Internet DRAFT - draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2
draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2
Network Working Group O. Kolkman (Ed.)
Internet-Draft
Obsoletes: 5620 (if approved) J. Halpern (Ed.)
Intended status: Informational Ericsson
Expires: September 27, 2012 IAB
March 26, 2012
RFC Editor Model (Version 2)
draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-05
Abstract
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.
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight via 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 the experience gained with RFC Editor
Model version 1, documented in [RFC5620] and obsoletes that document.
Status of This Memo
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 27, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. The RFC Editor Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the
Publication and Production Functions . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.2.2. External Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication . . . . 10
2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.5. Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.6. Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.7. Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.1. RSOC Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher
Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. Disagreements Among RFC Editor Related Entities . . . . . 18
4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
1. Introduction
The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned
with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor
succession, 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 contemporary RFC Editor model [RFC5620] was first approved in
October 1, 2008 and our understanding of the model has evolved with
our experience since then. 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 was followed by the
appointment of an acting RFC Series Editor, who ably managed the
series while work was undertaken to select and hire a permanent RSE.
This version of the model is based on the recommendations of both
temporary RFC Series Editors and the extensive discussion in the IETF
community, on the rfc-interest list and within the IAB. As such,
this document obsoletes [RFC5620].
This 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 3.1), 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 IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined
in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071].
1.1. The RFC Editor Function
The RFC series is described in [RFC4844]. Its Section 3.1 defines
"RFC Editor":
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
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.
RFC 4844 does not explore the internal organization of the RFC
Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor
organizational structure. There have been several iterations on
efforts to improve and clarify this structure. These have been led
by the IAB, in consultation with the community and many leadership
bodies within the community. This first resulted in the publication
of [RFC5620], and then in further discussions leading to this
document. Some of the details on this evolution can be found below.
In undertaking this evolution, the IAB considered changes that
increase flexibility and operational support options, provide for the
orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of
the RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely
processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and
increasing cost transparency. The model set forth below describes
the internal organization of the RFC Editor, while remaining
consistent with RFC 4844.
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.
2. RFC Editor Model
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series
into the following components:
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
o RFC Series Editor ("RSE").
o RFC Production Center.
o RFC Publisher.
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. It does include the streams and their managers (which are
not part of the RFC Series Editor nor the production or publication
facilities) in order to more fully show the context in which the RFC
Series Editor operates.
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
+-------------+
| |
+--------------+ IAB <------------+
| | | |
| |=============| |
| | | |
| | RSOC <------------+
| | | |
| +-------+-----+ +-----+-----+
| | | |
| +...........|.........+ | Community |
| . | . | at |
| . +-------V-----+ . | Large |
| . | | . | |
| . | RFC | . +-----+-----+
| . | Series | . |
| . | Editor <------------+
| . | | .
| . +-+---------+-+ .
| . | | .
+-------------+ +-----V-------+ . +--V--+ +--V--+ . +-----+
| | | | . | | | | . | |
| Independent | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E |
| Authors +--> Submission +-----> | | | . | n |
| | | Editor | . | 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.
Figure 1
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
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
strategic leadership and management over the activities of the RFC
Publisher and the RFC Production Center (both of which can be seen as
back office functions) and will be the entity that:
o Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function within the
IETF and externally.
o Leads the community in the design of improvements to the RFC
Series.
o Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of
improvements in the RFC Editor Production and Access Processes.
o Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web site,
which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher.
o Is responsible for developing consensus versions of vision and
policy documents. These documents will be reviewed by the RFC
Series Oversight Committee (Section 3.1 and subject to its
approval before final publication.
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 as defined
in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071]. More details on the oversight by the IAB
via the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) can be found in
Section 3.1. For example, the RSE does not have the direct authority
to hire or fire RFC Editor contractors or personnel.
2.1. RFC Series Editor
The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall responsibility
for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series.
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.
The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IAOC and the stream
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
managers.
2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication and
Production Functions
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 the IASA, and the community. Normally private financial details
would not be included in a public version unless the IAOC concludes
it is necessary to make such information public.
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 attention of the IAD by
the RSE.
The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and structures
that will allow for continuity of the RFC Series' in the face of
changes in contracts and personnel.
Vendor selection for the Production and Publisher functions is done
in cooperation with the streams and under final authority of the
IASA. Details on this process can be found in Section 4.1.
2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series
The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series. This
representation is important both internally, relative to the IETF,
and externally.
2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF
The RSE is the primary point of contact to the IETF on matters
relating to the RFC series in general, or policy matters relating to
specific documents. Issues of practical details in the processing of
specific documents are generally worked directly with the RFC
Production Center 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
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
the IETF, certain principles, described in the following subsections,
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 for
Production and Series Development.
2.1.2.1.1. Volunteerism
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 while not a volunteer is dependent upon
these volunteer participants. Also, the spirit of the community is
heavily focused on and draws from these volunteers. As such, the
Series Editor needs to support the vitality and effectiveness of
volunteer participation.
2.1.2.1.2. Policy Authority
All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the broader
Internet community. The RSE is responsible for identifying
materially concerned interest groups within the Internet community
and reach out to them. Those interest groups include at least the
IETF community, the IRTF community, the network research community,
and the network operations community. Other interest groups might
also be materially interested.
The RSE must consult with the community on policy issues. The RSE
works with the community to achieve policy that meets the overall
quality, continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is charged with
meeting. As described below in Section 3.1 the RSE reports the
results of such interactions, to the RSOC, including a description of
the outreach efforts and 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 Internet community has been
properly consulted and considered in making policy.
2.1.2.2. External Representation
From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF
need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series. The RSE or
the RSE's designate serve this role.
Over time, the RSE should determine what if any means should be
employed to increase end-user awareness of the series, to reinforce
the stature of the Series, and will provide the contact point for
outside parties seeking information on the Series or the Editor.
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication
Closely related to providing strategic leadership and 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,
including all the RFC Streams.
2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series
In order to develop the RFC Publication series the RSE is expected to
develop a relationships with the Internet technical community. The
Editor is expected to engage with the Internet technical community in
a process of articulating and refining a vision for the Series and
its continuous evolution. The RSE is expected to also engage with
other users of the RFC series, in particular with the consumers of
these documents such as those people who use them to specify
products, write code, test behaviors, or other related activities.
Concretely:
The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on
Series evolution among the Series' Stream participants and the
broader Internet technical community.
In time the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision for the
RFC Series, including examining:
* The RFC 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
* 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
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
issues themselves.
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.
2.1.5. Workload
The job is expected initially to take on average half of a full time
equivalent position (FTE, thus approx 20 hrs per week), with the
workload per week near full time during IETF weeks, well over 20
hours per week in the first few months of the engagement, and higher
during special projects.
2.1.6. Qualifications
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional. The
following qualifications are desired:
1. Strategic leadership and management experience fulfilling the
requirements outlined in this document, the many aspects of this
role, and the coordination of the overall RFC Editor process.
2. Good understanding of the English language and technical
terminology related to the Internet.
3. Good communication skills.
4. Experience with editorial processes.
5. Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC
process.
6. Independent worker.
7. Willingness to, and availability for, Travel.
8. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and matrixed
environment with divided authority and responsibility similar to
that described in this document.
9. Experience with and ability to participate in, and manage
activities by email and teleconferences, not just face-to-face
interactions
10. Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management
of entire operations is desired.
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
11. Experience as an RFC author desired.
2.1.7. Conflict of Interest
The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of
interest or judgment in performing these roles. As such, 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 IAOC.
2.2. RFC Production Center
RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor
responsibilities include:
1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style
Manual, under the direction of the RSE;
2. Creating records of edits performed on documents;
3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact
and seeking necessary clarification;
4. Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds, IANA,
and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed;
5. Creating records of dialog with document authors;
6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;
7. Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed;
8. 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;
9. Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry
actions;
10. Assigning RFC numbers;
11. 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;
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
12. Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher;
13. Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC
Publisher so these can be preserved;
14. Liaising with the streams as needed.
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.
The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through an
IASA RFP process as described in Section 4.1.
2.3. RFC Publisher
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:
1. Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.
2. Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata.
3. Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.
4. Providing backups.
5. Providing storage and preservation of records.
6. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.
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.
The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through an IASA RFP
process as described in Section 4.1.
3. Committees
3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
The IAB is responsible for oversight over the RFC Series and acts as
a body for final conflict resolution, including the process described
in Section 4.3.
In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the nomcom
appointment cycle and assure that oversight includes suitable subject
matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group that implements
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
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. 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.
For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (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:
o perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of these
reviews to the IAB.
o manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate
appointment (in other words select the RSE subject to IAB
approval)
RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of
interest and behave accordingly.
For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, RSOC will
propose a budget for the search process, and work with IASA to refine
that budget and develop remuneration criteria and an employment
agreement or contracting plans, as appropriate.
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 initial RSOC was charged with designing and executing a
solicitation, search, and selection process for the first actual
(non-transition or "acting") RSE appointment. That process involved
iteration on this and related documents and evaluation of various
strategies and options. During draft of this document it was
expected that the RSOC would describe the process it ultimately
selected to the community. The RSOC did involve the community in
interim considerations when that was likely to be of value.
Following completion of the selection process, the RSOC will
determine the best way to share information learned and experience
gained with the community and to determine how to best preserve that
information for future use.
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
3.1.1. RSOC Composition
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.
In addition to the members from outside of the IAB appointed to the
RSOC, IAB members may participate as full members of the RSOC. Under
most circumstances, there will be a specific individual IAB member
appointed by the IAB as the program lead, who will be a full member
of the RSOC. This member's role is distinct from any RSOC internal
organizational roles, such as the RSOC choosing to appoint a chair
from among its members. Other IAB members may choose to be full
members of the RSOC, with the consent of the IAB. This consent is
primarily concerned with avoiding overpopulating the RSOC and
providing it with relatively stable membership, which will work best
if it is not too large a committee.
The IAOC will appoint an individual to serve as its Liaison to the
RSOC. The RSE and the IAOC Liaison will serve as non-voting ex-
officio members of the RSOC. Either or both can be excluded from its
discussions if necessary.
4. Administrative Implementation
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC, [RFC4071]) in cooperation
with the RFC Series Editor. The authority structure is described in
Figure 2 below.
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
+----------------+ +----------------+
| | | |
| IAB | | IAOC |
| | | |
+==========+-----+ +-+--------------+
| | .
| RSOC | .
| | .
+----+-----+ .
| .
| .
| ...................
| . .
+--------V---V----+ .
| | .
| RFC | .
| Series | .
| Editor | .
| | .
+--------+--------+ .
| .
| .................
| . .
+--+----------------+ .
| . | .
| . | .
+---V-----V--+ +--V----V---+
| RFC | | RFC |
| Production | | Publisher |
| Center | | |
+------------+ +-----------+
Authority Structure of RFC Series
Legend:
------- IAB RFC Series Oversight
....... IAOC Contract/Budget Oversight
Figure 2
4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher Functions
As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation with the
streams and under the final authority of the IAOC.
The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
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.
The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center, RFC
Publisher, and other RFC-related services, is as follows:
o The IAOC establishes the contract process, including the steps
necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the
contracting procedures.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
4.2. Budget
The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They
have been and remain part of the IETF Administrative Support Activity
(IASA, [RFC4071]) budget.
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.
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.
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, and where appropriate, other RFC
Editor component institutions, relevant Streams, and/or the RSOC 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.
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
4.3. Disagreements Among RFC Editor Related Entities
The RFC Series Editor, and the RFC Production and Publication
facilities, work with the various streams to produce RFCs.
Disagreements may arise between these entities during the execution
of the RFC Editor operations. In particular, different streams may
disagree with each other, or disagree with the RFC Editor function.
Potentially, even the RSOC or the IAOC could find themselves in
disagreement with some aspect of the RFC Editor operations. Note
that disagreements between an author and the production facility are
not cross-entity issues, and are to be resolved by the RSE, in
accordance with the rest of this document.
If such cross-entity disagreements arise, the community would
generally hope that they can be resolved politely and directly.
However, this is not always possible. At that point, any relevant
party would first formally request a review and reconsideration of
the decision. If the party still disagrees after the
reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or, especially
if the RSE is involved, the party may ask the IAB Chair (for a
technical or procedural matter) to mediate or appoint a mediator to
aid in the discussions, although he or she not is obligated to do so.
All parties should work informally and in good faith to reach a
mutually agreeable conclusion. As noted below, any such issues which
involve contractual matters must be brought to the addition of the
IAOC. If the IAB Chair is asked to assist in resolving the matter,
the Chair may ask for advice or seek assistance from anyone the Chair
deems helpful. The chair may also alert any appropriate individuals
or organizations to the existence of the issue.
If such a conclusion is not possible through those less formal
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.
The RSE may make final decisions unilaterally only to assure the
functioning of the process; and while there is an evaluation of
current policies to determine whether they 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.
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
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.
4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact
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. The IAOC must notify the RSOC and IAB regarding the action it
concludes is required to resolve the issue based on its applicable
procedures and provisions in the relevant contracts.
5. IANA considerations
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.
6. Security considerations
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, originals
that are not machine-readable) need to be secured against any kind of
data storage failure.
The IAOC should take these security considerations into account
during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC Editor model
contracts.
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
7. Acknowledgments
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 this RFC Editor model was approved were
(in alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba (ex officio), Eric Burger,
Dave Crocker, Marshall Eubanks, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley (ex
officio), Ole Jacobsen, Ray Pelletier (non-voting), and Lynn St.Amour
(ex officio).
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): Bernard Aboba, Ross Callon, Alissa Cooper,
Spencer Dawkins, Joel Halpern, Russ Housley, David Kessens, Olaf
Kolkman, Danny McPherson, Jon Peterson, Andrei Robachevsky, Dave
Thaler, and Hannes Tschofenig. In addition, the IAB included at the
time of approval two ex-officio members: Mary Barnes who was serving
as the IAB Executive Director, and Lars Eggert, who was serving as
the IRTF Chair.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
[RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, April 2005.
[RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of
the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850,
May 2000.
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model (Version 2) March 2012
8.2. Informative References
[RFC5620] Kolkman, O. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
RFC 5620, August 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Olaf M. Kolkman
EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
Joel M. Halpern
Ericsson
EMail: joel.halpern@ericsson.com
Internet Architecture Board
EMail: iab@iab.org
Kolkman (Ed.), et al. Expires September 27, 2012 [Page 21]
