One document matched: draft-iab-rfc-editor-00.txt
Network Working Group L. Daigle
Internet-Draft Ed.
Expires: November 23, 2006 Internet Architecture Board. (IAB)
May 22, 2006
The RFC Editor
draft-iab-rfc-editor
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 23, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
One of the responsibilities assigned to the IAB in its charter is
oversight of the RFC Editor. With this document, the IAB provides an
explicit implementation of its oversight role, a model for defining
(and updating) processes relating to the RFC Editor, and a brief
charter for the RFC Editor.
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 May 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RFC Editor Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RFC Approval Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. IETF Document Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. IAB Document Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. IRTF Document Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Independent Submission Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. RFC Technical Publication Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. IETF Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. IAB Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. IRTF Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Independent Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Operational Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IAB members at the time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 May 2006
1. Introduction
As part of its charter ([1]), the IAB has oversight responsibility
for the RFC Editor. The IAB seeks to fulfill that role in a way that
respects the long history of the RFC Series, while continuing to move
forward in a way that successfully melds the requirements and
expectations of the various contributors that provide regular input
to the RFC Editor (streams).
To that end, this document provides a brief charter for the RFC
Editor activity, discusses the streams of input to the RFC Series,
and defines the expected relationship between the IAB and its
operational support from IASA.
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 May 2006
2. RFC Editor Charter
The RFC Editor executes editorial management for the publication of
the "Request for Comment" (RFC) document series. The RFC series
constitutes the archival publication channel for Internet Standards
and for other contributions by the Internet research and engineering
community. RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the
Internet.
The RFC Editor is expected to publish all approved documents.
It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an
organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by
the RFC Editor.
The rest of this document outlines the current set of policies and
requirements, as well as the appropriate processes for extending or
adjusting them.
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 May 2006
3. RFC Approval Processes
Various contributors provide input to the RFC series. These
contributors come from several different communities, each wtih its
own defined process for approving documents that will be published by
the RFC Editor. These are referred to as "streams".
The subsections below identify the streams that exist today.
Creation of new streams is subject to IAB approval. Processes for
the approval processes (or requirements) for each stream are defined
by the community that defines the stream. Except as noted, the IAB
does not have final authority in approving such changes, but the IAB
must agree that the changes are consistent with the RFC Editor scope.
The RFC Editor is expected to publish all documents passed to it
after appropriate review and approval in one of the identified
streams.
3.1. IETF Document Stream
The IETF document stream includes IETF WG documents as well as
"individual submissions" sponsored by an IESG area director. Any
document being published as part of the IETF standards track must
follow this stream.
Approval of documents in this stream is defined by the IETF standards
process (RFC2026, [3], and its successors).
Changes to the approval process for this stream are made by updating
the IETF standards process documents.
3.2. IAB Document Stream
The IAB defines the processes by which it approves its documents.
(This is currently defined on a web page. Going forward, it will be
published as an RFC.)
Consistent with the above, any documents that the IAB wishes to
publish as BCPs (part of the IETF standards track) are subject to the
approval processes referred to in Section Section 3.1.
3.3. IRTF Document Stream
The IRTF is chartered as an activity of the IAB. With the approval
of the IAB, the IRTF may publish and update a process for publication
of its own, non-IETF standards track, documents.
Current document draft: draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 May 2006
3.4. Independent Submission Stream
The RFC series has traditionally served a broader Internet technical
community than the IETF. The "independent submission" stream is
defined to provide review and (possible) approval of documents that
are outside the scope of the streams identified above.
Generally speaking, approval of documents in this stream falls under
the purview of the RFC Editor.
Consistent with the rest of the streams, there needs to be a
community consensus document to define that process. The IAB will
establish a community forum for defining a community consensus based
document to define the approval process for this stream. The IAB
will be responsible for gauging consensus on that document, as well
as providing the forum for any needed future revisions of the
document.
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 May 2006
4. RFC Technical Publication Requirements
The community of effort behind each stream may have a set of
requirements for the technical publication of their documents.
As part of the RFC Editor oversight, the IAB must agree that the
requirements are consistent with and implementable as part of the RFC
Editor activity.
4.1. IETF Documents
These are defined in an IETF stream document. The current proposed
version is documented in draft-mankin-pub-req.
4.2. IAB Documents
Unless otherwise specified in a future document, the IAB will use the
applicable requirements in Section 4.1.
If the IAB elects to define other requirements, they should deviate
minimally from those (in an effort to keep the collective technical
publication requirements reasonably managed by one technical
publisher).
4.3. IRTF Documents
Unless otherwise specified in a future document, the IRTF will use
the applicable requirements in Section 4.1.
If the IRTF elects to define other requirements, they should deviate
minimally from those (in an effort to keep the collective technical
publication requirements reasonably managed by one technical
publisher).
4.4. Independent Submissions
Unless otherwise specified in a future document, the RFC Editor will
use the applicable requirements in Section 4.1.
If the RFC Editor elects to define other requirements, they should
deviate minimally from those (in an effort to keep the collective
technical publication requirements reasonably managed by one
technical publisher).
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 May 2006
5. Operational Oversight
With the inception of the IETF Administrative Support Activity
(BCP101, [2], which describes IASA's support for the IETF, the IAB,
the IRTF), the operational oversight of the RFC Editor is shared with
the IAOC.
The IAOC works with the IAB to identify suitable persons or entities
to carry out the work defined by the technical publication
requirements defined for the various RFC input streams (see Section
Section 4).
The IAOC may define additional operational requirements and policies
for management purposes, in order to meet the requirements defined by
the various communities. The IAOC establishes appropriate
(contractual) agreements with the selected persons or entities for
the RFC Editor.
In accordance with BCP101, the IAOC provides oversight of the
operation of the RFC Editor activity based on the established
agreement(s).
The IAB monitors the effectiveness of the policies in force and their
implementation to ensure that the RFC Editor activity meets the
editorial management and document publication needs as referenced in
this document. In the event of serious non-conformance, the IAB,
either on its own initiative or at the request of the IAOC, may
require the IAOC to vary or terminate and renegotiate the
arrangements for the RFC Editor activity.
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 May 2006
6. Security Considerations
The processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
introduction of unapproved changes. Since the IETF publisher
maintains the index of publications, sufficient security must be in
place to prevent these published documents from being changed by
external parties.
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 May 2006
7. IAB members at the time of approval
To be filled in.
8. References
[1] Carpenter, B., "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB)", RFC 2850, May 2000.
[2] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, April 2005.
[3] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
RFC 2026, October 1996.
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 May 2006
Authors' Addresses
Leslie L. Daigle
Ed.
Email: ledaigle@cisco.com, leslie@thinkingcat.com
Internet Architecture Board
Email: iab@iab.org
URI: http://www.iab.org/
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 May 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Daigle & (IAB) Expires November 23, 2006 [Page 12]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 22:00:40 |