One document matched: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-06.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?rfc linefile="1:draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml"?>
<!-- automatically generated by xml2rfc v1.34pre3 on 2009-05-25T07:55:18Z -->
<!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="trust200902"
category="info"
docName="draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-06"
>
<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="May" year="2009" />
<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. It also introduces the RFC Series Advisory
group and an (optional) Independent Stream Editorial Board. The model
outlined here is intended to increase flexibility and
operational support options, provide for the orderly
succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of the
RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely
processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs,
and increasing cost transparency.
</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 the initial version of this RFC Editor
model on October 1, 2008, the model has received
clarifications since. It should be noted that the publication
of the document as an RFC does not cast the model in stone, as
the primary purpose of this document, throughout the
publication procession, is to encourage normal community
review in order to ascertain consensus to work to this model
as a first step. The document, and the resulting structures,
will be modified as needed through normal procedures. The IAB
will continue to monitor discussions within the community
about potential adjustments to the RFC Editor model and
recognizes that the process described in this document, may
need to be adjusted to align with any changes that result from
such discussions, hence the version number in the title.
</t>
<t>
In particular, the document will be reviewed after the
various transition periods and mechanisms specified in
this version are completed.
</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 ("RSE")</t>
<t>Independent Submission Editor ("ISE")</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 (the picture does not
depict oversight and escalation relations).
</t>
<t>
<?rfc?><?rfc linefile="1:rfc-model-figure.xml"?><figure anchor="model-figure">
<artwork>
------ ----- ------ ---------
Stream | | | | | | |Community|
Pro- | IETF | | IAB | | IRTF | | at |
ducers | | | | | | | Large |
--^--- --^-- ---^-- ----^----
| | | |
| | | | -------
| | | | | Indep.|
--v--- ---v--- ---v-- ----v------ | Stream|
Stream | | | | | | |Independent| | Edi- |
Appro- | IESG | | IAB | | IRSG | | Stream |.....| torial|
vers | | | | | | | Editor | | Board |
----^- ---^--- ----^--- ----^------ -------
| | | |
| | | | -------
| | | | | RFC |
------ --v--------v----------v-----------v----- | Series|
| | | | | Adv. |
| IANA | <->| RFC Production Center <---. | Group |
| | | | | -------
------ -----------------^---------------------- | |
| | |
| ------v-------
------v--------- | |
| | | RFC Series |
| Publisher |<------->| Editor |
| | | |
---------------- --------------
Ordinary RFC Series production and process.
</artwork>
</figure>
<?rfc linefile="187:draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml"?>
</t>
<t>
In this model documents are produced and approved through
multiple document streams. The four that now exist are
described in [RFC4844]. Documents from these streams are
edited and processed by the Production Center and published by
the Publisher.The RFC Series Editor
will exercise executive-level management over many of the
activities of the RFC Publisher and the RFC Production Center
(which can be seen as back office functions) and will be the
entity that:
</t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>faces the community;</t>
<t>works with the IAOC for contractual responsibilities;</t>
<t>and in collaboration with the RFC Series Advisory Group,
identifies and leads community discussion of important issues
and opportunities facing the RFC Series;</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
while the IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered
responsibility. More details about the collaboration with the
RSAG and the IAB responsibilities can be found in <xref
target="RSAG"/>.
</t>
<t>
The RSE does not have the authority to hire or fire RFC Editor
contractors or personnel (See <xref target="dispute"/>).
</t>
<section anchor="RSE" title="RFC Series Editor">
<t>
The RFC Series Editor, is an individual who may have
assistants and who will regularly be provided support from
an advisory group (see <xref target="RSAG"/>). The RSE is
responsible for:
</t>
<t>
<list style="numbers">
<t>Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series
continuity</t>
<t>
Exercising executive-level management over the
implementation of policies, processes and procedures
established to ensure the quality and consistency for
the RFC Series. The RFC Series Editor will work with
the RSAG, and, where appropriate, the IAB and IAOC to develop, new policy and see that
contractual agreements are met.
</t>
<t>
Taking proposed changes to the community, and working with
the IAB so that the IAB can ensure that there is
sufficient community review before significant policies or policy changes are
adopted.
</t>
<t>
Coordinating with IAB and/or IAOC, and together with the
IAB and/or IAOC participating in reviews of the RFC
Publisher, RFC Publication Center, and Independent
Stream Editor functions to ensure the above mentioned
continuity
</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 RFC 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> Executive management experience suitable to managing
the requirements outlined elsewhere in this document and
the many aspects of this role and to coordinating the
overall RFC Editor 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>
There are alternative selection methods for selecting the
individual to serve as the RFC Series Editor:
</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. Once the selection is made, a contract will
be negotiated between the person selected and the IAOC,
following the general model above. Financial compensation
and expenses to support the administrative operation of the
RFC Series Editor selected in this manner would be part of
the IASA budget.
</t>
<t>
Based on an Request for Information (RFI) issued by the IAOC
in December 2008 the IAOC recommended that the second alternative
is chosen for the 2009 selection cycle to be completed in 2009.
</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 define and constitute advisory and
document review arrangements. If those arrangements
include an Editorial Board similar to the current one or
some equivalent arrangement and 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, good command of the
English language, and demonstrated history of being able
to work effectively with technical documents and materials
created by others.</t>
<t>The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor
environment with divided authority and responsibility
similar to that described in this document.
</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 IAB after input is collected from the
community. 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. While the ISE
itself is considered a volunteer function, the IAB considers
maintaining the Independent stream within the RFC Series
part of the IAB's supported activities, and will include the
expenses made for the support of the ISE 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 parameter
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. 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>
<t> As described in <xref target="RSE"/> this model allows the
IAOC to recommend the RSE position to be selected through an RFP
process, in that case the model also allows combining the RFC
Production Center bid with the RSE bid. For 2009 the
recommendation was made that the RSE is selected throug a IAB
led selection process.
</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>All these activities will be done under general supervision of
the RSE and need some level of coordination with various
submission streams and the RSE. </t>
<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>
<section title="Committees">
<section title="RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)" anchor="RSAG">
<section title="Charter">
<t>
The purpose of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) is to
provide expert, informed guidance (chiefly, to the RSE) in
matters affecting the RFC Series operation and development.
Such matters include, but are not limited to, issues in
operation of the RFC model components, and consideration of
additional RFC streams, to give a sense of the range of topics
covered.
</t>
<t>
The RSAG is chartered by the IAB. As such, it operates
independently of the IAB to fulfill that charter, and provides
periodic reports to the IAB via the RSE.
</t>
<t>
The group provides guidance to the RSE, who in turn addresses
immediate operational issues or opportunities with the ISE,
Production Center, or Publisher. In cases where these issues
have contractual side-effects the RSE provides guidance to the
IAD. The RSAG also serves to provide advice to the RSE on
longer-term, larger-scale developments for the RFC Series.
This informs the proposals the RSE takes to the community for
discussion, and the IAD/IAOC as proposals for implementation.
</t>
<t>
The RSAG will assist the RSE in identifying and leading
community discussion of important issues and opportunities
facing the RFC Series. The IAB retains its oversight role and
is responsible for ensuring that adequate community discussion
has been held on any such significant topics.
</t>
</section>
<section title="membership">
<t>
The RSAG full members are all at large members, selected for
their experience and interest in the RFC Series, to provide
consistency and constancy of the RFC Series interpretation
over time; the members do not represent a particular RFC
stream or any organizations. The RSAG members are proposed by the Series Editor in
consultation with the sitting RSAG members, and then
confirmed and formally appointed by the IAB. In addition to these full members,
each RFC stream will appoint a liaison to the RSAG to
provide context specific to their stream. Initially there
will be no IAOC or IAB liaison for their oversight role, however as experience is
gained the IAOC, IAB, or RSAG may request for such. There is
no requirement or expectation that RSAG members will be IAB
members.
</t>
<t>
The RSAG does not select or appoint the RSE, or any other
component of the RFC Editor model, although it acts as an
important resource for informing any selection process.
</t>
<t>
It is envisioned that the RSAG will be composed of appointed
full members serving staggered 3 year terms, plus the RSE.
The full members will serve at the pleasure of the IAB --
appointed by the IAB, and if necessary, removed by the IAB.
</t>
<t>
In order to provide continuity and to assist with a smooth
transition of the RFC Editor function, the members of the
existing RFC Editor Editorial Board who are willing to do so
are asked to serve as an interim RSAG, effective as of the
time of approval of this document. Within one year from the
time the RFC Editor function transitions to the new model
and after consideration of the operation of the new model in
practice, the interim RSAG and RSE will formulate
recommendations to the IAB about this model, in particular
the regular composition, size, and selection process for the
permanent RSAG in particular.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="dispute" title="Disagreements Among RFC Editor Entities">
<t>
If during the execution of their activities, a disagreement
arises over an implementation decision made by one of the
entities in the model, any relevant party should first
request a review and reconsideration of the decision. If
that party still disagrees after the reconsideration, the
RSE may be asked to decide or, especially if the RSE is
involved, the IAB Chair (for a technical or procedural
matter) or IAD (for an administrative or contractual one)
may be asked to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in the
discussions, although neither is obligated to do so. All
parties should work informally and in good faith to reach a
mutually agreeable conclusion.
</t>
<t>
If such a conclusion is not possible through those informal
processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC
Series Advisory Group. The RSAG may choose to offer advice
to the RSE 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 timely decision cannot be reached
through discussion, mediation, and mutual agreement, the
Series Editor is expected to make whatever decisions are
needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC Editor
function; those decisions are final.
</t>
<t>
RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of
the process and evaluation of whether current policies are
appropriately implemented in the decision or need
adjustment. In particular, it should be noted that final
decisions about the technical content of individual
documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream
approvers for those documents, as shown in the illustration
in <xref target="model-figure"/>.
</t>
<t>
If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future
contractual consequences, the Series Editor must identify
the issue to the IAOC and, if the RSAG has provided advice,
forward that advice as well. After the IAOC has notified the
IAB, the IAD as guided by the IAOC, with advice provided by
the Series Editor, has the responsibility to resolve these
contractual issues.
</t>
<t>
If informal agreements cannot be reached and formal RSAG
review and/or RSE or stream approver decisions are required,
the RSE must identify the issues involved to the community
and report them to the IAB in its oversight capacity. The
RSE and IAB shall mutually develop a satisfactory mechanism
for this type of reporting when and if it is necessary.
</t>
<t>
IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are
expected to inform future changes to Series policies
including possible updates to this document.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Independent Stream Editorial Board" anchor="editorial_board">
<t>
Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board for
the review of Independent stream documents. This board is
expected to evolve in what we will call the Independent
Stream Editorial Board. This Editorial Board will exist at the
pleasure of the ISE, and the members serve at the pleasure of
the ISE. The existence of this board is simply noted within
this model, and additional discussion of such considered out
of scope of this document.
</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 in conjuction with those roles, 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 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.
</t>
<t>
The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in alphabetical order):
Marcelo Bagnulo,
Gonzalo Camarillo,
Stuart Cheshire,
Vijay Gill,
Russ Housley,
John Klensin,
Olaf Kolkman,
Gregory Lebovitz,
Andrew Malis,
Danny McPherson,
David Oran,
Jon Peterson, and
Dave Thaler.
</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="762: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="766:draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml"?>
</references>
<section anchor="selection" title="2009 Selection Process">
<t>
In 2009 the IAB is repsonsible for the selection of the RFC
Series Editor 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 for the ISE and RSE 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.
</t>
<section title="Ad-hoc advisory committee(s)">
<t>
It is expected that the IAB and IAOC will, during the various
stages of the bidding process, establish one or more ad-hoc
advisory committees to assist them in the selection of the
various functions. The names of the members of the
committees, 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>
Members of these committees are 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 subcommittees will be privy to confidential
material and are expected to honour confidentiality. Because
they are subject to confidential material they are recused
from bidding on any of the functions for which financial
compensation is offered.
</t>
<t>
The IAB and IAOC bear the responsibility for the selections of
the candidates for defined functions, the committees provide
advice and recommendations but are not expected to act as
nomination or selection committees.
</t>
</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>
People that served on the ad-hoc advisory committee(s)
mentioned above are not eligible. There are no further
limmitations. Specifically, 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="Committees in 2009">
<t>
During the 2009 selection process a committee assisted
the IAOC/IAB in creating the job descriptions and
statements of work. This committee may also assist in
assessing the bids made to the IAOC for the Production
Center and the RFC Publisher. Another committee, the Ad-hoc
Committee for selection of Editorial Functions, assists the
IAB in the assesment of the RFC Series Editor and the Independent
Submission Editor candidates.
</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 the IAB. When established, the
advisory committee will be asked to provide a motivated
shortlist. The IAB will review the nomination material, any
submitted comments, the shortlist from the advisory
committee, and make its selection.
</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 superior candidate taking
considerations of continuity of the series into account.
</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" anchor="terms_of_office">
<t>
Subject to further negotiations and in the interest of
providing stability, terms of office are expected to be five
years with no restrictions on renewals and with provision
for shorter actual contracts and intermediate reviews. In
addition an effort should be made so that terms of office
for the RSE, ISE, and RFC Production Center do not terminate
concurrently.
</t>
<t>
The selection timeframe for 2009 is roughly:
<list type="symbols">
<t>
May - IAB calls for nominations for ISE and RSE positions
</t>
<t>
Mid July - [Stockholm] A Committee conducts interviews
</t>
<t>
Mid August - Committee recommends individuals to IAB for ISE and RSE positions
</t>
<t>
Second half of September - IAB Appoints ISE, and RSE subject to successful negotiations of agreement with IAOC
</t>
<t>
Mid October - MOUs Executed with IAD, ISE for expenses RSE for stipend and expenses
</t>
<t>
Mid October - Transition begins
</t>
<t>
January 2010 - Contract begins
</t>
</list>
The timeline for future selections is subject to
recommendation from the RSAG and review by the IAB.
</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-06.xml 48 2009-05-25 07:57:19Z 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>Inconsistency 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 necessarily
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 committee 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 title="section 03->04">
<t>[omitted by accident]</t>
</section>
<section title="section 04->05">
<t> Introduced the concept of the RFC Series Advisory Group and
reworked the text to take this into account. This also caused
the renaming of the advisory group to an explicit "Independent
Stream Editorial Board".
</t>
<t> Rewrote the appeal process to take the RSAG into account</t>
<t> In <xref target="terms_of_office"/>: Extended the appointment period to 3 years </t>
</section>
<section title="section 05->06">
<t> This version documents decisions made by the IAB during prior to approval during its April 27-28 retreat</t>
<t> Addressed some nits</t>
<t> Rewritten details of dispute resolution. Also stopped
using the words appeal or dispute resolution as they have a
specific meaning in the standards process </t>
<t> The ISE's expenses are covered from the IASA budget.</t>
<t> The envisioned size of the RSAG is changed from 6 to un-specified, the RSAG is allowed to advice on the size later</t>
<t> Rewrote/clarified requirements for RSE and ISE function</t>
</section>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 16:28:09 |