinating with IAB and/or IAOC, and together with the
IAB and/or IAOC participating in reviews of the RFC
Publisher, RFC Publication Center, and Independent
Stream Editor functions to ensure the above mentioned
continuity
Developing, maintaining, and publishing the RFC Style
Manual publication for use by authors, editors, and the
RFC publisher
Managing the RFC errata processLiaising with the IAB Overseeing consistency of RFCs with the RFC Series and RFC Style Manual
There are many potential issues with respect to RFC Series
continuity. To name a few: Look and feel of the series,
indexing methodologies, accessibility of the publications,
IPR and copyright issues, and formatting issues. After
identifying the appropriate steps to address such issues,
the implementation of those steps resides mostly with the
RFC production and publishing functions. Since the IAOC
maintains oversight of the implementation, the Series Editor
is expected to be invited and participate in reviews of that
implementation.
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional
with the following qualifications:
Strong understanding of the IETF processGood understanding of the English language and technical
terminology related to the InternetGood communication skillsExperience with editorial processesIndependent workerExperience as an RFC author desired
There are alternative selection methods for selecting the
individual to serve as the RFC Series Editor:
The first alternative involves a Request for Proposal (RFP)
process run by the IAOC. The IAOC would seek a person with
the listed qualifications in a broadly distributed RFP. The
winner would be selected by the IAOC in consultation with
the IAB, and then, the IAOC would contract for the
services. Contract terms, including length of contract,
extensions and renewals, shall be as provided in the
RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available. Fees
and expenses to support the administrative operation of the
RFC Series Editor would be part of the awarded contract and
be part of the IASA budget.
The second alternative involves a nomination and
confirmation process. Candidates are nominated, and then an
individual with the listed qualifications is selected by the
Internet community and confirmed by the IAB. An approach
similar to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member
every other year as described in
will be used. A stipend and expenses to support the
administrative operation of the RFC Series Editor selected
in this manner would be part of the IASA budget.
Based on an Request for Information (RFI) issued by the IAOC
in December 2008 the IAOC recommended that the second alternative
is choosen for the 2009-2010 selection cycle.
The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may
have assistants and who is responsible for:
Maintaining technical quality of the Independent streamIndependent Submissions approval and processingForwarding RFCs in the Independent Stream to the RFC Production CenterIndependent Submissions RFC errata review and approval
The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for
which the following qualifications are desired:
Technical competence, i.e. broad technical experience
and perspective across the whole range of Internet
technologies and applications, and specifically, the
ability to work effectively with portions of that spectrum
in which no personal expertise exists.Thorough familiarity with the RFC seriesAn ability to assess the technical competence of
potential Editorial Board membersGood standing in the technical community, in and beyond
the IETFDemonstrated Editorial skills and good command of the English language
The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an
advisory board (see ) and
may form a team to perform the activities needed to fulfill
their responsibilities.
The individual with the listed qualifications will be
selected by the community and confirmed by the IAB. An
approach similar to the one used by the IAB to select an
IAOC member every other year as described in should be used. A stipend and expenses
to support the administrative operation of the Independent
Submission Editor selected in this manner will be
evaluated. The IAB considers maintaining the Independent
stream within the RFC Series part of the IAB's supported
activities, and will include these expenses in its
IASA-supported budget.
RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the
contractor responsibilities include:
Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the
RFC Style ManualCreating records of edits performed on documentsIdentifying where editorial changes might have technical
impact and seek necessary clarification.Engaging in dialogue with authors, document shepherds,
IANA, and/or stream dependent contacts when clarification is
needed.
Creating records of dialogue with documents authorsRequesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as neededProviding suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as neededCoordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter
registry actionsAssigning of RFC number 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. Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC
PublisherForwarding records of edits and author dialogue to RFC
Publisher so these can be preservedLiaising with IESG and IAB
The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected by the
IAOC through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same
contract as the RFC Series Editor. The IAOC would seek a bidder
who, among other things, is able to provide a professional,
quality, timely, and cost effective service against the
established style and production guidelines. Contract terms,
including length of contract, extensions and renewals, shall be
as defined in an RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly
available.
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:
Announce and provide on-line access to RFCsProvide on-line system to submit RFC ErrataProvide on-line access to approved RFC ErrataProvide backupsProvide storage and preservation of recordsAuthenticate RFCs for legal proceedings
Implementation of the RFC Publisher function can be pursued in
two different ways. The choice between these alternatives will
be based on an RFI issued by the IAOC in December 2009.
The first alternative is to modify the IETF Secretariat contract
to include these services. Expenses to support these services
would be part of the revised contract.
The second alternative is a separate vendor selected by the IAOC
through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as
the RFC Series Editor. Expenses to support service would be part of the
awarded contract.
The purpose of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) is to
provide expert, informed guidance (chiefly, to the RSE) in
matters affecting the RFC Series operation and development.
Such matters include, but are not limited to, issues in
operation of the RFC model components, and consideration of
additional RFC streams, to give a sense of the range of topics
covered.
The RSAG is chartered by the IAB. As such, it operates
independently of the IAB to fulfill that charter, and provides
periodic reports to the IAB via the RSE.
The group provides guidance to the RSE, who in turn addresses
immediate operational issues or opportunities with the ISE,
Production House, or Publisher. In cases where these issues
have contractual side-effects the RSE provides guidance to the
IAD. The RSAG also serves to provide advice to the RSE on
longer-term, larger-scale developments for the RFC Series.
This informs the proposals the RSE takes to the community for
discussion, and the IAD/IAOC as proposals for implementation.
The RSAG will assist the RSE in identifying and leading
community discussion of important issues and opportunities
facing the RFC Series. The IAB retains its oversight role and
is responsible for ensuring that adequate community discussion
has been held on any such significant topics.
The RSAG full members are all at large members, selected for
their experience and interest in the RFC Series, to provide
consistency and constancy of the RFC Series interpretation
over time; the members do not represent a particular RFC
stream or any organizations. The RSAG members are proposed by the Series Editor in
consultation with the sitting RSAG members, and then
confirmed and formally appointed by the IAB. In addition to these full members,
each RFC stream will appoint a liaison to the RSAG to
provide context specific to their stream. Initially there
will be no IAOC or IAB liaison for their oversight role, however as experience is
gained the IAOC, IAB, or RSAG may request for such. There is
no requirement or expectation that RSAG members will be IAB
members.
The RSAG does not select or appoint the RSE, or any other
component of the RFC Editor model, although it acts as an
important resource for informing any selection process.
It is envisioned that the RSAG will be composed of 6 appointed
full members serving staggered 3 year terms, plus the RSE.
The full members will serve at the pleasure of the IAB --
appointed by the IAB, and if necessary, removed by the IAB.
In order to provide continuity and to assist with a smooth
transition of the RFC Editor function, the members of the
existing RFC Editor Editorial Board who are willing to do so
are asked to serve as an interim RSAG, effective as of the
time of approval of this document. Within one year from the
time the RFC Editor function transitions to the new model and
after consideration of the operation of the new model in
practice, the interim RSAG and RSE will formulate a
recommendation to the IAB about the regular composition and
selection process for the permanent RSAG.
If during the execution of their activities, a dispute arises
over a policy implementation decision made by one of the four entities in
the model, then the party having the conflict should first
request a reconsideration of the decision. If that
reconsideration is not satisfactory to the party, then the
matter can be brought to the Series Editor for a decision. All parties should work in a good faith effort to resolve the situation to a mutually agreeable result. If
the Series Editor decision is not satisfactory, then the the
matter must be registered with the RFC Series Advisory Group. The RSAG may choose to offer advice to the RSE. While the Series Editor may
be requested to wait with a final decision until the RSAG's
advice is formulated, the Series Editor's decision is final.
Disputes registered with the RSAG and subsequent advice will
need to be made available publicly and reported to the IAB
in its oversight capacity.
The discussion of these disputes
may inform future changes to Series policies
The RSE's decision is limited to
evaluation of whether current policies are appropriately
implemented in the decision. In particular, it should be
noted that decisions about the technical content of
individual documents are not within the purview of the
Series Editor, but are the exclusive domain of the stream
approvers, such as the IESG and the Independent Submission
Editor.
In case a dispute has immediate or future contractual
consequences, the Series Editor report to the IAOC and, when
available, deliver the RSAG's advice. The IAD, under IAOC's
guidance has the responsibility to resolve contractual
issues whereby the Series Editor's report should be leading.
It should be noted that decisions about the technical content
of individual documents are not within the purview of the
Series Editor, but are the exclusive domain of the stream
approvers, such as the IESG and the Independent Submission
Editor.
Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board for
the review of Independent stream documents. This board is
expected to evolve in what we will call the Independent
Stream Editorial Board. This Editorial Board will exist at the
pleasure of the ISE, and the members serve at the pleasure of
the ISE. The existence of this board is simply noted within
this model, and additional discussion of such considered out
of scope of this document.
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.
The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply: The
processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor
maintains the index of publications, sufficient security must be
in place to prevent these published documents from being changed
by external parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source
documents needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any
associated original documents (such as lists of errata, tools,
and, for some early items, non-machine readable originals) need
to be secured against failure of the storage medium and other
similar disasters.
The IAOC should take these security considerations into
account during the implementation of this RFC Editor model.
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, major and minor contributions were made by (in
alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy Ginoza,
Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern, Paul Hoffman, John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy,
and Jim Schaad.
The IAOC members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved
were (in alphabetical order):
Fred Baker,
Bob Hinden,
Russ Housley,
Ole Jacobsen,
Ed Juskevicius,
Olaf Kolkman,
Ray Pelletier (non-voting),
Lynn St.Amour, and
Jonne Soininen.
In addition, Marshall Eubanks was serving as the IAOC Scribe.
The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved
were (in alphabetical order):
Loa Andersson,
Gonzalo Camarillo,
Stuart Cheshire,
Russ Housley,
Olaf Kolkman,
Gregory Lebovitz,
Barry Leiba,
Kurtis Lindqvist,
Andrew Malis,
Danny McPherson,
David Oran,
Dave Thaler, and
Lixia Zhang.
In addition, the IAB included two ex-officio members: Dow Street, who
was serving as the IAB Executive Director, and Aaron Falk, who was
serving as the IRTF Chair.
The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in alphabetical order):
Marcelo Bagnulo,
Gonzalo Camarillo,
Stuart Cheshire,
Vijay Gill,
Russ Housley,
John Klensin,
Olaf Kolkman,
Gregory Lebovitz,
Andrew Malis,
Danny McPherson,
David Oran,
Jon Peterson, and
Dave Thaler.
The RFC Series and RFC EditorInternet Architecture BoardThis document describes the framework for an RFC Series and an RFC Editor function that incorporate the principles of organized community involvement and accountability that has become necessary as the Internet technical community has grown, thereby enabling the RFC Series to continue to fulfill its mandate. This memo provides information for the Internet community.The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and ProcessThis memo outlines the guidelines for selection of members of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee, and describes the selection process used by the IAB and the IESG. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
This process is used by the IAB for the selection of the RFC
Series Editor (if that position is not covered by the RFC
Production Center contract) and for the selection of the
Independent Submission Editor. The IAOC selects the RFC
Production Center and RFC Publisher from vendors that choose to submit
a proposal. The IAOC procurement process is not described in
this document.
The selection process herein is taken from but modified to allow for subject matter
experts to advise the IAB, to take into account that the
community with interest in the RFC series extends beyond the IETF
community, and to prefer the incumbent.
It is expected that the IAB and IAOC will establish an ad-hoc
advisory committee to assist them in the selection of the
various functions. The names of the members of this
committee, who do not need to be IAB members or IETF
participants, will be made public through the IAB and IAOC
minutes or otherwise.
The committee is expected to have an understanding of the RFC
series and related processes, and of procedures and interests of the
various streams.
Members of the subcommittee will be privy to confidential
material and are expected to honour confidentiality.
The IAB and IAOC bear the responsibility for the selections of
the candidates for defined functions, the committee provides
advice only.
The charter for the ad-hoc advisory committee that was
established for the first implementation of this model is
reproduced below for purely informational purposes.
RFC Services Selection Oversight Subcommittee.
The subcommittee will: Review the RFIs and RFPs involving all current RFC
Editor services before their release Review the RFI responses and make recommendations to the
IAOC and IAB as to the model, process and RFP going
forward Review the RFP proposals; conduct interviews; conduct
and analyze testing; if any, and make recommendations to the
IAOC Shepherd the IAB selection process for the relevant functions,
based on RFC4333 and provide and motivated shortlist to the IAB.The Subcommittee would terminate upon the completion of contract awards.The goal is to appoint members that are expected to have
an understanding of the RFC series, its processes and of
procedures and interests of the various streams.
The IAB will be making a broad public call for nominations.
The public call will specify the manner by which nominations
will be accepted and the means by which the list of nominees
will be published. Self-nominations are permitted. Along
with the name and contact information for each candidate,
details about the candidate's background and qualifications
for the position should be attached to the nomination.
Members of the ad-hoc advisory committee mentioned above are
not eligible, but besides those there are no limitations
with respect to the eligibility for nomination: Nominees do
not have to be actively contributing to the IETF and active
participation as being a working group chair, an IETF
Nominating Committee member, or an IAB or IESG member is not
a limitation.
IAB members who accept a nomination for an IAB-selected
position will recuse themselves from IAB selection
discussions.
The IAB will publish the list of nominated persons prior to
making a decision, allowing time for the community to pass
any relevant comments to the IAB. When established, the
advisory committee will be asked to provide a motivated
shortlist. The IAB will review the nomination material, any
submitted comments, the shortlist from the advisory
committee, and make its selection.
It is noted that the community mentioned above is the
community with an interest in RFCs and the RFC Editor's
functioning, the IETF community is only a part of that
community.
The main intent is to select the incumbent or a superior
candidate.
The following procedures will be used by the IAB in managing
candidates' personal information:
The candidate's name will be published, with all other
candidate names, at the close of the nominations
period. Except as noted above, all information provided to the
IAB during this process will be kept as confidential to
the IAB and, when established, the advisory committee.
The IAB will seat their selected member at the first IETF
meeting of every third year, for a three-year term of office.
Basic time frame requirements for the selection process are
as follows:
3-4 weeks for solicitation of nominations.3-4 weeks for review of nominees, deliberation, and selection.
About 3-4 weeks prior to the process, the IAB will
announce the specific dates for the selection process for
that year, following the guidelines above.
[This appendix is to be removed at publication]$Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 43 2009-04-22 17:53:09Z olaf $Added Sandy and Alice to the acknowledgement section, they were accidentally omitted
Added so that the selection
mechanism is explicitly documented. The selection mechanism
documents the use of an advisory committee and is explicit
about the fact that the community expands beyond the IETF
community.
Modified the RFC Editor Function name to "RFC Series Editor"
in order to minimize confusion between the collective of
functions (RFC Editor) and the function (Series Editor).
Added wording for specifying the technical competence needed
by the indep.subm.editor as suggested by JCK
Clarified the responsibilities of the production function in
Enumerated qualifications of the RFC EditorVarious nits correctedInconsictency in the use of RFC Production house and RFC
Production fixed: RFC Production Center used as term
Oversight over RFC consistency with the style manual has been made explicit.
Clarified that the Independent Stream Editors budget is
independent from the IETF/IASA.
Improved the language that clarified that the RFC Series
editors and Independent Stream editor do not necessarilly
need to work without assistants, while they bear the responsibility.
Added Joel to the acknowledgements Added the Advisory comittee charter as a FYIAdded editorial skill and command of English as a requirement for the ISEIn the responsibilities for the RFC series: Change
"Participate in" to "Provide input in" for IAOC Review. This
makes the text more implementation neutral.Typo: Model is consistent with RFC4844 instead of 4884Added "Maintaining technical quality of the Independent
stream" as an explicit responsibility for the ISE.[ommitted by accident] Introduced the concept of the RFC Series Advisory Group and
reworked the text to take this into account. This also caused
the renaming of the advisory group to an explicit "Independent
Stream Editorial Board".
Rewrote the appeal process to take the RSAG into account In : Prolongued the appointment period to 3 years