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 document.
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 candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see
Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635.
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.
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 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 , 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 .
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 ), 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 and
.
The RFC Editor Function
The RFC Series is described in . 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 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.
RFC Editor Model
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for
the RFC Series into the following components:
RFC Series Editor (RSE)
RFC Production Center
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.
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 .
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:
Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function
within the IETF and externally.
Leads the community in the design of improvements to
the RFC Series.
Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution
of improvements in the RFC Editor production and access processes.
Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web
site, which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher.
Is responsible for developing consensus versions of
vision and policy documents. These documents will be
reviewed by the RFC Series Oversight Committee () 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 and
. More details on the
oversight by the IAB via the RFC Series Oversight Committee
(RSOC) can be found in . For example,
the RSE does not have the direct authority to
hire or fire RFC Editor
contractors or personnel.
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 managers.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 .Representation of the RFC SeriesThe RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series.
This representation is important both internally, relative to the
IETF, and externally.Representation to the IETFThe 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.VolunteerismThe 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 AuthorityAll 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 , 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 RepresentationFrom 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.Development of RFC Production and PublicationClosely 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.Development of the RFC SeriesIn 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.Concretely:
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.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.
Qualifications
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional.
The following qualifications are desired:
Conflict of InterestThe 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.RFC Production Center
The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid contractor, and the
contractor's responsibilities include the following:
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 .
RFC Publisher
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include the following:
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 .
CommitteesRFC 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 .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
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:
perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of
these reviews to the IAB.
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, 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.
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.Administrative Implementation
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a
responsibility of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC,
) in cooperation with the RFC Series Editor.
The authority structure is described in Figure 2 below.
Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher FunctionsAs 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:
The IAOC establishes the contract process, including the
steps necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the
contracting procedures.
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.
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.
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.
Budget
The expenses discussed in this document are not new
expenses. They have been and remain part of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA,
) 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.Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC EditorThe 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 .
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.
Issues with Contractual Impact
If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future
contractual consequences, it falls under BCP 101 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.
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.
Security Considerations
The same security considerations as those in 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 contracts.
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.
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].
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.
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for
the RFC Series into the following components:
RFC Series Editor (RSE)
RFC Production Center
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
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:
Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function
within the IETF and externally.
Leads the community in the design of improvements to
the RFC Series.
Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution
of improvements in the RFC Editor production and access processes.
Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web
site, which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Concretely:
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.
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.
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional.
The following qualifications are desired:
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.
Good understanding of the English language and technical
terminology related to the Internet.
Good communication skills.
Experience with editorial processes.
Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and
RFC process.
Independent worker.
Willingness to, and availability for, travel.
The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and
matrixed environment with divided authority and responsibility similar
to that described in this document.
Experience with and ability to participate in, and
manage, activities by email and teleconferences, not just
face-to-face interactions.
Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the
management of entire operations.
Experience as an RFC author.
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.
Good understanding of the English language and technical
terminology related to the Internet.
Good communication skills.
Experience with editorial processes.
Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and
RFC process.
Independent worker.
Willingness to, and availability for, travel.
The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and
matrixed environment with divided authority and responsibility similar
to that described in this document.
Experience with and ability to participate in, and
manage, activities by email and teleconferences, not just
face-to-face interactions.
Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the
management of entire operations.
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.
The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid contractor, and the
contractor's responsibilities include the following:
Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the
RFC Style Manual, under the direction of the RSE;
Creating records of edits performed on documents;
Identifying where editorial changes might have technical
impact and seeking necessary clarification;
Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds,
IANA, and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is
needed;
Creating records of dialog with document authors;
Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;
Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as
needed;
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;
Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of
IANA-performed protocol registry actions;
Assigning RFC numbers;
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;
Forwarding documents that are ready for publication to the RFC
Publisher;
Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC
Publisher so these can be preserved;
Liaising with the streams as needed.
Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the
RFC Style Manual, under the direction of the RSE;
Creating records of edits performed on documents;
Identifying where editorial changes might have technical
impact and seeking necessary clarification;
Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds,
IANA, and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is
needed;
Creating records of dialog with document authors;
Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;
Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as
needed;
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;
Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of
IANA-performed protocol registry actions;
Assigning RFC numbers;
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;
Forwarding documents that are ready for publication to the RFC
Publisher;
Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC
Publisher so these can be preserved;
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.
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include the following:
Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.
Providing an on-line system to submit RFC Errata.
Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.
Providing backups.
Providing storage and preservation of records.
Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.
Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.
Providing an on-line system to submit RFC Errata.
Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.
Providing backups.
Providing storage and preservation of records.
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.
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:
perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of
these reviews to the IAB.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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:
The IAOC establishes the contract process, including the
steps necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the
contracting procedures.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future
contractual consequences, it falls under [BCP 101] 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.
This document defines several functions within the overall
RFC Editor structure, and it places the responsibility for
coordination of registry value assignments with the RFC
Production Center. The IAOC will facilitate the establishment
of the relationship between the RFC Production Center and IANA.
This document does not create a new registry nor does it
register any values in existing registries, and no IANA action
is required.
The same security considerations as those in [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 contracts.
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.
Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)This memo documents the composition, selection, roles, and organization of the Internet Architecture Board. It replaces RFC 1601. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)Internet Architecture BoardStructure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)The RFC Series and RFC EditorThis document describes the framework for an RFC Series and an RFC Editor function that incorporate the principles of organized community involvement and accountability that has become necessary as the Internet technical community has grown, thereby enabling the RFC Series to continue to fulfill its mandate. This memo provides information for the Internet community.The RFC Series and RFC EditorInternet Architecture BoardInformative References
IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall CommitteesThe process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a self-consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at the time of publication. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall CommitteesRFC Editor Model (Version 1)The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out by various persons or entities. The RFC Editor model presented in this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into four functions: The RFC Series Editor, the Independent Submission Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. It also introduces the RFC Series Advisory Group and an (optional) Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board. The model outlined here is intended to 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 and timely processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost transparency. This memo provides information for the Internet community.RFC Editor Model (Version 1)IAB