One document matched: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02.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-v2-02"
>
<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="27" month="June" 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 three functions: The RFC Series Editor,
the RFC Production Center,
and the RFC Publisher. The function of the Independent
Submission Editor is also defined here. The Internet Architecture Board
(IAB) oversight by way of
delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described,
as is the relationship between the IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC.
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>
<figure>
<artwork>
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>
</figure>
</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>
<t>
The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered
responsibility as defined in <xref target="RFC2850"/> and
<xref target="RFC4071"/>.
</t>
</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>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 <------------+
| | | |
| |=============| |
| | | |
| | RSOC <------------+
| | | |
| +-------+-----+ +-----+-----+
| | | |
| +...........|.........+ | Community |
| . | . | at |
| . +-------V-----+ . | Large |
| . | | . | |
| . | RFC | . +-----+-----+
| . | Series | . |
| . | Editor <------------+
| . | | .
| . +-+---------+-+ .
| . | | .
+-------------+ +-----V-------+ . +--V--+ +--V--+ . +-----+
| | | | . | | | | . | |
| Independent | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E |
| Authors +--> Submission +-----> | | | . | n |
| | | Manager | . | P | | | . | d |
| | | | . | r | | RFC | . | |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | | . | U |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | d | | P | . | s |
| | | | . | u | | u | . | e |
| IAB +--> IAB +-----> c | | b | . | r |
| | | | . | t | | l | . | s |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | i +---> i +--------> |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | s | . | & |
| | | | . | n | | h | . | |
| IRTF +--> IRSG +---->| | | e | . | R |
| | | | . | C | | r | . | e |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d |
| | | | . | t | | | . | e |
| IETF +--> IESG +-----> e | | | . | r |
| | | | . | r | | | . | s |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . +-----+ +-----+ . +-----+
. .
+..... RFC Editor ....+
]]>
Structure of RFC Series production and process.
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>
In this model documents are produced and approved through
multiple document streams. The stream manager for each stream
is responsible for the content of that stream.
The four streams that now exist are described in [RFC4844].
The RFC Editor function is responsible for the packaging and
distribution of the documents. As such, 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>
<t> Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web
site, which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher.</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>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 as defined in <xref target="RFC2850"/> and
<xref target="RFC4071"/>. More details on the
oversight by the IAB via the RFC Series Oversight Committee
(RSOC) can be found in <xref target="RSOC"/>. For example,
the RSE does not have the direct authority to
hire or fire RFC Editor
contractors or personnel.
</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.
</t>
<t>The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the
IAOC. The IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the
RSOC, which it appoints.</t>
<t>The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IAOC and
the stream managers.</t>
<section anchor="ExecManage" title="Executive Management of
the Publication and Production Functions">
<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>The RSE is responsible for the performance of the Production
Center and Publisher. The RSE is responsible for issues that go
beyond the production or publication functions, such as cross-stream
coordination of priorities. Issues that require changes to the budget
or contracts shall be brought to the IAD by the RSE.</t>
<t>The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and
structures that will allow for the RFC
Series' continuity in the face of changes in contracts and
personnel. </t>
<t>Vendor selection for these functions is done in cooperation
with the streams and under final authority of the IASA. Details on
this process can be found in <xref target="vendorsel"/>.</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 to the IETF on
matters other than the practicalities of producing individual RFCs
(which are worked with the RFC Production Center 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 or her 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 Internet community. The IETF community is the arbiter of policy.
The RSE must consult with the IETF community on policy issues.
The RSE works with the IETF community to achieve policy that meets
the overall quality, continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is
charged with meeting. 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 Publication">
<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, including all the RFC Streams.</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
for the RFC Series, including examining:
<list style="hanging">
<t>the technical specification series, as it continues to
evolve. The RSE is expected to take a broad view and be
looking for the best ways to evolve the series for the
benefit of the entire Internet Community. As such, the
RSE may even consider evolution
beyond the historical 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis;
and</t>
<t>its publication-technical environment: looking
at whether it should be slowly changing in terms
of publication and archiving techniques; particularly
to better serve the communities that
produce and depend on the RFC Series. For example, all of
those communities
have been slowly changing to include significant multi-lingual
and non-native-English populations. Another example is that
some of these constituencies also have a
shifted to include significant groups of members whose primary
focus is on the constraints and consequences of network
engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering
issues themselves.</t>
</list>
</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="Qualifications" title="Qualifications">
<t>
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional.
The following qualifications are desired:
<list style="numbers">
<t> Executive management experience fulfilling the
requirements outlined in this document, the many aspects
of this role, and the coordination of 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>
<t>Willingness to Travel.</t>
<t>The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and
matrixed environment with divided authority and responsibility similar
to that described in this document.</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Conflict of Interest">
<t> 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
in order to prevent actual or apparent problems with conflicts of
interest or judgment.
If necessary, an exception can be made after public disclosure of
those relationships and with the explicit permission of the IAB and
IAOC.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Independent Submission Editor">
<t>
The Independent Submission Editor (ISE) is the head of the
Independent Submission Stream of RFCs, as defined by
<xref target="RFC4844"/>. The Independent Stream and the
Independent Submission Editor are not under the
authority or direction of the RSE. As noted below,
the ISE is appointed by and is responsible directly to the
IAB.
</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
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 the general direction,
but not day to day management, 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 through
an IASA RFP process as described in <xref target="vendorsel"/>.
</t>
</section>
<section title="RFC Publisher">
<t>
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:
</t>
<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>
<t>All these activities will be done under the general direction,
but not day to day management, of
the RSE and need some level of coordination with various
submission streams and the RSE. </t>
<t>
The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through
an IASA RFP process as described in <xref target="vendorsel"/>.
</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 and
acts as a body for appeal and conflict resolution.</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. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due
diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be
allowed the latitude to do its job without undue interference
from the IAB. Therefore, it is expected that the IAB
will accord RSOC reports and recommendations the benefit of
the doubt.</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>RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of
interest and behave accordingly.</t>
<t>RSOC will also work with the IASA, proposing a budget, and the
remuneration and employment agreement of the RSE position.
</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>
<t>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 the selection, the RSOC should determine
the best way to preserve this information for future use.
</t>
<section anchor="RSOCCompose" title="RSOC Composition">
<t>
The RSOC will operate under the authority 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. The RSOC will include people who are not
current IAB members. Currently, this is aligned with the IAB
Program structure. 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 IAOC will appoint an individual to serve as its Liaison to
the RSOC. The RSE and this Liaison will serve as
non-voting ex-officio members of the RSOC. Either or both can be
excluded from its discussions if necessary.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board" anchor="editorial_board">
<t>
The Independent Submission Editor is supported by an Editorial
Board for the review of Independent Submission stream documents.
This board is known as the Independent Submission Stream Editorial
Board. This volunteer Editorial Board exists 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="Administrative Implementation">
<t>
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a
responsibility of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC,
<xref target="RFC4071"/>) in cooperation with the RFC Series Editor.
The authority structure is described in Figure 2 below.
</t>
<t>
<figure anchor="auth-figure">
<artwork>
<![CDATA[
+----------------+ +----------------+
| | | |
| IAB | | IAOC |
| | | |
+==========+--+--+ +-+-----------+--+
| | | . .
| RSOC | | . .
| | | . .
+----+-----+ | . .
| +-------------------+ .
| . | .
| ................... | .
| . . | .
+--------V---V----+ . +--V----V--------+
| | . | |
| RFC | . | Independent |
| Series | . | Series |
| Editor | . | Editor |
| | . | |
+--------+--------+ . +----------------+
| .
| .................
| . .
+--+----------------+ .
| . | .
| . | .
+---V-----V--+ +--V----V---+
| RFC | | RFC |
| Production | | Publisher |
| Center | | |
+------------+ +-----------+
Authority Structure of RFC Series
Legend:
------- IAB RFC Series Oversight
....... IAOC Contract/Budget Oversight
]]>
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<section anchor="vendorsel" title="Vendor Selection">
<t>As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation
with the streams and under the final authority of the IAOC.</t>
<t>The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and
participates in the IASA Vendor selection process.
The work definition is created within the IASA budget and
takes into account the stream managers and community input.</t>
<t>The process to select and contract for an RFC Production
Center, RFC Publisher, and other RFC-related services, is as
follows: </t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>The IAOC establishes the contract process, including the
steps necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the
contracting procedures.
</t>
<t>The IAOC establishes the Selection Committee, which will
consist of the RSE, the IAD, and other members selected by the RSOC
and the IAOC. The Committee shall be chaired by the RSE.</t>
<t>The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to
the successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IAOC. In the
event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be referred
to the Selection Committee for further action.</t>
<t>The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher
either through the IASA RFP process, or, at the Committee's option,
the Committee may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC Publisher
services, subject to negotiations in accordance with the IASA
procedures. </t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Budget">
<t>
The expenses discussed in this document are not new
expenses. They have been and remain part of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA,
<xref target="RFC4071"/>) budget.
</t>
<t>The RFC Series portion of the IASA Budget shall include
entries for the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, and the RFC
Publisher. The IASA Budget shall also include entries for the
streams, including the independent stream.</t>
<t>The IAOC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC
Editor budget (and the authority to deny it.) The RSE must work
within the IAOC budgetary process.</t>
<t>The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor to
operate within those budgets. If product needs change, the RSE is
responsible for working with the Production Center to determine what
the correct response should be. If they agree that a budgetary change
is needed, that needs to be taken to the IAD and the IAOC.</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) to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in
the discussions, although not 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 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 title="Issues with Contractual Impact">
<t>
If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future
contractual consequences it falls under BCP 101 and IASA,
and thus the Series Editor must identify
the issue and provide his or her advice to the IAOC and,
if the RSOC has provided advice,
forward that advice as well. After the IAOC has notified the
IAB, the IAD, as guided by the IAOC, has the responsibility
to resolve these contractual issues under applicable
procedures in BCP 101 and such appropriate contracts.
</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 and enforcement of the RFC
Editor model contracts.
</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'>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4844"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4071"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2850"?>
</references>
<references title='Informative References'>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4333"?>
<?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 title="v2-00->v2-01">
<t>Editorial corrections and reference additions.</t>
<t>Rewriting text on the vision for the development of
the RFC Series.</t>
<t>Clean up the text explaining the relationship between
RSE management and IAOC budgetary authority.</t>
<t> cleaned up text to better explain the RSE's role in
judging community policy consensus.</t>
<t>Clarified the general but not day to day managerial
relationship of the RSE with the production and publication
facilities.</t>
<t>Highlight special handling of disagreements with
contractual implications.</t>
<t>Clarify that the ISE is part of the RFC Editor function,
but not under the authority of the RSE.</t>
</section>
<section title="v2-01->v2-02">
<t>Extensive reorganization of the text</t>
<t>Significant clarification of the vendor selection
process.</t>
<t>Clarify which community the RFC Editor policies are
supposed to serve, and which community is consulted in
setting those policies.</t>
</section>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 19:36:21 |