Internet DRAFT - draft-saintandre-rfced-model
draft-saintandre-rfced-model
Network Working Group P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
Internet-Draft Mozilla
Obsoletes: RFC8728 (if approved) June 16, 2021
Intended status: Informational
Expires: December 18, 2021
RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
draft-saintandre-rfced-model-01
Abstract
This document describes Version 3 of the RFC Editor model. As
specified here, the model divides the responsibilities for the RFC
Series into two high-level functions: policy definition governing the
Series as a whole, and policy implementation through publication of
documents in the Series. The policy definition function is the
responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which produces
policy proposals that are subject to approval by the RFC Series
Approval Board (RSAB). The policy implementation function is
primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC),
under the ultimate authority of the IETF Administration Limited
Liability Company (LLC).
This document reflects experience gained with version 1 of the RFC
Editor Model as specified in RFC 5620 and with version 2 as specified
in RFC 6635 and RFC 8728.
This document obsoletes RFC 8728.
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 https://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 December 18, 2021.
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Policy Definition Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Structure and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.4. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. RSEA Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. RSEA Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Policy Implementation Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Roles and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Editorial and Publication Policies . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC . 12
5.4. Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4.1. Vendor Selection for the RFC Production Center . . . 13
5.4.2. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . 14
8.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
NOTE: This document is a work in progress. Although it is intended
to describe consensus forged in the RFCED-Future Program, many
aspects are not yet settled; as a result, this document contains
proposals and conjectures that do not yet have consensus in the
Program. Where possible, open issues are identified herein to foster
discussion.
Documents in the Request for Comments (RFC) series have been
continually published since 1969 [RFC8700]. The RFC series is
described in [RFC8729]. RFC 8729 uses the term "RFC Editor function"
or "RFC Editor" to identify the collective set of responsibilities
for publishing documents in the RFC series.
The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs have
changed significantly over the years. Most recently, in 2009
[RFC5620] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1) and in 2012
[RFC6635] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), since modified
slightly in 2020 by [RFC8728].
In order to provide a sustainable basis for continued publication of
the RFC series, this document describes Version 3 of the RFC Editor
model, which divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into two
high-level functions: policy definition governing the Series as a
whole, and policy implementation through publication of documents in
the Series. The policy definition function is the responsibility of
the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals
that are subject to approval by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).
The policy implementation function is primarily the responsibility of
the RFC Production Center (RPC), under the ultimate authority of the
IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (LLC) [RFC8711].
This document obsoletes RFC 8728 by making a full update to the RFC
Editor Model, changing the responsibilities of existing bodies and
functions, and introducing new functions (see Section 7 of this
document for a summary of the changes from Version 2).
2. Overview of the Model
Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC8728] specified a structure
consisting of the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and
the RFC Publisher, with oversight provided by the RFC Series
Oversight Committee (RSOC) on behalf of the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB).
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
Discussion within the RFCED-Future Program has led in the direction
of a more consensus-oriented structure (similar in some respects to
the structure of technical work within the IETF or IRTF) that retains
roles for specialized expertise in document editing and publication.
The policy definition function is performed by the RFC Series Working
Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals that are subject to
approval by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). The RSWG is an
open working group (as described below) that seeks input and
participation from a wide range of persons who are have an interest
in the RFC Series. The RSAB consists of appointed members who
represent the various RFC streams [RFC8728] as well as an expert in
technical publishing.
The policy implementation function is performed by the RFC Production
Center (RPC), under the ultimate authority of the IETF Administration
Limited Liability Company (LLC).
3. Policy Definition Function
Policies governing the RFC series as a whole shall be defined in the
open through proposals that are generated by and discussed within the
RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) and then approved by the RFC Series
Approval Board (RSAB).
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include but are
not necessarily limited to document formats, processes for
publication and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the
RFC series.
3.1. Structure and Roles
3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) shall formulate proposals
regarding policies that govern the RFC series. The intent is that
the RSWG operate in a way similar to working groups in the IETF and
research groups in the IRTF. Therefore, all RSWG meetings shall be
open to any participant, subject to intellectual property policies
which must be consistent with those of the IETF as specified in BCP
78 [RFC5378] and BCP 79 [RFC8179]. When the RSWG is formed, all
discussions shall take place on an open email discussion list.
Subsequently, the RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use
additional tooling or forms of communication (e.g., GitHub as
specified in [RFC8874]) as long as they are consistent with
[RFC2418].
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
All interested persons are welcome to participate in the RSWG
(subject to anti-harassment policies as described below). This
includes participants in the IETF and IRTF, IAB and IESG members, RFC
authors, individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, and the
like. The IETF LLC Board members, staff, and the Executive Director
are invited to participate as community members in the RSWG to the
extent permitted by any relevant IETF LLC policies. Members of the
RSAB are also expected to participate actively.
The RSWG shall have two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the
other appointed by the IAB. Chairs shall serve for a term of two (2)
years, with no term limits on renewal. The appointing bodies shall
determine their own processes for making these appointments, such as
provision for an open nominations period. Community members who have
concerns about the performance of an RSWG chair should direct their
feedback to the relevant appointing body.
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #14 [1], ISSUE #41
[2], and ISSUE #44 [3].
3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) shall act as the approving body
for proposals generated within the RSWG. The sole function of RSAB
is to review policy proposals generated by the RSWG; it shall have no
independent authority to formulate policy on its own.
The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows:
o One delegate representing the IETF stream, appointed by the IESG
o One delegate representing the IAB stream, appointed by the IAB
o The IRTF Chair, representing the IRTF stream
o The Independent Submissions Editor [RFC8730]
o The RFC Series Editor/Advisor
Whenever a new stream is created [RFC4844], a voting member
representing that stream shall also be added to the RSAB, either an
appointed delegate or a direct representative in accordance with the
document that creates the stream.
The RSAB shall choose a chair from among its members using a method
to be determined by the RSAB. The RSAB is expected to operate via
email, teleconferencing systems, and any necessary tooling.
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including
minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions.
The RSAB shall announce plans and agendas for their meetings on the
RFC Editor website and by email to the RSWG at least a week before
such meetings. The meetings shall be open for public attendance and
the RSAB may consider allowing open participation. If the RSAB needs
to discuss a confidential matter in Executive Session, that part of
the meeting shall be private to the RSAB, but must be noted on the
agenda, and must be documented in the minutes with as much detail as
the confidentiality requirements permit.
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #9 [4], ISSUE #38
[5], ISSUE #50 [6], and ISSUE #53 [7].
3.2. Process
3.2.1. Intent
The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to
the RFC series are defined and evolved. The general expectation is
that all interested parties will participate in the RSWG, and that
only under extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold
"CONCERN" positions as described below.
Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWG
participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work
together in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to
achieve rough consensus (see [RFC7282]). In particular, RSWG members
are encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously, and RSAB members are
encouraged to clearly express their concerns early in the process and
to be responsive to the community. All parties are encouraged to
respect the value of each stream and the long term health and
viability of the RFC series.
This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation. RSAB
members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,
authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an
ongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider a proposal,
there should be no surprises. Appointing bodies are expected to
establish whatever processes they deem appropriate to facilitate this
goal.
3.2.2. Specifics
The following process shall be used to formulate or modify processes
related to the RFC series:
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
1. An individual participant in the RSWG generates a proposal in the
form of an Internet-Draft.
2. If there is sufficient interest in the proposal, RSWG may adopt
the proposal as a draft proposal of the RSWG, much the same way a
working group of the IETF or IRTF would.
3. The RSWG shall then further develop the proposal. Members of the
RSAB are expected to participate in discussion relating to such
proposals so that they are fully aware of proposals early in the
policy definition process and so that any issues or concerns that
they have will be raised during the development of the proposals
and will not be left until the RSAB review period.
4. At some point, if the RSWG chairs believe there may be rough
consensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a working
group last call.
5. After a suitable period of time, the RSWG chairs will determine
whether rough consensus for the proposal exists. If comments
have been received and substantial changes have been made, it is
expected that additional last calls may be necessary.
6. Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue a
community call for comments as further described below. Should
substantial comments be received, the RSWG will again consider
those comments and make revisions as they see fit. At this same
time, the RSAB will consider the proposal.
7. Should substantial changes be made, additional community calls
for comment should be issued by the RSAB, and again comments
considered by the RSWG.
8. Once all comments have been been addressed, the RSWG chairs will
submit the proposal to the RSAB for its consideration.
9. Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will then poll on
the proposal. Positions may be as follows: * "YES": the proposal
should be approved * "CONCERN": the proposal raises substantial
concerns that must be addressed. * "RECUSE": the person holding
the position has a conflict of interest.
Anyone holding a "CONCERN" position must explain their concern to the
community in detail. The explanation may or may not be actionable.
A CONCERN may be made for two reasons:
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
o The proposal represents a serious problem for the group a
particular member represents.
o The member believes that the proposal would cause serious harm to
the overall series, including harm to the long term health and
viability of the series.
No CONCERN should ever come as a surprise to the RSWG.
1. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
Again, all RSAB members are expected to participate.
2. A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved. If
substantial changes have been made in order to address CONCERN
positions, an additional call for community input might be
necessary.
3. If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions
remain, a formal vote of the RSAB is taken. If a majority of
RSAB members vote to approve, the proposal is approved.
Otherwise, it is returned to the RSWG. In the case of a tie, the
proposal is approved.
4. When a proposal is approved, a notification is sent to the
community, and the document enters the queue for publication as
an RFC.
ISSUE #22 [8]: In which stream [RFC8729] are these documents
published? Is a new stream (e.g., the "Editorial Stream") needed?
3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment
When a community call for comment is made, the RSAB sends a notice
containing:
o A subject line beginning with 'Call for Comment:'
o A clear, concise summary of the proposal
o A URL for the proposal document
o Any commentary or questions for the community that the RSAB deems
necessary (using their usual decision-making procedures)
o Clear instructions on how to provide public comments
o A deadline for comments
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
Notices will always be sent to the rfc-interest mailing list. The
RSAB and RSWG should also send notices to other communities that may
be interested in or impacted by a proposal as they see fit, following
policies for those fora as appropriate. Notices are also to be made
available and archived on the rfc-editor.org web site, and other
communication channels can be established for notices (e.g., using an
RSS feed, social media).
A comment period will not last less than two weeks. Comments will be
publicly archived on the rfc-editor.org web site.
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #67 [9]
3.2.4. Appeals
Appeals of RSWG decisions shall be made to the RSAB and should be
made within thirty (30) days of public notice of the relevant RSWG
decision. The RSAB shall decide whether a process failure occurred
and what if any corrective action should take place.
Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to an entity yet to be
determined and should be made within thirty (30) days of public
notice of the relevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are
posted). The appeals body shall decide whether a process failure
occurred and what if any corrective action should take place.
ISSUE #16 [10]: Which body provides oversight and appeals for the
RSAB? Discussions in the RFCED-Future Program have ruled out the
ISOC Board of Trustees. One possibility still under discussion is
the IAB.
3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy
The IETF anti-harassment policy [11] also applies to the RSWG and
RSAB, which strive to create and maintain an environment in which
people of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity,
decency, and respect. Participants are expected to behave according
to professional standards and demonstrate appropriate workplace
behavior. See also [RFC7154], [RFC7776], and [RFC8716].
4. RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA)
NOTE: Discussion continues within the RFCED-Future Program regarding
the roles and responsibilities of an expert in technical publication
processes. To retain flexibility (e.g., as to whether this
individual plays more of an advisory role or more of a singular
leadership role), this document temporarily refers to the individual
as the "RFC Series Editor/Advisor" ("RSEA"), see also ISSUE #24 [12].
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
The RFC Series Editor/Advisor (RSEA) shall be a senior professional
with deep knowledge of technical publishing.
The primary responsibilities of the RSEA are as follows:
o Provide expert advice regarding policy proposals within the RSWG.
o Serve as a voting member on the RSAB.
o If requested, provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC.
Matters on which the RSEA might be consulted could include proposed
changes to the RFC style guide [RFC7322], RFC formatting in general,
web presence, copyright matters, archiving policy, and dissemination
and cataloguing of RFCs.
4.1. RSEA Selection
The RSEA will be selected by a committee formed by the Executive
Director of the IETF LLC, taking into account the role definition
[13] and any detailed job description defined by the relevant parties
(e.g., the Executive Director, other RSAB members, or RSWG chairs).
The search committee may ask others to take part in the selection
process in confidence. The initial length of service shall be for
one year, but then further extensions will be for three to five
years.
4.2. RSEA Performance Evaluation
Periodically, the Executive Director will send out to the community a
call for input on the performance of the RSEA. The evaluation will
be based on criteria specified in the role definition. Criteria
could include matters such as the following:
o Was the RSEA an active participant in RSWG/RSAB discussions and
meetings?
o Did the RSEA provide useful advice to the RSWG and RPC?
o Did the RSEA exercise good judgment in RSAB decision making?
o Was the RSEA effective in advising the community on policy
direction?
The Executive Director will review the feedback, consulting with
stream manager representatives, and then produce a recommendation to
the IETF LLC Board. The LLC will then make a decision, taking into
account the Executive Director's recommendation.
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
Whether the RSEA role is structured as a contractual or employee
relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC and its Executive Director
to determine.
5. Policy Implementation Function
5.1. Roles and Processes
Publication of RFCs shall be continue to be handled by the RFC
Production Center (RPC) function in accordance with high-level
policies currently in force or yet to be defined following the
processes specified in the foregoing sections of this document.
This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
IETF LLC and the RPC function; for example, the RPC function could be
provided by a separate corporate entity under contract to the IETF
LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or the IETF
LLC could work with independent contractors for some or all aspects
of the RPC function. The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF
LLC and its Executive Director to determine.
The IETF LLC has authority over negotiating performance targets for
the RPC and also has responsibility for ensuring that those targets
are adhered to. The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a manager or to
convene a committee to complete these activities.
Community members who have concerns about the performance of the RPC
can request that the IETF LLC look into the matter. Even if the IETF
LLC opts to delegate this activity, concerns should be raised with
the IETF LLC. The IETF LLC is ultimately responsible to the
community via the mechanisms outlined in its charter.
5.2. Editorial and Publication Policies
Under and consistent with the high-level policies defined for the RFC
Series in general or particular streams, the RPC shall define more
particular policies regarding matters related to the editorial
preparation and final publication and dissemination of RFCs.
Examples include:
o Maintenance of a styleguide that defines editorial standards to
which RFCs must adhere (see [RFC7322] and related updates).
o Policies regarding the file formats that are accepted as input to
the editing and publication process.
o Policies regarding the final structure and layout of published
documents; in the context of the XML vocabulary ([RFC7991]), such
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
policies could include matters such as the exact XML elements and
attributes used to capture the semantic content of RFCs.
5.3. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #59 [14] and parts of
ISSUE #6: Streams have content control [15].
During the process of editorial preparation and publication,
disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the
RPC. Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such
disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct
consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in
collaboration with other individuals such as a document shepherd,
IETF working group chair, IRSG research group chair, or IETF Area
Director.
However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies, or if
the interpretation of an existing policy is unclear, the parties may
need to consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB,
IESG, IRSG, or stream manager) to help achieve a resolution. The
following points are intended to provide more particular guidance.
o If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, the
RPC should consult with the relevant stream manager to help
achieve a resolution, if needed also conferring with a per-stream
body such as the IESG or IRSG.
o If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should
consult with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.
o If the disagreement raises a new issue that is not covered by an
existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation
between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies as
described above), the issue should be brought to the RSWG in order
to formulate a new policy. However, in the interest of time the
disagreement may be resolved as the parties best see fit while the
RSWG formulates a more general policy.
5.4. Administrative Implementation
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC.
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
5.4.1. Vendor Selection for the RFC Production Center
Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under
the final authority of the IETF LLC.
The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) for
the RPC and manages the vendor selection process. The work
definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into
account the stream managers and community input.
The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center and
other RFC-related services, is as follows:
o The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps
necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the
contracting procedures.
o The IETF LLC establishes the Selection Committee, which will
consist of the IETF LLC Executive Director and other members
selected by the IETF LLC in consultation with the stream managers.
The Committee shall select a chair from among its members.
o The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to the
successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC. In
the event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be
referred to the Selection Committee for further action.
5.4.2. Budget
The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They
have been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.
The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding
to support the RSE/A, RFC Production Center, and the Independent
Stream.
The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor
budget (and the authority to deny it). All relevant parties must
work within the IETF LLC budgetary process.
6. 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 IETF
LLC will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the
RFC Production Center and IANA.
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any
values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.
7. Security Considerations
The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] 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 IETF LLC should take these security considerations into account
during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC Editor component
contracts.
8. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model
8.1. RFC Series Editor
The RSWG and RSAB together provide a public process by which policies
for the RFC series can be defined. It is expected that these bodies
will therefore cover some of the responsibilities of the RFC Series
Editor under Version 2.
8.2. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and
responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy
and somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, this document
dispenses with the RSOC.
9. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
10. References
10.1. Informative References
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
July 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.
[RFC5378] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.
[RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620>.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
[RFC7154] Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>.
[RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF",
RFC 7282, DOI 10.17487/RFC7282, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7282>.
[RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.
[RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.
[RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.
[RFC8179] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.
[RFC8700] Flanagan, H., Ed., "Fifty Years of RFCs", RFC 8700,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8700, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8700>.
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
[RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.
[RFC8716] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IETF Anti-
Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF
Administration LLC", BCP 25, RFC 8716,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8716, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716>.
[RFC8728] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728>.
[RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.
[RFC8730] Brownlee, N., Ed. and B. Hinden, Ed., "Independent
Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8730>.
[RFC8874] Thomson, M. and B. Stark, "Working Group GitHub Usage
Guidance", RFC 8874, DOI 10.17487/RFC8874, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8874>.
10.2. URIs
[1] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/14
[2] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/41
[3] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/44
[4] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/9
[5] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/38
[6] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/50
[7] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/53
[8] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/22
[9] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/67
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model v3 June 2021
[10] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/16
[11] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-
harassment-policy/
[12] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/24
[13] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-
future/blob/master/Issue12-RSE-role.md
[14] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/59
[15] https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/6
Acknowledgments
Portions of this document were borrowed from [RFC5620], [RFC6635],
[RFC8728], and earlier proposals within the RFCED-Future Program by
Martin Thomson, Brian Carpenter, and Michael StJohns. Thanks to the
chairs of the Program, Eliot Lear and Brian Rosen, for their
leadership and assistance. Thanks also for feedback and proposed
text and feedback to Jari Arkko, Sarah Banks, Scott Bradner, Carsten
Bormann, Nevil Brownlee, Ben Campbell, Jay Daley, Martin Duerst, Lars
Eggert, Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Sandy Ginoza, Bron Gondwana,
Joel Halpern, Wes Hardaker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Christian
Huitema, John Klensin, Mirja Kuehlewind, Ted Lemon, John Levine, Lucy
Lynch, Andrew Malis, Larry Mastiner, S. Moonesamy, Mark Nottingham,
Tommy Pauly, Colin Perkins, Julian Reschke, Eric Rescorla, Adam
Roach, Alice Russo, Doug Royer, Rich Salz, Tim Wicinski, and Nico
Williams.
Author's Address
Peter Saint-Andre (editor)
Mozilla
Email: stpeter@jabber.org
Saint-Andre Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 17]
