| Network Working Group | O. Kolkman (Ed.) |
| Internet-Draft | J.M. Halpern (Ed.) |
| Intended status: Informational | Ericsson |
| Expires: September 08, 2011 | IAB |
| March 07, 2011 |
RFC Editor Model (Version 2)
draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-00
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.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 08, 2011.
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
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.
The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844 [RFC4844]. Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor":
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.
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.
The RFC Editor model was first approved in October 1, 2008 and has evolved since. During the implementation of version 1 of the model [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.
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 Section 4.1), 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.
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.
The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They have been and remain part of the IASA budget.
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into the following components:
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).
+--------------+
| |
| 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.
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:
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.
The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility. More details on the oversight by the IAB via the RSOC can be found in Section 4.1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under final authority of the IASA.
Concretely:
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.
When budgets have been assigned by IASA the RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor to operate within those budgets.
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.
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.
For this type of responsibility the RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IASA and the various streams.
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.
The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series. This representation is important both internally, relative to the IETF, and externally.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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 Section 4.1 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Concretely:
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.
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.
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional with the following qualifications:
As described below (Section 4.1) 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.
[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.]
The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have assistants and who is responsible for:
The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the following qualifications are desired:
Section 4.2) and may form a team to perform the activities needed to fulfill their responsibilities.
The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an advisory board (see
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 [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.
RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor responsibilities include:
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.
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.
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:
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.
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.
The IAB is responsible for oversight over the RFC Series.
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).
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.
In those general cases the IAB is ultimately responsible for oversight and acts as a body for appeal and resolution.
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:
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.
RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of interest and behave accordingly.
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.
The RSOC will be responsible to ensure that the RFC Series is run in a transparent and accountable manner.
The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Figure 1.
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.
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.
IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected to inform future changes to Series policies including possible updates to this document.
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.
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.
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.
The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply. The processes for the publication of documents must prevent the introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to prevent these published documents from being changed by external parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, non-machine readable originals) need to be secured against failure of the storage medium and other similar disasters.
The IAOC should take these security considerations into account during the implementation of this RFC Editor model.
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.
The IAOC members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were (in alphabetical order): Fred Baker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Ole Jacobsen, Ed Juskevicius, Olaf Kolkman, Ray Pelletier (non-voting), Lynn St.Amour, and Jonne Soininen. In addition, Marshall Eubanks was serving as the IAOC Scribe.
The IAB members at the time the 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.
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.
| [RFC4844] | Daigle, L., Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007. |
| [RFC4333] | Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, "The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process", BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005. |
| [RFC5620] | Kolkman, O., IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", RFC 5620, August 2009. |
[This appendix is to be removed at publication]
$Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 55 2009-06-08 12:32:59Z olaf $
Added Sandy and Alice to the acknowledgment section, they were accidentally omitted
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.
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).
Added wording for specifying the technical competence needed by the indep.subm.editor as suggested by JCK
Clarified the responsibilities of the production function in Section 3.3
Enumerated qualifications of the RFC Editor
Various nits corrected
Inconsistency in the use of RFC Production house and RFC Production fixed: RFC Production Center used as term
Oversight over RFC consistency with the style manual has been made explicit.
Clarified that the Independent Submission Stream Editors budget is independent from the IETF/IASA.
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.
Added Joel to the acknowledgments
Added the Advisory committee charter as a FYI
Added editorial skill and command of English as a requirement for the ISE
In the responsibilities for the RFC series: Change "Participate in" to "Provide input in" for IAOC Review. This makes the text more implementation neutral.
Typo: Model is consistent with RFC4844 instead of 4884
Added "Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission stream" as an explicit responsibility for the ISE.
[omitted by accident]
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".
Rewrote the appeal process to take the RSAG into account
Extended the appointment period to 3 years
This version documents decisions made by the IAB during prior to approval during its April 27-28 retreat
Addressed some nits
Rewritten details of dispute resolution. Also stopped using the words appeal or dispute resolution as they have a specific meaning in the standards process
The ISE's expenses are covered from the IASA budget.
The envisioned size of the RSAG is changed from 6 to un-specified, the RSAG is allowed to advice on the size later
Rewrote/clarified requirements for RSE and ISE function
Fixed nits
Addressed some IAB concerns that were accidentally omitted in version 06
pen handed to Joel Halpern, added as Editor
clarified text on RSE non-authority to hire and fire.
Replaced structure diagram in section 3 with diagram developed by Glenn Kowack.
Replaced responsibilities section (3) with a structure to match the ongoing SoW, with content largely derived by Olaf Kolkman.
replaced RSAG section (4.1) with RSOC section, with new procedures and responsibilities.
Removed description of 2009 selection process.