One document matched: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- automatically generated by xml2rfc v1.34pre3 on 2009-12-15T11:43:14Z -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no" ?>
<rfc ipr="trust200902"
category="info"
docName="draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-00"
>
<front>
<title>RFC Editor Model (Version 2)</title>
<author initials="O." surname="Kolkman (Ed.)" fullname="Olaf M. Kolkman">
<organization></organization>
<address><email>olaf@nlnetlabs.nl</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="J.M." surname="Halpern (Ed.)" fullname="Joel M. Halpern">
<organization>Ericsson</organization>
<address><email>joel.halpern@ericsson.com</email></address>
</author>
<author surname="IAB" fullname="Internet Architecture Board">
<organization></organization>
<address><email>iab@iab.org</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="7" month="March" year="2011" />
<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 described in this document divides the responsibilities
for the RFC Series into four functions: The RFC Series Editor,
the Independent Submission Editor, the RFC Production Center,
and the RFC Publisher. The function of the Independent
Submission Editor is defined here. The IAB oversight by way of
delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Board is described.
This document reflects 1 year of
experience with RFC Editor Model version 1.
</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 IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (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 the experience gained since, as described
immediately below, and examines the internal organization of
the RFC Editor, while remaining consistent with RFC 4844.
This version of the document also reflects the discussions, as
described below, that have occurred since the first efforts to clarify
that internal organization.
</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 defines the term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series
Editor" for one of the organizational components.
</t>
<t>
The RFC Editor model was first approved in October 1, 2008 and has
evolved since. During the implementation of version 1 of the model
<xref target="RFC5620"/> it was quickly realized that
the role of the RSE and the
oversight responsibilities needed to be structured differently. In
order to gain experience with 'running code' a transitional RFC Series
Editor was hired who analyzed the managerial environment and provided
recommendations. This version of the model is based on his recommendations
and the subsequent discussion on the rfc-interest list.
</t>
<t>
The document, and the resulting structures,
will be modified as needed through normal procedures. The RSE, and
the IAB, through the RFC oversight committee (see <xref target="RSOC"/>), 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 sets boundary
conditions on whether these functions are to be implemented jointly or
under separate contractual arrangements. The exact implementation is a
responsibility of the IAOC in cooperation with the RFC Series Editor.
</t>
<section title="Expenses for the RFC Editor">
<t>
The expenses discussed in this document are not new
expenses. They have been and remain part of the IASA budget.
</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 structure and relationship of the components of the
RFC Series Production and Process is
schematically represented by the figure below (the picture does not
depict oversight and escalation relations).
</t>
<t>
<figure anchor="model-figure">
<artwork>
<![CDATA[
+--------------+
| |
| IAB |
| |
+----V--------V+
+.RFC Editor....|........V.................+
. | .
+------------+ . +-----------V-+ +-----------+ .
| | . | RFC | | | .
| Community | . | Series | | RFC | .
| at <------> Oversight <--> Series | .
| Large | . | Committee | | Editor | .
| | . | | | | .
+------------+ . +-------------+ +-V-------V-+ .
+...............+ | | .
. | | .
+-----------+ +-------------+ . +----V--+ +V--------+ . +-----+
| Community | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E |
| at +---> Submission +---> | | RFC | . | n |
| Large | | Editor | . | P | | | . | d |
| | | | . | r | | P | . | |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | o +-->| u +-----> U |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | d | | b | . | s |
| | | | . | u | | l | . | e |
| IAB +---> IAB +---> c | | i | . | r |
| | | | . | t | | s | . | s |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | i | | h | . | |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | o | | e | . | & |
| | | | . | n | | r | . | |
| IRTF +---> IRSG +---> | | | . | R |
| | | | . | C | | | . | e |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d |
| | | | . | t | | | . | e |
| IETF +---> IESG +---> e | | | . | r |
| | | | . | r | | | . | s |
+-----------+ +-------------+ . +-------+ +---------+ . +-----+
. .
+..........................+
]]>
Structure of RFC Series production and process.
</artwork>
</figure>
</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 management over 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>Provides Executive Management for the overall operation
of the RFC Editor, including the Production and Publication components.</t>
<t>Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function
within the IETF and externally.</t>
<t>Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution
of improvements in the RFC Editor Production and Access Processes.</t>
<t>Leads the community in the development of improvements to
the RFC Series.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>These responsibilities are defined below, although the
specific work items under them are a matter for the actual employment
contract and its Statement of Work.</t>
<t>
The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered
responsibility. More details on the
oversight by the IAB via the RSOC can be found in
<xref target="RSOC"/>.
</t>
<t>
The RSE does not have the authority to hire or fire RFC Editor
contractors or personnel. Serious issues, such as those that
might be detected during the RSE annual review of the production
facility, would be brought by the RSE to the RSOC, and escalated from
there if appropriate.
</t>
<section anchor="RSE" title="RFC Series Editor">
<t>
The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall
responsibility
for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series. While
that individual may, in the future, have assistants; at present there
are no staff other
than those associated with the RFC Series Production and Publication
facility.</t>
<t>The RSE is appointed by the IAB, and hired by the IAOC.
The IAB delegates the direct oversight of the IAB to the RSOC, which
it appoints.</t>
<section anchor="ExecManage" title="Executive Management of
the Publication and Production function">
<t> With respect to the Publication and Production functions, the RSE
provides input to the IASA budget, statements of work, and manages
vendor selection processes. The RSE performs annual reviews of
the Production and Publication function which are then provided to
the RSOC and the IASA.</t>
<t>Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under
final authority of the IASA.</t>
<t>Concretely:</t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and
manages the vendor search processes. The work definition is
created within the (budgetary) boundary condition that are
negotiated with IASA and takes into account the RSE's
requirements and community input.</t>
<t>The RSE manages the evaluation process of the bids against the
SOW and then provides a recommendation to the IASA.</t>
<t>Final vendor selection is done by the IASA in close
consultation with the RSE to ensure that contract terms and
other arrangements are consistent with the SOW, consistent with
the both RSE's and contractor's requirements to satisfy the
contract, and do not conflict with the role of the RSE.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t> The IASA has the responsibility to approve the total RSE budget
(and the authority to deny it). The RSE has the responsibility to
manage all the series functions within that budget. It is assumed
that there is a level of cooperation between RSE and IASA that
allows decisions by the IASA to be 'pro forma'. In case of
disagreement, the IAB will attempt to mediate the issue. If no
mutual agreement can be reached, the IAB will make the final
decision.</t>
<t>When budgets have been assigned by IASA the RSE is responsible for
managing the RFC Editor to operate within those budgets.</t>
<t>The RSE primarily supervises the on-going performance of the
vendors without asserting direct operational responsibility.
However,
the RSE has operational responsibilities for issues that raise
above the responsibilities of the publication or publication
functions such as cross stream coordination of priorities and
other issues. When the RSE needs to take extra-budgetary or
out-of contract measures those actions will be coordinated with
IASA.</t>
<t>Create documentation and structures that will allow for the RFC
Series' continuity when circumstances engender the need for the
execution of the publication and/or production functions by other
vendors.</t>
<t>For this type of responsibility the RSE is expected to cooperate
closely with the IASA and the various streams.</t>
<t> To prevent actual or apparent problems with conflicts of interest or
judgment, the RSE is barred from having any ownership, advisory, or
other relationship to the vendors executing the Publication or
Production functions except as specified elsewhere in this document.
If necessary, an exception can be made after public disclosure of
those relationships and with the explicit permission of the IAB and
IASA.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="SeriesRep" title="Representation of the RFC
Series">
<t>The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series.
This representation is important both internally, relative to the
IETF, and externally.</t>
<section anchor="IETFRep" title="Representation to the IETF">
<t>The RSE is the primary point of contact the IETF on matters
other than the practicalities of producing individual RFCs (which are
worked with the RFC Production staff.)</t>
<t>This includes providing suitable reports to the community
at large; providing email contact for policy questions and inputs; and
enabling and participating in suitable on-line forums for discussion
of issues related to the RFC Series.</t>
<t>Due to the history and nature of the interaction between
the RSE and the IETF, certain principles must be understood and
adhered to by the RSE in his interactions with the community. These
apply to the representation function, as well as to the leadership the
RSE provides in Production and Series Development.</t>
<section title="Volunteerism">
<t>The vast majority of Internet technical community work
is led, initiated, and done by community volunteers, including
oversight, policy-making, and direct production of, for example, many
software tools. The Series Editor role relies on volunteer
participation and needs to support the vitality and effectiveness of
volunteer participation.</t>
</section>
<section title="Policy Authority">
<t>All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of
the community. The community is the arbiter of policy, not the RSE.
The RSE must consult with the community on policy issues. As
described below in <xref target="RSOC"/> the RSE reports the results
of such interactions to the RSOC, including the specific
recommendations on policy. This enables the RSOC to provide the
oversight the IAB is required to apply, as well as to confirm that the
IETF community has been properly consulted and considered in making policy.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="ExtRep" title="External Representation">
<t>From time to time, individuals or organizations external to
the IETF need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series. The
RSE is that individual.</t>
<t>Over time, the RSE should determine what if any means
should be employed to increase end-user awareness of the series, and
to reinforce the stature of the Series, and will be the contact point
for outside parties seeking information on the Series or the
Editor.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="ProdDev" title="Development of RFC Production
and RFC Access">
<t>Closely related to providing executive management to the
RFC Production and Publication functions is the need to develop and
improve those functions. The RSE is responsible for ensuring that
such ongoing development takes place.</t>
<t>This effort must include the dimensions of document
quality, timeliness of production, and accessibility of results. It
must also specifically take into account issues raised by the IETF
community.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="SeriesDev" title="Development of the RFC
Series">
<t>In order to develop the RFC Publication series the RSE
is expected to
develop a relationships with the Internet technical community. With
that community, the Editor is expected to engage in a process of
articulating and refining a vision for the Series and its continuous
evolution.</t>
<t>Concretely:
<list style="hanging">
<t>The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on
Series evolution among the Series' Stream participants and the
broader Internet technical community.</t>
<t>In time the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision
on
<list style="hanging">
<t>the technical specification series, as it continues to evolve
beyond the historical 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis;
and</t>
<t>its publication-technical environment: slowly changing in terms
of publication and archiving techniques; the communities that
produce and depend on the RFC Series. All of those communities
have been slowly changing to include significant multi-lingual
non-native-English populations.Some of them also have a primary
focus on the constraints and consequences of network
engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering
issues themselves.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>The RSE will develop consensus versions of vision and policy
documents which will be approved by the RFC Series Oversight
Committee (<xref target="RSOC"/>).</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>For this type of responsibility the RSE cooperates closely with the
community and under oversight of the RSOC and thus ultimately under
oversight of the IAB.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Workload" title="Workload">
<t>
The job is expected initially to take on average half of an FTE
(approx 20 hrs per week), with the workload per week
near full
time during IETF weeks, over 20 hours per week in the first few
months of the engagement, and higher during special projects.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Selection" title="Qualifications and Selection">
<t>
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional
with the following qualifications:
<list style="numbers">
<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>Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and
RFC process.</t>
<t>Independent worker.</t>
<t>Experience as an RFC author desired.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
As described below (<xref target="RSOC"/>) the IAB appoints
the RSOC and delegates authority to it. One of the first
responsibilities of the RSOC will be to define in detail the
solicitation and selection process for the next RSE. The RSOC is
expected to document to the community the process it selects. Upon
completion of selection, the RSOC should determine the best way to
preserve this information for future use.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Independent Submission Editor">
<t>
[Editor's note: This section needs to be edited to make clear that
while the ISE is part of the RFC Editor function, he, and his stream,
are independent of the RSE.]
</t>
<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 Submission stream.</t>
<t>Reviewing, approving, and processing Independent Submissions.</t>
<t>Forwarding draft RFCs in the Independent Submission Stream to the RFC Production Center.</t>
<t>Reviewing and approving Independent Submissions RFC errata.</t>
<t>Coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series
policies as specified by the IAB and RSE.</t>
<t> Providing statistics and documentation as requested by the RSE and/or IAOC.</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, 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="RFC4333"/> should be used. While the ISE
itself is considered a volunteer function, the IAB considers
maintaining the Independent Submission 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, under the direction of the RSE;</t>
<t>Creating records of edits performed on documents;</t>
<t>Identifying where editorial changes might have technical
impact and seeking necessary clarification;</t>
<t>Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds,
IANA, and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is
needed;
</t>
<t>Creating records of dialog with document 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>Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC
Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external
reviews of the RFC Editor initiated by the IAB or IAOC;</t>
<t>Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter
registry actions;</t>
<t>Assigning RFC numbers;</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 dialog to the RFC
Publisher so these can be preserved;</t>
<t>Liaising with the streams as needed.</t>
</list>
</t>
<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>
The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected by the
IAOC through an RFP process. The IAOC will 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>Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.</t>
<t>Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata.</t>
<t>Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.</t>
<t>Providing backups.</t>
<t>Providing storage and preservation of records.</t>
<t>Authenticating 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>
The vendor selection by the IAOC is
through an RFP process. This may be part of the same contract
as the RFC Production center, or may be separate, as decided by
the IAOC.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Committees">
<section title="RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)" anchor="RSOC">
<t>The IAB is responsible for oversight over the RFC Series.</t>
<t>In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the nomcom
appointment cycle and assure that oversight is informed through
subject matter experts the IAB will establish a group that implements
oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC).</t>
<t>The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: In general
it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision
documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the
community.</t>
<t>In those general cases the IAB is ultimately responsible for
oversight and acts as a body for appeal and resolution.</t>
<t>For all aspects that affect the RSE itself (e.g. hiring and firing)
the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB but final decision is
the responsibility of the IAB. For instance the RSOC would:
<list style="symbols">
<t>perform annual reviews of the RSE and reports to the IAB.</t>
<t> manage RSE candidate selection and advises the IAB on candidate
appointment (in other words select the RSE, subject to IAB
approval)</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>It is expected that such oversight by the IAB is a matter of due
diligence and that the reports and recommendations from the RSOC are
approached as if they are binding.</t>
<t>RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of
interest and behave accordingly.</t>
<t>There is one aspect in which the RSOC will work with the IASA: the
remuneration of the RSE itself. The RSOC will propose a budget for
approval to the IASA.</t>
<t>The RSOC will be responsible to ensure that the RFC Series is run in
a transparent and accountable manner.</t>
<t>The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order.</t>
<section anchor="RSOCCompose" title="RSOC composition">
<t>The RSOC will operate as a Program of the IAB, with the IAB retaining
final responsibility. The IAB will delegate authority and
responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE
relationships evolve. Like other IAB Programs, the RSOC will include
people who are not current IAB members. The IAB will designate the
membership of the RSOC with the goals of preserving effective
stability, keeping it small enough to be effective, but large enough
to provide general Internet Community expertise, specific IETF
expertise, Publication expertise, and stream expertise. Members
serve at the pleasure of the IAB and are expected to bring a balance
between short and long term perspective. Specific input about, and
recommendations of, members will be sought from the streams, the
IASA, and the RSE.</t>
<t>The RSE and a person designated to represent the IASA will serve as
ex-officio members of the RSOC but either or both can be excluded
from its discussions if necessary.</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, that
party may ask the RSE to decide or, especially if the RSE is
involved, that party may ask the IAB Chair (for a technical
or procedural matter) or IAD (for an administrative or
contractual one) 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 Oversight Committee. The RSOC may choose to offer advice
to the RSE or more general advice to the parties involved
and may ask the RSE to 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, then formal RSOC
review and decision making may be required. If so, the
the RSE must identify the issues involved to the community,
so that the community is aware of the situation. The RSE
will the report the issue to the RSOC for formal resolution
by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its oversight
capacity.
</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 Submission Stream Editorial Board" anchor="editorial_board">
<t>
Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board for the
review of Independent Submission stream documents. This board is
expected to evolve in what we will call the Independent
Submission Stream Editorial Board. This volunteer 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 is 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="Acknowledgments">
<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 conjunction with those roles, major and minor
contributions were made by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden,
Brian Carpenter, Sandy Ginoza, Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern,
Alfred Hoenes, 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'>
<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>
</references>
<references title='Informative References'>
<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 include="reference.RFC.5620"?>
</references>
<section title="Internet Draft editing details">
<t>[This appendix is to be removed at publication]</t>
<t>$Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 55 2009-06-08 12:32:59Z olaf $</t>
<section title="Section 00->01">
<t>Added Sandy and Alice to the acknowledgment section, they were accidentally omitted</t>
<t>
Added text 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 Submission Stream Editors budget is
independent from the IETF/IASA.
</t>
<t>
Improved the language that clarified that the RFC Series
editors and Independent Submission 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 acknowledgments</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
Submission 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
Submission Stream Editorial Board".
</t>
<t> Rewrote the appeal process to take the RSAG into account</t>
<t> 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 title="section 06->07">
<t> Fixed nits </t>
<t> Addressed some IAB concerns that were accidentally omitted in version 06</t>
</section>
<section title="section 07->08">
<t>pen handed to Joel Halpern, added as Editor</t>
<t>clarified text on RSE non-authority to hire and fire.</t>
<t>Replaced structure diagram in section 3 with diagram
developed by Glenn Kowack.</t>
<t>Replaced responsibilities section (3) with a structure to
match the ongoing SoW, with content largely derived by Olaf
Kolkman.</t>
<t>replaced RSAG section (4.1) with RSOC section, with new
procedures and responsibilities.</t>
<t>Removed description of 2009 selection process.</t>
</section>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 19:38:05 |