One document matched: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-03.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?rfc linefile="1:draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml"?>
<!-- automatically generated by xml2rfc v1.34pre2 on 2008-12-15T22:22:13Z -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="no" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no" ?>
<rfc ipr="full3978"
category="info"
docName="draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-03"
>
<front>
<title>RFC Editor Model (Version 1)</title>
<author initials="O." surname="Kolkman (Ed.)" fullname="Olaf M. Kolkman">
<organization></organization>
<address><email>olaf@nlnetlabs.nl</email>
</address>
</author>
<author surname="IAB" fullname="Internet Architecture Board">
<organization></organization>
<address><email>iab@iab.org</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="December" year="2008" />
<keyword>RFC</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be
carried out by various persons or entities. The RFC Editor
model presented in this document divides the responsibilities
for the RFC Series into four functions: The RFC Series Editor,
the Independent Submission Editor, RFC Production Center, and the RFC
Publisher. The model outlined here is intended to increase
flexibility and operational support options, provide for the
orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the
continuity of the RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality,
maintaining timely processing, ensuring document
accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost
transparency.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<!-- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -->
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>
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.
</t>
<t>
The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844
<xref target="RFC4844"/>. Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor":
</t>
<t>
<artwork>
| 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.
</artwork>
</t>
<t>
RFC 4844 makes no attempt to explore the internal organization
of the RFC Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the
RFC Editor organizational structure. In discussion with the
Internet community, the IAB considered changes that increase
flexibility and operational support options, provides for the
orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensures the
continuity of the RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality,
maintaining timely processing, ensuring document
accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost
transparency. The model set forth below is the result of those
discussions, and examines the internal organization of
the RFC Editor, while remaining consistent with RFC 4844.
</t>
<t>
Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC
Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which
this memo provides a model for internal organization. This
memo introduces the term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series
Editor" for one of the organizational components.
</t>
<t>
The IAB approved the RFC Editor model on October 1, 2008,
based on a draft version of this this document which has
received clarifications since. It should be noted that the
publication of the document as an RFC does not cast the model
in stone, as the primary purpose of this document, throughout
the publication procession, is to encourgage normal community
review in order to ascertain consensus to work to this model
as a first step. The document, and the resulting structures,
will be modified as needed through normal procedures. The IAB
will continue to monitor discussions within the community
about potential adjustments to the RFC Editor model and
recognizes that the process described in this document, may
need to be adjusted to align with any changes that result from
such discussions, hence the version number in the title.
</t>
</section>
<section title="IAOC Implementation">
<t>
The model is constructed in such a way that it allows for all
these functions to be implemented jointly or under separate
contractual arrangements. In fact, a bidder could put together
a proposal that includes one or more subcontractors. The
reporting structure will depend on the manner that the
contracts are awarded, and they are subject to change over
time. As a result, the model describes only responsibilities,
procedures, and process. The exact implementation is a
responsibility of the IAOC.
</t>
<section title="Expenses for the RFC Editor">
<t>
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.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="RFC Editor Model">
<t>
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for
the RFC Series into the following components:
</t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>RFC Series Editor</t>
<t>Independent Submission Editor</t>
<t>RFC Production Center</t>
<t>RFC Publisher</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
The RFC Series Production and Process under this structure is
schematically represented by the figure below.
</t>
<t>
<?rfc?><?rfc linefile="1:rfc-model-figure.xml"?><figure>
<artwork>
------ ----- ------ ---------
Stream | | | | | | |Community|
Pro- | IETF | | IAB | | IRTF | | at |
ducers | | | | | | | Large |
--^--- --^-- ---^-- ----^----
| | | |
| | | | -------
| | | | | RFC |
--v--- ---v--- ---v-- ----v------ | Edi- |
Stream | | | | | | |Independent| | torial|
Appro- | IESG | | IAB | | IRSG | | Stream |..... | |
vers | | | | | | | Editor | | .and .|
----^- ---^--- ----^--- ----^------ | |
| | | | | Advi- |
| | | | | ory |
| | | | | Board |
------ --v--------v----------v-----------v----- | |
| | | | -------
| IANA | <->| RFC Production Center <---. .
| | | | | .
------ -----------------^---------------------- | .
| | .
| ------v-------
------v--------- | |
| | | RFC Series |
| Publisher |<------->| Editor |
| | | |
---------------- --------------
</artwork>
<postample>RFC production and process</postample>
</figure>
<?rfc linefile="175:draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml"?>
</t>
<section title="RFC Series Editor">
<t>
The RFC Series Editor, or Series Editor for short, is an
individual who may have assistants and who is responsible for:
</t>
<t>
<list style="numbers">
<t>Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series
continuity</t>
<t>Providing input to IAOC and/or IAB reviews of the RFC
Publisher, RFC Publication, and Independent Stream Editor
functions to ensure the above mentioned continuity</t>
<t>Developing, maintaining, and publishing the RFC Style
Manual publication for use by authors, editors, and the
RFC publisher</t>
<t>Managing the RFC errata process</t>
<t>Liaising with the IAB</t>
<t> Overseeing consistency of RFCs with the RFC Series and RFC Style Manual</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
There are many potential issues with respect to RFC Series
continuity. To name a few: Look and feel of the series,
indexing methodologies, accessibility of the publications,
IPR and copyright issues, and formatting issues. After
identifying the appropriate steps to address such issues,
the implementation of those steps resides mostly with the
RFC production and publishing functions. Since the IAOC
maintains oversight of the implementation, the Series Editor
is expected to be invited and participate in reviews of that
implementation.
</t>
<t>
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional
with the following qualifications:
<list style="numbers">
<t>Strong understanding of the IETF process</t>
<t>Good understanding of the English language and technical
terminology related to the Internet</t>
<t>Good communication skills</t>
<t>Experience with editorial processes</t>
<t>Independent worker</t>
<t>Experience as an RFC author desired</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
The Series Editor may seek support from an advisory board
(see <xref target="editorial_board"/>).
</t>
<t>
The IAOC has two alternative selection methods for selecting
the individual to serve as the RFC Series Editor. The choice
between these alternatives will be based on an Request for
Information (RFI) issued by the IAOC in December 2009.
</t>
<t>
The first alternative involves a Request for Proposal (RFP)
process run by the IAOC. The IAOC would seek a person with
the listed qualifications in a broadly distributed RFP. The
winner would be selected by the IAOC in consultation with
the IAB, and then, the IAOC would contract for the
services. Contract terms, including length of contract,
extensions and renewals, shall be as provided in the
RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available. Fees
and expenses to support the administrative operation of the
RFC Series Editor would be part of the awarded contract and
be part of the IASA budget.
</t>
<t>
The second alternative involves a nomination and
confirmation process. Candidates are nominated, and then an
individual with the listed qualifications is selected by the
Internet community and confirmed by the IAB. An approach
similar to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member
every other year as described in <xref target="selection"/>
will be used. A stipend and expenses to support the
administrative operation of the RFC Series Editor selected
in this manner would be part of the IASA budget.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Independent Submission Editor">
<t>
The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may
have assistants and who is responsible for:
</t>
<t>
<list style="numbers">
<t>Maintaining technical quality of the Independent stream</t>
<t>Independent Submissions approval and processing</t>
<t>Forwarding RFCs in the Independent Stream to the RFC Production Center</t>
<t>Independent Submissions RFC errata review and approval</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for
which the following qualifications are desired:
</t>
<t>
<list style="numbers">
<t>Technical competence, i.e. broad technical experience
and perspective across the whole range of Internet
technologies and applications, and specifically, the
ability to work effectively with portions of that spectrum
in which no personal expertise exists.</t>
<t>Thorough familiarity with the RFC series</t>
<t>An ability to assess the technical competence of
potential Editorial Board members</t>
<t>Good standing in the technical community, in and beyond
the IETF</t>
<t>Demonstrated Editorial skills and good command of the English language </t>
</list>
The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an
advisory board (see <xref target="editorial_board"/>) and may
form a team to perform the activities needed to fulfill their
responsibilities.
</t>
<t>
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 <xref
target="selection"/> should be used. A stipend and expenses
to support the administrative operation of the Independent
Submission Editor selected in this manner will be
evaluated. The IAB considers maintaining the Independent
stream within the RFC Series part of the IAB's supported
activities, and will include these expenses in its
IASA-supported budget.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="production" title="RFC Production Center">
<t>
RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the
contractor responsibilities include:
</t>
<t>
<list style="numbers">
<t>Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the
RFC Style Manual</t>
<t>Creating records of edits performed on documents</t>
<t>Identifying where editorial changes might have technical
impact and seek necessary clarification.</t>
<t>Engaging in dialogue with authors, document shepherds,
IANA, and/or stream dependent contacts when clarification is
needed.
</t>
<t>Creating records of dialogue with documents authors</t>
<t>Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed</t>
<t>Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed</t>
<t>Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol paramater
registry actions</t>
<t>Assigning of RFC number</t>
<t> Establishing publication readiness of each document
through communication with the authors, document shepherds,
IANA and/or stream dependent contacts, and if needed with
the RFC Series Editor. </t>
<t>Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC
Publisher</t>
<t>Forwarding records of edits and author dialogue to RFC
Publisher so these can be preserved</t>
<t>Liaising with IESG and IAB</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected by the
IAOC through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same
contract as the RFC Series Editor. The IAOC would seek a bidder
who, among other things, is able to provide a professional,
quality, timely, and cost effective service against the
established style and production guidelines. Contract terms,
including length of contract, extensions and renewals, shall be
as defined in an RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly
available.
</t>
</section>
<section title="RFC Publisher">
<t>
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:
</t>
<list style="numbers">
<t>Announce and provide on-line access to RFCs</t>
<t>Provide on-line system to submit RFC Errata</t>
<t>Provide on-line access to approved RFC Errata</t>
<t>Provide backups</t>
<t>Provide storage and preservation of records</t>
<t>Authenticate RFCs for legal proceedings</t>
</list>
<t>
Implementation of the RFC Publisher function can be pursued in
two different ways. The choice between these alternatives will
be based on an RFI issued by the IAOC in December 2009.
</t>
<t>
The first alternative is to modify the IETF Secretariat contract
to include these services. Expenses to support these services
would be part of the revised contract.
</t>
<t>
The second alternative is a separate vendor selected by the IAOC
through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as
the RFC Series Editor. Expenses to support service would be part of the
awarded contract.
</t>
</section>
<section title="RFC Editorial Board" anchor="editorial_board">
<t>
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 the Independent Submissions
Editor and provide input and guidance to the Series
Editor. The board(s) will exist at the pleasure of their
advisee, and the members serve at the pleasure of their
advisee. The existence of the board or boards is simply noted
within this model, and additional discussion of such considered
out of scope of this document.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="IANA considerations">
<t>
This document defines several functions within the overall
RFC Editor structure, and it places the responsibility for
coordination of registry value assignments with the RFC
Production Center. The IAOC will facilitate the establishment
of the relationship between the RFC Production Center and IANA.
</t>
<t>
This document does not create a new registry nor does it
register any values in existing registries, and no IANA action
is required.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Security considerations">
<t>
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.
</t>
<t>
The IAOC should take these security considerations into
account during the implementation of this RFC Editor model.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Acknowledgements Section">
<t>
The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and
on mail lists. The first iteration of the text on which this
document is based was first drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ
Housley, and Ray Pelletier. In addition to the members of the
IAOC and IAB, major and minor contributions were made by (in
alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy Ginoza,
Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern, Paul Hoffman, John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy,
and Jim Schaad.
</t>
<t>
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.
</t>
<t>
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.
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title='Normative References'>
<?rfc?><?rfc linefile="1:bibxml/reference.RFC.4844.xml"?>
<reference anchor='RFC4844'>
<front>
<title>The RFC Series and RFC Editor</title>
<author initials='L.' surname='Daigle' fullname='L. Daigle'>
<organization /></author>
<author>
<organization>Internet Architecture Board</organization></author>
<date year='2007' month='July' />
<abstract>
<t>This document describes the framework for an RFC Series and an RFC Editor function that incorporate the principles of organized community involvement and accountability that has become necessary as the Internet technical community has grown, thereby enabling the RFC Series to continue to fulfill its mandate. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t></abstract></front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4844' />
<format type='TXT' octets='38752' target='ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc4844.txt' />
</reference>
<?rfc linefile="502:draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml"?>
</references>
<references title='Informative References'>
<?rfc?><?rfc linefile="1:bibxml/reference.RFC.4333.xml"?>
<reference anchor='RFC4333'>
<front>
<title>The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process</title>
<author initials='G.' surname='Huston' fullname='G. Huston'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='B.' surname='Wijnen' fullname='B. Wijnen'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2005' month='December' />
<abstract>
<t>This memo outlines the guidelines for selection of members of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee, and describes the selection process used by the IAB and the IESG. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t></abstract></front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='113' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4333' />
<format type='TXT' octets='15396' target='ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc4333.txt' />
</reference>
<?rfc linefile="506:draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml"?>
</references>
<section anchor="selection" title="IAB selection">
<t>
This process is used by the IAB for the selection of the RFC
Series Editor (if that position is not covered by the RFC
Production Center contract) and for the selection of the
Independent Submission Editor. The IAOC selects the RFC
Production Center and RFC Publisher from vendors that choose to submit
a proposal. The IAOC procurement process is not described in
this document.
</t>
<t>The selection process herein is taken from <xref
target="RFC4333"/> but modified to allow for subject matter
experts to advise the IAB, to take into account that the
community with interest in the RFC series extends beyond the IETF
community, and to prefer the incumbent.
</t>
<section title="Ad-hoc advisory committee">
<t>
It is expected that the IAB and IAOC will establish an ad-hoc
advisory committee to assist them in the selection of the
various functions. The names of the members of this
committee, who do not need to be IAB members or IETF
participants, will be made public through the IAB and IAOC
minutes or otherwise.
</t>
<t>
The committee is expected to have an understanding of the RFC
series and related processes, and of procedures and interests of the
various streams.
</t>
<t>
Members of the subcommittee will be privy to confidential
material and are expected to honour confidentiality.
</t>
<t>
The IAB and IAOC bear the responsibility for the selections of
the candidates for defined functions, the committee provides
advice only.
</t>
<section title="Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee Charter">
<t>The charter for the ad-hoc advisory committee that was
established for the first implementation of this model is
reproduced below for purely informational purposes.</t>
<t>
RFC Services Selection Oversight Subcommittee.
</t>
<t>The subcommittee will:</t>
<list style="numbers">
<t> Review the RFIs and RFPs involving all current RFC Editor services before their release</t>
<t> Review the RFI responses and make recommendations to the IAOC and IAB as to the model, process and RFP going forward</t>
<t> Review the RFP proposals; conduct interviews; conduct and analyze testing; if any, and make recommendations to the IAOC</t>
<t> Shepherd the IAB selection process for the relevant functions,
based on RFC4333 and provide and motivated shortlist to the IAB.</t>
<t>The Subcommittee would terminate upon the completion of contract awards.</t>
<t>The goal is to appoint members that are expected to have an understanding of the RFC series, its processes and of procedures and interests of the various streams.</t>
</list>
</section>
</section>
<section title="The IAB Selection Process of an RFC Series Editor and/or an Independent Stream Editor">
<section title="Nominations and Eligibility">
<t>
The IAB will be making a broad public call for nominations.
The public call will specify the manner by which nominations
will be accepted and the means by which the list of nominees
will be published. Self-nominations are permitted. Along
with the name and contact information for each candidate,
details about the candidate's background and qualifications
for the position should be attached to the nomination.
</t>
<t>
Members of the ad-hoc advisory committee mentioned above are
not eligible, but besides those there are no limitations
with respect to the eligibility for nomination: Nominees do
not have to be actively contributing to the IETF and active
participation as being a working group chair, an IETF
Nominating Committee member, or an IAB or IESG member is not
a limitation.
</t>
<t>
IAB members who accept a nomination for an IAB-selected
position will recuse themselves from IAB selection
discussions.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Selection">
<t>
The IAB will publish the list of nominated persons prior to
making a decision, allowing time for the community to pass
any relevant comments to that body. When established the
advisory committee will be asked to provide a motivated
shortlist. The IAB will review the nomination material, any
submitted comments, the shortlist from the advisory
committee, and make its selection.
</t>
<t>
It is noted that the community mentioned above is the
community with an interest in RFCs and the RFC Editor's
functioning, the IETF community is only a part of that
community.
</t>
<t>
The main intent is to select the incumbent or a superior
candidate.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Care of Personal Information">
<t>
The following procedures will be used by the IAB in managing
candidates' personal information:
<list style="symbols">
<t>The candidate's name will be published, with all other
candidate names, at the close of the nominations
period.</t>
<t> Except as noted above, all information provided to the
IAB during this process will be kept as confidential to
the IAB and, when established, the advisory committee.</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Term of Office and Selection Time Frame">
<t>
The IAB will seat their selected member at the first IETF
meeting of every second year, for a two-year term of office.
Basic time frame requirements for the selection process are
as follows:
<list style="symbols">
<t>3-4 weeks for solicitation of nominations.</t>
<t>3-4 weeks for review of nominees, deliberation, and selection.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
About 3-4 weeks prior to the process, the IAB will
announce the specific dates for the selection process for
that year, following the guidelines above.
</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Internet Draft editing details">
<t>[This appendix is to be removed at publication]</t>
<t>$Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 31 2008-12-15 22:22:06Z olaf $</t>
<section title="Section 00->01">
<t>Added Sandy and Alice to the acknowledgement section, they were accidentally omitted</t>
<t>
Added <xref target="selection"/> so that the selection
mechanism is explicitly documented. The selection mechanism
documents the use of an advisory committee and is explicit
about the fact that the community expands beyond the IETF
community.
</t>
<t>
Modified the RFC Editor Function name to "RFC Series Editor"
in order to minimize confusion between the collective of
functions (RFC Editor) and the function (Series Editor).
</t>
<t>
Added wording for specifying the technical competence needed
by the indep.subm.editor as suggested by JCK
</t>
<t>
Clarified the responsibilities of the production function in
<xref target="production"/>
</t>
<t>Enumerated qualifications of the RFC Editor</t>
</section>
<section title="Section 01->02">
<t>Various nits corrected</t>
<t>Inconsictency in the use of RFC Production house and RFC
Production fixed: RFC Production Center used as term</t>
<t>
Oversight over RFC consistency with the style manual has been made explicit.</t>
<t>
Clarified that the Independent Stream Editors budget is
independent from the IETF/IASA.
</t>
<t>
Improved the language that clarified that the RFC Series
editors and Independent Stream editor do not necessarilly
need to work without assistants, while they bear the responsibility.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Section 02->03">
<t> Added Joel to the acknowledgements</t>
<t> Added the Advisory comittee charter as a FYI</t>
<t>Added editorial skill and command of English as a requirement for the ISE</t>
<t>In the responsibilities for the RFC series: Change
"Participate in" to "Provide input in" for IAOC Review. This
makes the text more implementation neutral.</t>
<t>Typo: Model is consistent with RFC4844 instead of 4884</t>
<t>Added "Maintaining technical quality of the Independent
stream" as an explicit responsibility for the ISE.</t>
</section>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 02:38:38 |