draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-03.txt   rfc8728.txt 
Network Working Group O. Kolkman, Ed. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) O. Kolkman, Ed.
Internet-Draft Request for Comments: 8728 Internet Society
Obsoletes: 6635 (if approved) J. Halpern, Ed. Obsoletes: 6635 J. Halpern, Ed.
Intended status: Informational Ericsson Category: Informational Ericsson
Expires: July 11, 2019 R. Hinden, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Hinden, Ed.
Check Point Software Check Point Software
January 7, 2019 February 2020
RFC Editor Model (Version 2) RFC Editor Model (Version 2)
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-03
Abstract Abstract
The RFC Editor model described in this document divides the The RFC Editor model described in this document divides the
responsibilities for the RFC Series into three functions: the RFC responsibilities for the RFC Series into three functions: the RFC
Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher.
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight via the RFC Series Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight via the RFC Series
Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship
between the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company and the between the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company and the
RSOC. This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor RSOC. This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor
Model (Version 1)", documented in RFC 5620; and obsoletes RFC 6635 to Model (Version 1)", documented in RFC 5620; and obsoletes RFC 6635 to
replace all references to the IASA and related structures with those replace all references to the IETF Administrative Support Activity
defined by the IASA 2.0 Model. (IASA) and related structures with those defined by the IASA 2.0
Model.
[RFC Editor: Please remove the following paragraph prior to
publication.]
The IASA2 WG requests that the IAB publish this replacement for RFC
6635.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for informational purposes.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for
publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 11, 2019. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document.
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 Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction
1.1. The RFC Editor Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. The RFC Editor Function
2. RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. RFC Editor Model
2.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1. RFC Series Editor
2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the 2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication
Publication and Production Functions . . . . . . . . 8 and Production Functions
2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series
2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF
2.1.2.2. External Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1.2.2. External Representation
2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication . . . . 10 2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication
2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series
2.1.5. Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.1.5. Workload
2.1.6. Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.1.6. Qualifications
2.1.7. Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.1.7. Conflict of Interest
2.2. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2. RFC Production Center
2.3. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.3. RFC Publisher
3. Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3. Committees
3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
3.1.1. RSOC Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1.1. RSOC Composition
4. Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. Administrative Implementation
4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher 4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher Functions
Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2. Budget
4.2. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3. Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor
4.3. Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor . 18 4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact
4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. IANA Considerations
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. Security Considerations
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. References
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.1. Normative References
8. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.2. Informative References
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 IAB Members at the Time of Approval
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Acknowledgments
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor Model This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor Model
(Version 1)", documented in [RFC5620], and updates the RFC Editor (Version 1)", documented in [RFC5620], and updates the RFC Editor
Model (Version 2) to be aligned with the new IASA 2.0 Model Model (Version 2) to be aligned with the new IASA 2.0 Model [RFC8711]
[I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] that creates a IETF Administration that creates the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF
Limited Liability Company ("LLC") managed by a board of directors LLC) managed by a board of directors (IETF LLC Board). As part of
("LLC Board"). As part of the IASA 2.0 Model the Internet the IASA 2.0 Model, the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) is eliminated, and its (IAOC) is eliminated, and its oversight and advising functions
oversight and advising functions transferred to the new LLC. This transferred to the new IETF LLC. This document obsoletes [RFC6635]
document obsoletes [RFC6635] to replace all references to the IASA to replace all references to the IASA and related structures with
and related structures with those defined by the IASA 2.0 Model. those defined by the IASA 2.0 Model.
The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned
with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor
succession, RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility. The IAB is succession, RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility. The IAB is
also sensitive to the concerns of the LLC about providing the also sensitive to the concerns of the IETF LLC about providing the
necessary services in a cost-effective and efficient manner. necessary services in a cost-effective and efficient manner.
The contemporary RFC Editor model [RFC5620] was first approved in The previous RFC Editor model [RFC5620] was first approved by the IAB
October 2008, and our understanding of the model has evolved with our in October 2008, and our understanding of the model has evolved with
experience since. During the implementation of version 1 of the our experience since. During the implementation of version 1 of the
model [RFC5620], it was quickly realized that the role of the RFC model [RFC5620], it was quickly realized that the role of the RFC
Series Editor (RSE) and the oversight responsibilities needed to be Series Editor (RSE) and the oversight responsibilities needed to be
structured differently. In order to gain experience with "running structured differently. In order to gain experience with "running
code", a transitional RSE was hired who analyzed the managerial code", a transitional RSE was hired who analyzed the managerial
environment and provided recommendations. This was followed by the environment and provided recommendations. This was followed by the
appointment of an acting RSE, who ably managed the series while work appointment of an acting RSE, who ably managed the series while work
was undertaken to select and hire a permanent RSE. This version of was undertaken to select and hire a permanent RSE. This version of
the model is based on the recommendations of both temporary RFC the model is based on the recommendations of both temporary RFC
Series Editors and the extensive discussion in the IETF community, on Series Editors and the extensive discussion in the IETF community, on
the rfc-interest list, and within the IAB. the rfc-interest list, and within the IAB.
This document, and the resulting structures, will be modified as This document, and the resulting structures, will be modified as
needed through normal procedures. The RSE, and the IAB, through the needed through normal procedures. The RSE, and the IAB, through the
RFC Oversight Committee (see Section 3.1), will continue to monitor RFC Series Oversight Committee (see Section 3.1), will continue to
discussions within the community about potential adjustments to the monitor discussions within the community about potential adjustments
RFC Editor model and recognize that the process described in this to the RFC Editor model and recognize that the process described in
document may need to be adjusted to align with any changes that this document may need to be adjusted to align with any changes that
result from such discussions; hence, the version number in the title. result from such discussions; hence, the version number in the title.
The IAB maintains it's responsibilities as defined in [RFC2850]. The IAB maintains its responsibilities as defined in [RFC2850].
1.1. The RFC Editor Function 1.1. The RFC Editor Function
The RFC Series is described in [RFC4844]. Its Section 3.1 defines The RFC Series is described in [RFC8729]. Its Section 3.1 defines
"RFC Editor": "RFC Editor":
Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC | Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC
Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now | Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now
requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are | requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are
RFC Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be | RFC Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be
multiple organizations working together to undertake the work | multiple organizations working together to undertake the work
required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without | required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without
attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them, | attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them,
this document refers to this collection of experts and | this document refers to this collection of experts and
organizations as the "RFC Editor". | organizations as the "RFC Editor".
|
The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series 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 | acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC
Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the | Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the
RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In | RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In
addition, the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime | addition, the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime
mover in discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and | mover in discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and
archiving RFCs. | archiving RFCs.
RFC 4844 does not explore the internal organization of the RFC RFC 8729 does not explore the internal organization of the RFC
Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor Editor. However, RFC 8729 envisions changes in the RFC Editor
organizational structure. There have been several iterations on organizational structure. There have been several iterations on
efforts to improve and clarify this structure. These have been led efforts to improve and clarify this structure. These have been led
by the IAB, in consultation with the community and many leadership by the IAB, in consultation with the community and many leadership
bodies within the community. This first resulted in the publication bodies within the community. This first resulted in the publication
of [RFC5620] and then in further discussions leading to this of [RFC5620] and then in further discussions leading to the
document. Some of the details on this evolution can be found below. publication of [RFC6635]. Some of the details on this evolution can
In undertaking this evolution, the IAB considered changes that be found below. In undertaking this evolution, the IAB considered
increase flexibility and operational support options, provide for the changes that increase flexibility and operational support options,
orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of provide for the orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the
the RFC Series, while maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely continuity of the RFC Series, while maintaining RFC quality,
processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and maintaining timely processing, ensuring document accessibility,
increasing cost transparency. The model set forth below describes reducing costs, and increasing cost transparency. The model set
the internal organization of the RFC Editor, while remaining forth below describes the internal organization of the RFC Editor,
consistent with RFC 4844. while remaining consistent with RFC 8729.
Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC Note that RFC 8729 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC
Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo
provides a model for internal organization. This memo defines the provides a model for internal organization. This memo defines the
term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the
organizational components. organizational components.
2. RFC Editor Model 2. RFC Editor Model
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series
into the following components: into the following components:
o RFC Series Editor (RSE) * RFC Series Editor (RSE)
o RFC Production Center * RFC Production Center
o RFC Publisher * RFC Publisher
The structure and relationship of the components of the RFC Series The structure and relationship of the components of the RFC Series
production and process is schematically represented by the figure production and process is schematically represented by Figure 1. The
below. The picture does not depict oversight and escalation picture does not depict oversight and escalation relations. It does
relations. It does include the streams and their managers (which are include the streams and their managers (which are not part of the RFC
not part of the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, or Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, or Publisher facilities) in
Publisher facilities) in order to more fully show the context in order to more fully show the context in which the RFC Series Editor
which the RFC Series Editor operates. operates.
+-------------+
| |
+--------------+ 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 +-------------+
| |
+--------------+ 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 ....+
Figure 1 Figure 1: Structure of RFC Series Production and Process
In this model, documents are produced and approved through multiple In this model, documents are produced and approved through multiple
document streams. The stream manager for each stream is responsible document streams. The stream manager for each stream is responsible
for the content of that stream. The four streams that now exist are for the content of that stream. The four streams that now exist are
described in [RFC4844]. The RFC Editor function is responsible for described in [RFC8729]. The RFC Editor function is responsible for
the packaging and distribution of the documents. As such, documents the packaging and distribution of the documents. As such, documents
from these streams are edited and processed by the Production Center from these streams are edited and processed by the Production Center
and published by the Publisher. The RFC Series Editor will exercise and published by the Publisher. The RFC Series Editor will exercise
strategic leadership and management over the activities of the RFC strategic leadership and management over the activities of the RFC
Publisher and the RFC Production Center (both of which can be seen as Publisher and the RFC Production Center (both of which can be seen as
back-office functions) and will be the entity that: back-office functions) and will be the entity that:
o Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function within the * Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function within the
IETF and externally. IETF and externally.
o Leads the community in the design of improvements to the RFC * Leads the community in the design of improvements to the RFC
Series. Series.
o Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of * Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of
improvements in the RFC Editor production and access processes. improvements in the RFC Editor production and access processes.
o Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web site, * Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web site,
which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher. which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher.
o Is responsible for developing consensus versions of vision and * Is responsible for developing consensus versions of vision and
policy documents. These documents will be reviewed by the RFC policy documents. These documents will be reviewed by the RFC
Series Oversight Committee (Section 3.1) and subject to its Series Oversight Committee (Section 3.1) and subject to its
approval before final publication. approval before final publication.
These responsibilities are defined below, although the specific work These responsibilities are defined below, although the specific work
items under them are a matter for the actual employment contract and items under them are a matter for the actual employment contract and
its Statement of Work (SOW). its Statement of Work (SOW).
The IAB maintain it's chartered responsibility as defined in The IAB maintain its chartered responsibility as defined in
[RFC2850]. More details on the oversight by the IAB via the RFC [RFC2850]. More details on the oversight by the IAB via the RFC
Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) can be found in Section 3.1. For 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 example, the RSE does not have the direct authority to hire or fire
RFC Editor contractors or personnel. RFC Editor contractors or personnel.
2.1. RFC Series Editor 2.1. RFC Series Editor
The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall responsibility The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall responsibility
for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series. for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series.
The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the LLC. The The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the IETF LLC.
IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the RSOC, which it The IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the RSOC,
appoints. which it appoints.
The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the LLC and the stream The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IETF LLC and the
managers. stream managers.
2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication and 2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication and
Production Functions Production Functions
With respect to the RFC Publisher and Production Center functions, With respect to the RFC Publisher and Production Center functions,
the RSE provides input to the LLC budget, SOWs, and manages vendor the RSE provides input to the IETF LLC budget, SOWs, and manages
selection processes. The RSE performs annual reviews of the RFC vendor selection processes. The RSE performs annual reviews of the
Production Center and Publisher function, which are then provided to RFC Production Center and Publisher function, which are then provided
the RSOC, the LLC, and the community. Normally, private financial to the RSOC, the IETF LLC, and the community. Normally, private
details would not be included in a public version unless the LLC financial details would not be included in a public version unless
concludes it is necessary to make such information public. the IETF LLC concludes it is necessary to make such information
public.
The RSE is responsible for the performance of the RFC Production The RSE is responsible for the performance of the RFC Production
Center and Publisher. The RSE is responsible for issues that go Center and Publisher. The RSE is responsible for issues that go
beyond the RFC Production Center or Publisher functions, such as beyond the RFC Production Center or Publisher functions, such as
cross-stream coordination of priorities. Issues that require changes cross-stream coordination of priorities. Issues that require changes
to the budget or contracts shall be brought to the attention of the to the budget or contracts shall be brought to the attention of the
LLC by the RSE. IETF LLC by the RSE.
The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and structures The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and structures
that will allow for continuity of the RFC Series in the face of that will allow for continuity of the RFC Series in the face of
changes in contracts and personnel. changes in contracts and personnel.
Vendor selection for the RFC Production Center and Publisher Vendor selection for the RFC Production Center and Publisher
functions is done in cooperation with the streams and under final functions is done in cooperation with the streams and under final
authority of the LLC. Details on this process can be found in authority of the IETF LLC. Details on this process can be found in
Section 4.1. Section 4.1.
2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series 2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series
The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series. This The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series. This
representation is important both internally, relative to the IETF, representation is important both internally, relative to the IETF,
and externally. and externally.
2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF 2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF
skipping to change at page 10, line 37 skipping to change at line 421
Concretely: Concretely:
The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on
series evolution among the series' stream participants and the series evolution among the series' stream participants and the
broader Internet technical community. broader Internet technical community.
In time, the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision for In time, the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision for
the RFC Series, including examining: the RFC Series, including examining:
* The RFC Series, as it continues to evolve. The RSE is expected - The RFC Series, as it continues to evolve. The RSE is expected
to take a broad view and look for the best ways to evolve the to take a broad view and look for the best ways to evolve the
series for the benefit of the entire Internet community. As series for the benefit of the entire Internet community. As
such, the RSE may even consider evolution beyond the historical such, the RSE may even consider evolution beyond the historical
'by engineers for engineers' emphasis; and 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis; and
* Its publication-technical environment, by looking at whether it - Its publication-technical environment, by looking at whether it
should be slowly changing in terms of publishing and archiving should be slowly changing in terms of publishing and archiving
techniques -- particularly to better serve the communities that techniques -- particularly to better serve the communities that
produce and depend on the RFC Series. For example, all of produce and depend on the RFC Series. For example, all of
those communities have been slowly changing to include a those communities have been slowly changing to include a
significant population of multi-lingual individuals or non- significant population of multi-lingual individuals or non-
native speakers of English. Another example is that some of native speakers of English. Another example is that some of
these constituencies also have shifted to include significant these constituencies also have shifted to include significant
groups whose primary focus is on the constraints and groups whose primary focus is on the constraints and
consequences of network engineering, rather than a primary consequences of network engineering, rather than a primary
interest in the engineering issues themselves. interest in the engineering issues themselves.
For this type of responsibility, the RSE cooperates closely with the For this type of responsibility, the RSE cooperates closely with the
community, and operates under oversight of the RSOC: thus, community, and operates under oversight of the RSOC: thus,
ultimately, under oversight of the IAB. ultimately, under oversight of the IAB.
2.1.5. Workload 2.1.5. Workload
On average, the job is expected to take half of a full-time On average, the job is expected to take half of a full-time
equivalent position (FTE, thus approx 20 hrs per week), with the equivalent position (FTE, thus approximately 20 hrs per week), with
workload per week nearing full time during IETF weeks. In addition, the workload per week nearing full time during IETF weeks. In
the job is expected to take more than 20 hours per week in the first addition, the job is expected to take more than 20 hours per week in
few months of the engagement and when involved in special projects. the first few months of the engagement and when involved in special
projects.
2.1.6. Qualifications 2.1.6. Qualifications
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional. The The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional. The
following qualifications are desired: following qualifications are desired:
1. Strategic leadership and management experience fulfilling the 1. Strategic leadership and management experience fulfilling the
requirements outlined in this document, the many aspects of this requirements outlined in this document, the many aspects of this
role, and the coordination of the overall RFC Editor process. role, and the coordination of the overall RFC Editor process.
skipping to change at page 12, line 10 skipping to change at line 491
interactions. interactions.
10. Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management 10. Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management
of entire operations. of entire operations.
11. Experience as an RFC author. 11. Experience as an RFC author.
2.1.7. Conflict of Interest 2.1.7. Conflict of Interest
The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of
interest or judgment in performing these roles. As such, the RSE is interest or judgment in performing these roles. To ensure this, the
barred from having any ownership, advisory, or other relationship to RSE will be subject to a conflict of interest policy established by
the vendors executing the RFC Publisher or Production Center the IETF LLC.
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 LLC.
2.2. RFC Production Center 2.2. RFC Production Center
The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid contractor, The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid contractor,
and the contractor's responsibilities include the following: and the contractor's responsibilities include the following:
1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style 1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style
Manual, under the direction of the RSE; Manual, under the direction of the RSE;
2. Creating records of edits performed on documents; 2. Creating records of edits performed on documents;
skipping to change at page 12, line 41 skipping to change at line 519
or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed; or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed;
5. Creating records of dialog with document authors; 5. Creating records of dialog with document authors;
6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed; 6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;
7. Providing suggestions to 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 8. Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC
Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external
reviews of the RFC Editor function initiated by the IAB or LLC; reviews of the RFC Editor function initiated by the IAB or IETF
LLC;
9. Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of IANA- 9. Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of IANA-
performed protocol registry actions; performed protocol registry actions;
10. Assigning RFC numbers; 10. Assigning RFC numbers;
11. Establishing publication readiness of each document through 11. Establishing publication readiness of each document through
communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA, and/or communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA, and/or
stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series
Editor; Editor;
skipping to change at page 13, line 17 skipping to change at line 544
13. Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC 13. Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC
Publisher so these can be preserved; Publisher so these can be preserved;
14. Liaising with the streams as needed. 14. Liaising with the streams as needed.
All these activities will be done under the general direction, but All these activities will be done under the general direction, but
not day-to-day management, of the RSE and need some level of not day-to-day management, of the RSE and need some level of
coordination with various submission streams and the RSE. coordination with various submission streams and the RSE.
The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through an LLC The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through an
Request for Proposal (RFP) process as described in Section 4.1. IETF LLC Request for Proposal (RFP) process as described in
Section 4.1.
2.3. RFC Publisher 2.3. RFC Publisher
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include the following: The RFC Publisher responsibilities include the following:
1. Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs. 1. Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.
2. Providing an on-line system to submit RFC Errata. 2. Providing an on-line system to submit RFC Errata.
3. Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata. 3. Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.
skipping to change at page 13, line 40 skipping to change at line 568
4. Providing backups. 4. Providing backups.
5. Providing storage and preservation of records. 5. Providing storage and preservation of records.
6. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings. 6. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.
All these activities will be done under the general direction, but All these activities will be done under the general direction, but
not day-to-day management, of the RSE and need some level of not day-to-day management, of the RSE and need some level of
coordination with various submission streams and the RSE. coordination with various submission streams and the RSE.
The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through an LLC RFP The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through an IETF LLC
process as described in Section 4.1. RFP process as described in Section 4.1.
3. Committees 3. Committees
3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) 3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
The IAB is responsible for the oversight of the RFC Series and acts The IAB is responsible for the oversight of the RFC Series and acts
as a body for final conflict resolution, including the process as a body for final conflict resolution, including the process
described in Section 4.3. described in Section 4.3.
In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the NomCom In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the NomCom
appointment cycle [RFC3777] and assure that oversight includes appointment cycle [RFC8713] and assure that oversight includes
suitable subject matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group suitable subject matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group
that implements oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight that implements oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight
Committee (RSOC). Committee (RSOC).
The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: in general, The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: in general,
it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision
documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the
community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due
diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed
the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB. the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB.
Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and
recommendations the benefit of the doubt. recommendations the benefit of the doubt.
For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and
firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but the final firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB. The final
decision is the responsibility of the IAB. For instance the RSOC recommendation to the IETF LLC is the responsibility of the IAB,
would do the following: after discussion with RSOC on the recommendations. For instance the
RSOC would do the following:
o perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of these * perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of these
reviews to the IAB. reviews to the IAB.
o manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate * manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate
appointment (in other words, select the RSE subject to IAB appointment (in other words, select the RSE subject to IAB
approval). approval).
RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of
interest and behave accordingly. interest and behave accordingly.
For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, the RSOC will For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, the RSOC will
propose a budget for the search process. It will work with the LLC propose a budget for the search process. It will work with the IETF
to refine that budget and develop remuneration criteria and an LLC to refine that budget and develop remuneration criteria and an
employment agreement or contracting plans, as appropriate. employment agreement or contracting plans, as appropriate.
The RSOC will be responsible for ensuring that the RFC Series is run The RSOC will be responsible for ensuring that the RFC Series is run
in a transparent and accountable manner. in a transparent and accountable manner.
The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order. The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order.
The initial RSOC was charged with designing and executing a The initial RSOC was charged with designing and executing a
solicitation, search, and selection process for the first actual (not solicitation, search, and selection process for the first actual (not
transitional or "acting") RSE appointment. That process involved transitional or "acting") RSE appointment. That process involved
iteration on this and related documents and evaluation of various iteration on this and related documents and evaluation of various
strategies and options. During the creation of this document, it was strategies and options. During the creation of what became
expected that the RSOC would describe the process it ultimately [RFC6635], it was expected that the RSOC would describe the process
selected to the community. The RSOC did involve the community in it ultimately selected to the community. The RSOC did involve the
interim considerations when that was likely to be of value. community in interim considerations when that was likely to be of
Following completion of the selection process, the RSOC will value. Following completion of the selection process, the RSOC will
determine the best way to share information learned and experience determine the best way to share information learned and experience
gained with the community and determine how to best preserve that gained with the community and determine how to best preserve that
information for future use. information for future use.
3.1.1. RSOC Composition 3.1.1. RSOC Composition
The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB
retaining final responsibility. The IAB will delegate authority and retaining final responsibility. The IAB will delegate authority and
responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE
relationships evolve. The RSOC will include people who are not relationships evolve. The RSOC will include people who are not
current IAB members. Currently, this is aligned with the IAB program current IAB members. Currently, this is aligned with the IAB program
structure. The IAB will designate the membership of the RSOC with structure. The IAB will designate the membership of the RSOC with
the following goals: preserving effective stability; keeping it small the following goals: preserving effective stability; keeping it small
enough to be effective, and keeping it large enough to provide enough to be effective, and keeping it large enough to provide
general Internet community expertise, specific IETF expertise, general Internet community expertise, specific IETF expertise,
publication expertise, and stream expertise. Members serve at the publication expertise, and stream expertise. Members serve at the
pleasure of the IAB and are expected to bring a balance between pleasure of the IAB and are expected to bring a balance between
short- and long-term perspectives. Specific input about, and short- and long-term perspectives. Specific input about, and
recommendations of, members will be sought from the streams, the LLC, recommendations of, members will be sought from the streams, the IETF
and the RSE. LLC, and the RSE.
In addition to the members from outside of the IAB appointed to the In addition to the members from outside of the IAB appointed to the
RSOC, IAB members may participate as full members of the RSOC. Under RSOC, IAB members may participate as full members of the RSOC. Under
most circumstances, there will be a specific individual IAB member most circumstances, there will be a specific individual IAB member
appointed by the IAB as the program lead, who will be a full member appointed by the IAB as the program lead, who will be a full member
of the RSOC. This member's role is distinct from any RSOC-internal of the RSOC. This member's role is distinct from any RSOC-internal
organizational roles, such as would be created by the RSOC choosing organizational roles, such as would be created by the RSOC choosing
to appoint a chair from among its members. Other IAB members may to appoint a chair from among its members. Other IAB members may
choose to be full members of the RSOC, with the consent of the IAB. choose to be full members of the RSOC, with the consent of the IAB.
This consent is primarily concerned with avoiding overpopulating the This consent is primarily concerned with avoiding overpopulating the
RSOC and providing it with relatively stable membership, which will RSOC and providing it with relatively stable membership, which will
work best if it is not too large a committee. work best if it is not too large a committee.
The LLC will appoint an individual to serve as its liaison to the The IETF LLC will appoint an individual to serve as its liaison to
RSOC. The RSE and the LLC Liaison will serve as non-voting ex the RSOC. The RSE and the IETF LLC Liaison will serve as non-voting
officio members of the RSOC. Either or both can be excluded from its ex officio members of the RSOC. Either or both can be excluded from
discussions if necessary. its discussions if necessary.
4. Administrative Implementation 4. Administrative Implementation
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF
Administration Limited Liability Company [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] Administration Limited Liability Company [RFC8711] in cooperation
in cooperation with the RFC Series Editor. The authority structure with the RFC Series Editor. The authority structure is described in
is described in Figure 2 below. Figure 2.
+----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+
| | | | | | | |
| IAB | | LLC | | IAB | | IETF LLC |
| | | | | | | |
+==========+-----+ +-+--------------+ +==========+-----+ +-+--------------+
| | . | | .
| RSOC | . | RSOC | .
| | . | | .
+----+-----+ . +----+-----+ .
| . | .
| . | .
| ................... | ...................
| . . | . .
skipping to change at page 16, line 37 skipping to change at line 707
| . . | . .
+--+----------------+ . +--+----------------+ .
| . | . | . | .
| . | . | . | .
+---V-----V--+ +--V----V---+ +---V-----V--+ +--V----V---+
| RFC | | RFC | | RFC | | RFC |
| Production | | Publisher | | Production | | Publisher |
| Center | | | | Center | | |
+------------+ +-----------+ +------------+ +-----------+
Authority Structure of the RFC Series
Legend: Legend:
------- IAB RFC Series Oversight ------- IAB RFC Series Oversight
....... LLC Contract/Budget Oversight ....... IETF LLC Contract/Budget Oversight
Figure 2 Figure 2: Authority Structure of the RFC Series
4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher Functions 4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher Functions
As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation with the As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation with the
streams and under the final authority of the LLC. streams and under the final authority of the IETF LLC.
The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and
participates in the LLC vendor selection process. The work participates in the IETF LLC vendor selection process. The work
definition is created within the LLC budget and takes into account definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into
the stream managers and community input. account the stream managers and community input.
The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center, RFC The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center, RFC
Publisher, and other RFC-related services, is as follows: Publisher, and other RFC-related services, is as follows:
o The LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps * The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps
necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the
contracting procedures. contracting procedures.
o The LLC establishes the Selection Committee, which will consist of * The IETF LLC establishes the Selection Committee, which will
the RSE, the LLC Executive Director, and other members selected by consist of the RSE, the IETF LLC Executive Director, and other
the RSOC and the LLC. The Committee shall be chaired by the RSE. members selected by the RSOC and the IETF LLC. The Committee
shall be chaired by the RSE.
o The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to the * The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to the
successful negotiation of a contract approved by the LLC. In the successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC. In
event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be the event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be
referred to the Selection Committee for further action. referred to the Selection Committee for further action.
o The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher either through * The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher either through
the LLC RFP process or, at the Committee's option, the Committee the IETF LLC RFP process or, at the Committee's option, the
may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC Publisher services, Committee may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC Publisher
subject to negotiations in accordance with the LLC procedures. services, subject to negotiations in accordance with the IETF LLC
procedures.
4.2. Budget 4.2. Budget
The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They
have been and remain part of the IETF Administration Limited have been and remain part of the IETF Administration Limited
Liability Company [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] budget. Liability Company [RFC8711] budget.
The RFC Series portion of the LLC budget shall include entries for The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding
the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. The LLC to support the RSE, RFC Production Center, RFC Publisher, and the
budget shall also include entries for the streams, including the Independent Stream.
independent stream.
The LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor budget The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor
(and the authority to deny it). The RSE must work within the LLC budget (and the authority to deny it). The RSE must work within the
budgetary process. IETF LLC budgetary process.
The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor function to The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor function to
operate within those budgets. If production needs change, the RSE is operate within those budgets. If production needs change, the RSE is
responsible for working with the Production Center, and where responsible for working with the Production Center, and where
appropriate, other RFC Editor component institutions, relevant appropriate, other RFC Editor component institutions, relevant
streams, and/or the RSOC to determine what the correct response streams, and/or the RSOC to determine what the correct response
should be. If they agree that a budgetary change is needed, that should be. If they agree that a budgetary change is needed, that
decision needs to be taken to the LLC. decision needs to be taken to the IETF LLC.
4.3. Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor 4.3. Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor
The RFC Series Editor and the RFC Production Center and Publisher The RFC Series Editor and the RFC Production Center and Publisher
facilities work with the various streams to produce RFCs. facilities work with the various streams to produce RFCs.
Disagreements may arise between these entities during the execution Disagreements may arise between these entities during the execution
of the RFC Editor operations. In particular, different streams may of the RFC Editor operations. In particular, different streams may
disagree with each other, or disagree with the RFC Editor function. disagree with each other, or disagree with the RFC Editor function.
Potentially, even the RSOC or the LLC could find themselves in Potentially, even the RSOC or the IETF LLC could find themselves in
disagreement with some aspect of the RFC Editor operations. Note disagreement with some aspect of the RFC Editor operations. Note
that disagreements between an author and the RFC Production Center that disagreements between an author and the RFC Production Center
are not cross-entity issues, and they are to be resolved by the RSE, are not cross-entity issues, and they are to be resolved by the RSE,
in accordance with the rest of this document. in accordance with the rest of this document.
If such cross-entity disagreements arise, the community would If such cross-entity disagreements arise, the community would
generally hope that they can be resolved politely and directly. generally hope that they can be resolved politely and directly.
However, this is not always possible. At that point, any relevant However, this is not always possible. At that point, any relevant
party would first formally request a review and reconsideration of party would first formally request a review and reconsideration of
the decision. If the party still disagrees after the the decision. If the party still disagrees after the
reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or, especially 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 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 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. 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 All parties should work informally and in good faith to reach a
mutually agreeable conclusion. As noted below, any such issues that mutually agreeable conclusion. As noted below, any such issues that
involve contractual matters must be brought to the attention of the involve contractual matters must be brought to the attention of the
LLC. If the IAB Chair is asked to assist in resolving the matter, IETF LLC. If the IAB Chair is asked to assist in resolving the
the Chair may ask for advice or seek assistance from anyone the Chair matter, the Chair may ask for advice or seek assistance from anyone
deems helpful. The Chair may also alert any appropriate individuals the Chair deems helpful. The Chair may also alert any appropriate
or organizations to the existence of the issue. individuals or organizations to the existence of the issue.
If such a conclusion is not possible through the above less formal If such a conclusion is not possible through the above less formal
processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC Series processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC Series
Oversight Committee. The RSOC may choose to offer advice to the RSE 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 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 defer a decision until it formulates its advice. However, if a
timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation, and timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation, and
mutual agreement, the RSE is expected to make whatever decisions are mutual agreement, the RSE is expected to make whatever decisions are
needed to ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Editor function; needed to ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Editor function;
those decisions are final. those decisions are final.
skipping to change at page 19, line 19 skipping to change at line 832
formal resolution by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its formal resolution by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its
oversight capacity. oversight capacity.
IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected
to inform future changes to RFC Series policies, including possible to inform future changes to RFC Series policies, including possible
updates to this document. updates to this document.
4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact 4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact
If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual
consequences, it falls under [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis]; thus, the consequences, it falls under [RFC8711]. If this happens, the RSE
RSE must identify the issue and provide his or her advice to the LLC; must identify the issue and provide advice to the IETF LLC.
additionally, if the RSOC has provided advice, forward that advice as Additionally, if the RSOC has also developed advice, it should
well. The LLC must notify the RSOC and IAB regarding the action it forward that advice to the IETF LLC.
The IETF LLC must notify the RSOC and IAB regarding the action it
concludes is required to resolve the issue based on its applicable concludes is required to resolve the issue based on its applicable
procedures and provisions in the relevant contracts. procedures and provisions in the relevant contracts.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor
structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of
registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center. The LLC registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center. The IETF
will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC LLC will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the
Production Center and IANA. RFC Production Center and IANA.
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any
values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required. values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The same security considerations as those in [RFC4844] apply. The The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply. The
processes for the publication of documents must prevent the processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains
the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to
prevent these published documents from being changed by external prevent these published documents from being changed by external
parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed
to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents
(such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, originals (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, originals
that are not machine readable) need to be secured against any kind of that are not machine readable) need to be secured against any kind of
data storage failure. data storage failure.
The LLC should take these security considerations into account during The IETF LLC should take these security considerations into account
the implementation and enforcement of the RFC Editor component during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC Editor component
contracts. contracts.
7. Acknowledgments 7. References
The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on
mailing lists. The first iteration of the text on which this
document is based was first written 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 Russo, 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 (ex officio), Eric Burger,
Dave Crocker, Marshall Eubanks, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley (ex
officio), 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, at the time of approval,
the IAB included two ex officio members: Mary Barnes who was serving
as the IAB Executive Director, and Lars Eggert, who was serving as
the IRTF Chair.
Bob Hinden served as documented editor for this version of this
document that aligned it with the IASA 2.0 model.
8. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-03, 2019-January-7
* Removed IAB as an author to follow current model for IAB stream
documents.
* Added note to Abstract that the IAB (to be removed by the RFC
Editor), that the IAB is requested to publish this document as
a replacement for RFC 6635.
* Editorial Changes.
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-02, 2019-January-3
* Changed references to point to current IASA 2.0 structure
document [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis]
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-01, 2018-August-23 7.1. Normative References
* Changed to Obsolete RFC6635 from Update. [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed.,
* Changed remaining occurrences of Board. "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)",
* Changed IETF Administration Limited Liability Corporation to BCP 39, RFC 2850, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000,
IETF Administration Limited Liability Company. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>.
* Editorial Changes.
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-00, 2018-August-22 [RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
* Working Group draft. [RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
* Removed remaining references to RFC4071. the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
* Changed most occurrences of LLC Board to LLC. BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
* Editorial Changes. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.
draft-hinden-iasa2-rfc6635bis-01, 2018-August-6 [RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.
* Changed occurrences of IASA to IETF Administration Limited 7.2. Informative References
Liability Corporation ("LLC").
* Changed occurrences of IAOC to LLC Board.
* Changed occurrences of IAD to LLC Executive Director.
* Added paragraph to introduction about purpose of this version
of the document, and updated Abstract similarly.
* Added new editor to acknowledgement section.
* Changed document to now oboslete RFC6635.
draft-hinden-iasa2-rfc6635bis-00, 2018-August-6 [RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620>.
* Original version with only changes from RFC6635 were to convert [RFC8713] Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood,
to ID format. Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection,
Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF
Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8713>.
9. References IAB Members at the Time of Approval
9.1. Normative References Internet Architecture Board Members at the time this document was
approved for publication were:
[I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] Jari Arkko
Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of Alissa Cooper
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0", Stephen Farrell
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-03 (work in progress), Wes Hardaker
December 2018. Ted Hardie
Christian Huitema
Zhenbin Li
Erik Nordmark
Mark Nottingham
Melinda Shore
Jeff Tantsura
Martin Thomson
Brian Trammell
[RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed., Acknowledgments
"Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP
39, RFC 2850, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, mailing lists. The first iteration of the text on which this
July 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>. document is based was first written 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, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, John Klensin,
Subramanian Moonesamy, Alice Russo, and Jim Schaad.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor The IAOC members at the time RFC 6635 was approved were (in
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba (ex officio), Eric Burger, Dave
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>. Crocker, Marshall Eubanks, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley (ex officio), Ole
Jacobsen, Ray Pelletier (non-voting), and Lynn St. Amour (ex
officio).
9.2. Informative References The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model (Version 1,
RFC 5620) 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.
[RFC3777] Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, The IAB members at the time RFC 6635 was approved were (in
and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba, Ross Callon, Alissa Cooper,
Committees", RFC 3777, DOI 10.17487/RFC3777, June 2004, Spencer Dawkins, Joel Halpern, Russ Housley, David Kessens, Olaf
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777>. Kolkman, Danny McPherson, Jon Peterson, Andrei Robachevsky, Dave
Thaler, and Hannes Tschofenig. In addition, at the time of approval
of RFC 6635, the IAB included two ex officio members: Mary Barnes who
was serving as the IAB Executive Director, and Lars Eggert, who was
serving as the IRTF Chair.
[RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", Bob Hinden served as document editor for this RFC to align it with
RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009, the IASA 2.0 structure.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) Olaf Kolkman (editor)
Internet Society
Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl Email: kolkman@isoc.org
Joel M. Halpern (editor) Joel M. Halpern (editor)
Ericsson Ericsson
Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com
Robert M. Hinden (editor) Robert M. Hinden (editor)
Check Point Software Check Point Software
959 Skyway Road 959 Skyway Road
San Carlos, CA 94070 San Carlos, CA 94070
USA United States of America
Email: bob.hinden@gmail.com Email: bob.hinden@gmail.com
 End of changes. 97 change blocks. 
377 lines changed or deleted 343 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/