One document matched: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-00.txt
Network Working Group O. Kolkman (Ed.)
Internet-Draft IAB
Intended status: Informational October 2, 2008
Expires: April 5, 2009
RFC Editor Model
draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-00
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 April 5, 2009.
Abstract
The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be performed
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 Editor, the Independent Submission Editor,
the RFC Production, and the RFC Publisher. The model intends 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.
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires April 5, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model October 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IAOC Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Expenses for the RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Independent Submission Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. RFC Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. RFC Editorial Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Internet Draft editing details . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires April 5, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model October 2008
1. Introduction
The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned
with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor
succession, maintaining RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility.
The IAB is also sensitive to the concerns of the IAOC about providing
the necessary services in a cost effective and efficient manner.
The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844 [1].
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, provide for the orderly succession of the RFC
Editor, and ensure the continuity of the RFC series, while
maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely processing, ensuring
document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost
transparency. The model set forth below is the result of those
discussions. The model examines the internal organization of the RFC
Editor, yet it remains consistent with RFC 4884.
The IAB approved the RFC Editor model described in this document on
October 1, 2008.
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires April 5, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model October 2008
2. IAOC Implementation
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. Since the reporting structure
would 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.
2.1. Expenses for the RFC Editor
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.
3. RFC Editor Model
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series
into the following:
o RFC Editor
o Independent Submission Editor
o RFC Production
o RFC Publisher
The RFC Series Production and Process under this structure is
schematically represented by the figure below.
[TO BE DONE] For now see:
http://www.iab.org/documents/resources/RFCEditorProd.png
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires April 5, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model October 2008
3.1. RFC Editor
The RFC Editor is a single person, and this person is responsible
for:
1. Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series continuity
2. Participate in IAOC reviews of the RFC Publisher and RFC
Publication functions to ensure the above mentioned continuity
3. RFC Style Manual publication for use by authors, editors, and the
RFC publisher
4. RFC errata process management
5. Liaison with the IAB
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, RFC Editor
participation in reviews of that implementation is expected.
The RFC Editor is a senior managerial position with a strong
understanding of the IETF process and seasoned management skills.
The RFC editor may seek support from an advisory board (see
Section 3.5).
The IAOC has two alternative selection methods for selecting the
individual to serve as the RFC 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 defined in an RFP.
The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available. Expenses to
support the administrative operation of the RFC 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
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires April 5, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model October 2008
to select an IAOC member every other year as described in RFC 4333
could be used. A stipend (if provided) and expenses to support the
administrative operation of the RFC Editor selected in this manner
would be part of the IASA budget.
3.2. Independent Submission Editor
The Independent Submission Editor is a single person, and this person
is responsible for:
1. Independent Submissions approval and processing
2. Forwarding RFCs in the independent stream to RFC Production
3. Independent Submissions RFC errata review and approval
The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the
following qualifications are desired:
1. Technical competence
2. Deep familiarity with the RFC series
3. An ability to assess the technical competence of potential
Editorial Board members
4. Good standing in the technical community in and beyond the IETF
The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an advisory
board (see Section 3.5).
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 RFC 4333 could be used. A stipend (if provided) and
expenses to support the administrative operation of the Independent
Submission Editor selected in this manner would be part of the IASA
budget.
3.3. RFC Production
RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor
responsibilities include:
1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style
Manual
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires April 5, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model October 2008
2. Creating records of edits performed on documents
3. Engaging in dialogue with authors when clarification is needed
4. Creating records of dialogue with documents authors
5. Requesting advice from the RFC Editor as needed
6. Provide suggestions to the RFC Editor as needed
7. Coordinating with IANA to obtain registry information
8. RFC number assignment
9. Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher
10. Forwarding records of edits and author dialogue to RFC Publisher
11. Liaison with IESG and IAB
The RFC Production contractor is to be selected by the IAOC through
an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the RFC
Editor. The IAOC would seek a bidder who, among other things, is
able to provide a 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.
3.4. RFC Publisher
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:
1. Announce and provide online access to RFCs
2. Provide online system to submit RFC Errata
3. Provide online access to approved RFC Errata
4. Provide backups
5. Provide storage and preservation of records
6. Authenticate RFCs for legal proceedings
Implementation of the RFC publisher function can be pursued in two
different ways.
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires April 5, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model October 2008
The first alternative is to extend 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 Editor. Expenses to support service would be part of the awarded
contract.
3.5. RFC Editorial Board
Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board. This board
is expected to evolve into one or two advisory boards that support
the review work of Independent Submissions Editor and provide input
and guidance to the RFC Editor. The board or boards exist at the
pleasure of their advisee, and the members serve at the pleasure of
their advisee. The existence the board or boards is simply noted
within this model.
4. IANA considerations
This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor
structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of
registry value assignments with the RFC Production function. The
IAOC will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between
the RFC Production function and IANA.
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any
values in existing registries.
5. Security considerations
The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply: The
processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains
the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to
prevent these published documents from being changed by external
parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed
to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents
(such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, non-
machine readable originals) need to be secured against failure of the
storage medium and other similar disasters.
The IAOC ought to take these security considerations into account
during the implementation of this RFC Editor model.
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires April 5, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model October 2008
6. Acknowledgements Section
The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on
mail lists. The first itteraton 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, 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 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.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[1] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC Series and
RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
7.2. Informative References
[2] Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, "The IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process",
BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005.
Appendix A. Internet Draft editing details
[This appendix is to be removed at publication]
$Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 2 2008-10-02 15:48:52Z olaf $
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires April 5, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model October 2008
Authors' Addresses
Olaf M. Kolkman
EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
Internet Architecture Board
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires April 5, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model October 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Intellectual Property
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.
Kolkman (Ed.) & IAB Expires April 5, 2009 [Page 11]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 18:58:45 |