faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 6635 - RFC Editor Model (Version 2)

Or Display the document by number

Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                        O. Kolkman, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6635
Obsoletes: 5620                                          J. Halpern, Ed.
Category: Informational                                         Ericsson
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                      IAB
                                                               June 2012

                      RFC Editor Model (Version 2)


   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 RFC 5620, and obsoletes that

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
   and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
   provide for permanent record.  Documents approved for publication by
   the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see
   Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

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
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

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
         Representation to the IETF .................8
                  Volunteerism ....................9
                  Policy Authority ................9
         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 .....................................................14
      3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) .....................14
           3.1.1. RSOC Composition ...................................15
   4. Administrative Implementation ..................................16
      4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher
           Functions .................................................17
      4.2. Budget ....................................................17
      4.3. Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor ....18
      4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact ............................19
   5. IANA Considerations ............................................19
   6. Security Considerations ........................................19
   7. Acknowledgments ................................................20
   8. References .....................................................21
      8.1. Normative References ......................................21
      8.2. Informative References ....................................21

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 2008, and our understanding of the model has evolved with our
   experience since.  During the implementation of version 1 of the
   model [RFC5620], it was quickly realized that the role of the RFC
   Series Editor (RSE) and the oversight responsibilities needed to be
   structured differently.  In order to gain experience with "running
   code", a transitional RSE was hired who analyzed the managerial
   environment and provided recommendations.  This was followed by the
   appointment of an acting RSE, 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 recognize 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":

      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:

   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, the RFC Production Center, or
   Publisher facilities) in order to more fully show the context in
   which the RFC Series Editor operates.

                                      |             |
                       +--------------+     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

   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

   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 (SOW).

   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

   The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IAOC and the stream

2.1.1.  Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication and
        Production Functions

   With respect to the RFC Publisher and Production Center functions,
   the RSE provides input to the IASA budget, SOWs, and manages vendor
   selection processes.  The RSE performs annual reviews of the RFC
   Production Center and Publisher 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 RFC Production
   Center and Publisher.  The RSE is responsible for issues that go
   beyond the RFC Production Center or Publisher 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 RFC Production Center 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.  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 through 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
   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.  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 RSE, 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 RSE needs
   to support the vitality and effectiveness of volunteer participation.  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 reaching 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 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.  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, serves 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 to provide the contact point for
   outside parties seeking information on the series or the Editor.

2.1.3.  Development of RFC Production and Publication

   Closely related to providing strategic leadership and management to
   the RFC Production Center and Publisher 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 streams feeding into the RFC Editor function.

2.1.4.  Development of the RFC Series

   In order to develop the RFC Series, the RSE is expected to develop a
   relationship 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 also expected to engage other users
   of the RFC Series, in particular, the consumers of these documents,
   such as those people who use them to specify products, write code,
   test behaviors, or other related activities.


      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 look 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, by looking at whether it
         should be slowly changing in terms of publishing 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 a
         significant population of multi-lingual individuals or non-
         native speakers of English.  Another example is that some of
         these constituencies also have shifted to include significant

         groups whose primary focus is on the constraints and
         consequences of network engineering, rather than a primary
         interest in the engineering issues themselves.

   For this type of responsibility, the RSE cooperates closely with the
   community, and operates under oversight of the RSOC: thus,
   ultimately, under oversight of the IAB.

2.1.5.  Workload

   On average, the job is expected to take half of a full-time
   equivalent position (FTE, thus approx 20 hrs per week), with the
   workload per week nearing full time during IETF weeks.  In addition,
   the job is expected to take more than 20 hours per week in the first
   few months of the engagement and when involved in 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

   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

   10.  Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management
        of entire operations.

   11.  Experience as an RFC author.

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 RFC Publisher or Production Center
   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

   The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid contractor,
   and the contractor's responsibilities include the following:

   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 function initiated by the IAB or IAOC;

   9.   Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of IANA-
        performed protocol 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

   12.  Forwarding documents that are ready for publication to the RFC

   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 Request for Proposal (RFP) process as described in Section 4.1.

2.3.  RFC Publisher

   The RFC Publisher responsibilities include the following:

   1.  Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.

   2.  Providing an 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 the oversight of 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 [RFC3777] and assure that oversight includes
   suitable subject matter expertise, 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.  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 the final
   decision is the responsibility of the IAB.  For instance the RSOC
   would do the following:

   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

   RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of
   interest and behave accordingly.

   For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, the RSOC will
   propose a budget for the search process.  It will 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 for ensuring 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 (not
   transitional or "acting") RSE appointment.  That process involved
   iteration on this and related documents and evaluation of various
   strategies and options.  During the creation 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 determine how to best preserve that
   information for future use.

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 following goals: preserving effective stability; keeping it small
   enough to be effective, and keeping it 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 perspectives.  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 would be created by 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.

                   +----------------+       +----------------+
                   |                |       |                |
                   |      IAB       |       |     IAOC       |
                   |                |       |                |
                   +==========+-----+       +-+--------------+
                   |          |               .
                   |   RSOC   |               .
                   |          |               .
                   +----+-----+               .
                        |                     .
                        |                     .
                        |   ...................
                        |   .                 .
               +--------V---V----+            .
               |                 |            .
               |       RFC       |            .
               |      Series     |            .
               |      Editor     |            .
               |                 |            .
               +--------+--------+            .
                        |                     .
                        |        .................
                        |        .               .
                        +--+----------------+    .
                           |     .          |    .
                           |     .          |    .
                       +---V-----V--+    +--V----V---+
                       |    RFC     |    |    RFC    |
                       | Production |    | Publisher |
                       |   Center   |    |           |
                       +------------+    +-----------+

                     Authority Structure of the RFC Series

                         -------    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
   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 function to
   operate within those budgets.  If production 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
   decision needs to be taken to the IAD and the IAOC.

4.3.  Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor

   The RFC Series Editor and the RFC Production Center and Publisher
   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 RFC Production Center
   are not cross-entity issues, and they 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 that
   involve contractual matters must be brought to the attention 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 the above 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 RSE is expected to make whatever decisions are
   needed to ensure the smooth operation 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 only 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 from which those documents originate, as shown in the
   illustration in Figure 1.

   If informal agreements cannot be reached, then formal RSOC review and
   decision making may be required.  If so, the RSE must present the
   issues involved to the community so that the community is aware of
   the situation.  The RSE will then 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 RFC 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 [RFC4071] and IASA; thus, the
   RSE must identify the issue and provide his or her advice to the
   IAOC; additionally, 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 [RFC4844] 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 component

7.  Acknowledgments

   The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on
   mailing lists.  The first iteration of the text on which this
   document is based was first written 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 Russo, 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, at the time of approval,
   the IAB included 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.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5620]  Kolkman, O. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
              RFC 5620, August 2009.

   [RFC3777]  Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and
              Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
              Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004.

Authors' Addresses

   Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)

   EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl

   Joel M. Halpern (editor)

   EMail: joel.halpern@ericsson.com

   Internet Architecture Board

   EMail: iab@iab.org


User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: