idnits 2.17.1 draft-hinden-iasa2-rfc6635bis-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC6635, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (August 6, 2018) is 2083 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4071 (Obsoleted by RFC 8711) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5620 (Obsoleted by RFC 6548, RFC 6635) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3777 (Obsoleted by RFC 7437) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group O. Kolkman, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft 4 Obsoletes: 6635 (if approved) J. Halpern, Ed. 5 Intended status: Informational Ericsson 6 Expires: February 7, 2019 IAB 8 R. Hinden, Ed. 9 Check Point Software 10 August 6, 2018 12 RFC Editor Model (Version 2) 13 draft-hinden-iasa2-rfc6635bis-00 15 Abstract 17 The RFC Editor model described in this document divides the 18 responsibilities for the RFC Series into three functions: the RFC 19 Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. 20 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight via the RFC Series 21 Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship 22 between the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the 23 RSOC. This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor 24 Model (Version 1)", documented in RFC 5620, and obsoletes that 25 document. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 7, 2019. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 1.1. The RFC Editor Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2. RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the 63 Publication and Production Functions . . . . . . . . 8 64 2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 2.1.2.1.1. Volunteerism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 2.1.2.1.2. Policy Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 2.1.2.2. External Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication . . . . 10 70 2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 2.1.5. Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 2.1.6. Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 2.1.7. Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 2.2. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 2.3. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 3. Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 77 3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 3.1.1. RSOC Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 79 4. Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 80 4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher 81 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 82 4.2. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 83 4.3. Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor . 18 84 4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 85 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 86 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 87 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 88 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 89 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 90 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 91 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 93 1. Introduction 95 The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned 96 with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor 97 succession, RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility. The IAB is 98 also sensitive to the concerns of the IETF Administrative Oversight 99 Committee (IAOC) about providing the necessary services in a cost- 100 effective and efficient manner. 102 The contemporary RFC Editor model [RFC5620] was first approved in 103 October 2008, and our understanding of the model has evolved with our 104 experience since. During the implementation of version 1 of the 105 model [RFC5620], it was quickly realized that the role of the RFC 106 Series Editor (RSE) and the oversight responsibilities needed to be 107 structured differently. In order to gain experience with "running 108 code", a transitional RSE was hired who analyzed the managerial 109 environment and provided recommendations. This was followed by the 110 appointment of an acting RSE, who ably managed the series while work 111 was undertaken to select and hire a permanent RSE. This version of 112 the model is based on the recommendations of both temporary RFC 113 Series Editors and the extensive discussion in the IETF community, on 114 the rfc-interest list, and within the IAB. As such, this document 115 obsoletes [RFC5620]. 117 This document, and the resulting structures, will be modified as 118 needed through normal procedures. The RSE, and the IAB, through the 119 RFC Oversight Committee (see Section 3.1), will continue to monitor 120 discussions within the community about potential adjustments to the 121 RFC Editor model and recognize that the process described in this 122 document may need to be adjusted to align with any changes that 123 result from such discussions; hence, the version number in the title. 125 The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined 126 in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071]. 128 1.1. The RFC Editor Function 130 The RFC Series is described in [RFC4844]. Its Section 3.1 defines 131 "RFC Editor": 133 Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC 134 Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now 135 requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are 136 RFC Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be 137 multiple organizations working together to undertake the work 138 required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without 139 attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them, 140 this document refers to this collection of experts and 141 organizations as the "RFC Editor". 143 The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor, 144 acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC 145 Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the 146 RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In 147 addition, the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime 148 mover in discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and 149 archiving RFCs. 151 RFC 4844 does not explore the internal organization of the RFC 152 Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor 153 organizational structure. There have been several iterations on 154 efforts to improve and clarify this structure. These have been led 155 by the IAB, in consultation with the community and many leadership 156 bodies within the community. This first resulted in the publication 157 of [RFC5620] and then in further discussions leading to this 158 document. Some of the details on this evolution can be found below. 159 In undertaking this evolution, the IAB considered changes that 160 increase flexibility and operational support options, provide for the 161 orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of 162 the RFC Series, while maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely 163 processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and 164 increasing cost transparency. The model set forth below describes 165 the internal organization of the RFC Editor, while remaining 166 consistent with RFC 4844. 168 Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC 169 Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo 170 provides a model for internal organization. This memo defines the 171 term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the 172 organizational components. 174 2. RFC Editor Model 176 The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series 177 into the following components: 179 o RFC Series Editor (RSE) 181 o RFC Production Center 183 o RFC Publisher 185 The structure and relationship of the components of the RFC Series 186 production and process is schematically represented by the figure 187 below. The picture does not depict oversight and escalation 188 relations. It does include the streams and their managers (which are 189 not part of the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, or 190 Publisher facilities) in order to more fully show the context in 191 which the RFC Series Editor operates. 193 +-------------+ 194 | | 195 +--------------+ IAB <------------+ 196 | | | | 197 | |=============| | 198 | | | | 199 | | RSOC <------------+ 200 | | | | 201 | +-------+-----+ +-----+-----+ 202 | | | | 203 | +...........|.........+ | Community | 204 | . | . | at | 205 | . +-------V-----+ . | Large | 206 | . | | . | | 207 | . | RFC | . +-----+-----+ 208 | . | Series | . | 209 | . | Editor <------------+ 210 | . | | . 211 | . +-+---------+-+ . 212 | . | | . 213 +-------------+ +-----V-------+ . +--V--+ +--V--+ . +-----+ 214 | | | | . | | | | . | | 215 | Independent | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E | 216 | Authors +--> Submission +-----> | | | . | n | 217 | | | Editor | . | P | | | . | d | 218 | | | | . | r | | RFC | . | | 219 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | | . | U | 220 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | d | | P | . | s | 221 | | | | . | u | | u | . | e | 222 | IAB +--> IAB +-----> c | | b | . | r | 223 | | | | . | t | | l | . | s | 224 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | i +---> i +--------> | 225 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | s | . | & | 226 | | | | . | n | | h | . | | 227 | IRTF +--> IRSG +---->| | | e | . | R | 228 | | | | . | C | | r | . | e | 229 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a | 230 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d | 231 | | | | . | t | | | . | e | 232 | IETF +--> IESG +-----> e | | | . | r | 233 | | | | . | r | | | . | s | 234 +-------------+ +-------------+ . +-----+ +-----+ . +-----+ 235 . . 236 +..... RFC Editor ....+ 238 Structure of RFC Series Production and Process 240 Figure 1 242 In this model, documents are produced and approved through multiple 243 document streams. The stream manager for each stream is responsible 244 for the content of that stream. The four streams that now exist are 245 described in [RFC4844]. The RFC Editor function is responsible for 246 the packaging and distribution of the documents. As such, documents 247 from these streams are edited and processed by the Production Center 248 and published by the Publisher. The RFC Series Editor will exercise 249 strategic leadership and management over the activities of the RFC 250 Publisher and the RFC Production Center (both of which can be seen as 251 back-office functions) and will be the entity that: 253 o Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function within the 254 IETF and externally. 256 o Leads the community in the design of improvements to the RFC 257 Series. 259 o Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of 260 improvements in the RFC Editor production and access processes. 262 o Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web site, 263 which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher. 265 o Is responsible for developing consensus versions of vision and 266 policy documents. These documents will be reviewed by the RFC 267 Series Oversight Committee (Section 3.1) and subject to its 268 approval before final publication. 270 These responsibilities are defined below, although the specific work 271 items under them are a matter for the actual employment contract and 272 its Statement of Work (SOW). 274 The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined 275 in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071]. More details on the oversight by the IAB 276 via the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) can be found in 277 Section 3.1. For example, the RSE does not have the direct authority 278 to hire or fire RFC Editor contractors or personnel. 280 2.1. RFC Series Editor 282 The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall responsibility 283 for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series. 285 The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the IAOC. The 286 IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the RSOC, which it 287 appoints. 289 The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IAOC and the stream 290 managers. 292 2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication and 293 Production Functions 295 With respect to the RFC Publisher and Production Center functions, 296 the RSE provides input to the IASA budget, SOWs, and manages vendor 297 selection processes. The RSE performs annual reviews of the RFC 298 Production Center and Publisher function, which are then provided to 299 the RSOC, the IASA, and the community. Normally, private financial 300 details would not be included in a public version unless the IAOC 301 concludes it is necessary to make such information public. 303 The RSE is responsible for the performance of the RFC Production 304 Center and Publisher. The RSE is responsible for issues that go 305 beyond the RFC Production Center or Publisher functions, such as 306 cross-stream coordination of priorities. Issues that require changes 307 to the budget or contracts shall be brought to the attention of the 308 IAD by the RSE. 310 The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and structures 311 that will allow for continuity of the RFC Series in the face of 312 changes in contracts and personnel. 314 Vendor selection for the RFC Production Center and Publisher 315 functions is done in cooperation with the streams and under final 316 authority of the IASA. Details on this process can be found in 317 Section 4.1. 319 2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series 321 The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series. This 322 representation is important both internally, relative to the IETF, 323 and externally. 325 2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF 327 The RSE is the primary point of contact to the IETF on matters 328 relating to the RFC Series in general, or policy matters relating to 329 specific documents. Issues of practical details in the processing of 330 specific documents are generally worked through directly with the RFC 331 Production Center staff. 333 This includes providing suitable reports to the community at large, 334 providing email contact for policy questions and inputs, and enabling 335 and participating in suitable on-line forums for discussion of issues 336 related to the RFC Series. 338 Due to the history and nature of the interaction between the RSE and 339 the IETF, certain principles, described in the following subsections, 340 must be understood and adhered to by the RSE in his or her 341 interactions with the community. These apply to the representation 342 function, as well as to the leadership the RSE provides for 343 production and series development. 345 2.1.2.1.1. Volunteerism 347 The vast majority of Internet technical community work is led, 348 initiated, and done by community volunteers, including oversight, 349 policy making, and direct production of, for example, many software 350 tools. The RSE, while not a volunteer, is dependent upon these 351 volunteer participants. Also, the spirit of the community is heavily 352 focused on and draws from these volunteers. As such, the RSE needs 353 to support the vitality and effectiveness of volunteer participation. 355 2.1.2.1.2. Policy Authority 357 All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the broader 358 Internet community. The RSE is responsible for identifying 359 materially concerned interest groups within the Internet community 360 and reaching out to them. Those interest groups include at least the 361 IETF community, the IRTF community, the network research community, 362 and the network operations community. Other interest groups might 363 also be materially interested. 365 The RSE must consult with the community on policy issues. The RSE 366 works with the community to achieve policy that meets the overall 367 quality, continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is charged with 368 meeting. As described in Section 3.1, the RSE reports the results of 369 such interactions to the RSOC, including a description of the 370 outreach efforts and the specific recommendations on policy. This 371 enables the RSOC to provide the oversight the IAB is required to 372 apply, as well as to confirm that the Internet community has been 373 properly consulted and considered in making policy. 375 2.1.2.2. External Representation 377 From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF 378 need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series. The RSE, or 379 the RSE's designate, serves this role. 381 Over time, the RSE should determine what, if any, means should be 382 employed to increase end-user awareness of the series, to reinforce 383 the stature of the series, and to provide the contact point for 384 outside parties seeking information on the series or the Editor. 386 2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication 388 Closely related to providing strategic leadership and management to 389 the RFC Production Center and Publisher functions is the need to 390 develop and improve those functions. The RSE is responsible for 391 ensuring that such ongoing development takes place. 393 This effort must include the dimensions of document quality, 394 timeliness of production, and accessibility of results. It must also 395 specifically take into account issues raised by the IETF community, 396 including all the streams feeding into the RFC Editor function. 398 2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series 400 In order to develop the RFC Series, the RSE is expected to develop a 401 relationship with the Internet technical community. The Editor is 402 expected to engage with the Internet technical community in a process 403 of articulating and refining a vision for the series and its 404 continuous evolution. The RSE is also expected to engage other users 405 of the RFC Series, in particular, the consumers of these documents, 406 such as those people who use them to specify products, write code, 407 test behaviors, or other related activities. 409 Concretely: 411 The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on 412 series evolution among the series' stream participants and the 413 broader Internet technical community. 415 In time, the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision for 416 the RFC Series, including examining: 418 * The RFC Series, as it continues to evolve. The RSE is expected 419 to take a broad view and look for the best ways to evolve the 420 series for the benefit of the entire Internet community. As 421 such, the RSE may even consider evolution beyond the historical 422 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis; and 424 * Its publication-technical environment, by looking at whether it 425 should be slowly changing in terms of publishing and archiving 426 techniques -- particularly to better serve the communities that 427 produce and depend on the RFC Series. For example, all of 428 those communities have been slowly changing to include a 429 significant population of multi-lingual individuals or non- 430 native speakers of English. Another example is that some of 431 these constituencies also have shifted to include significant 432 groups whose primary focus is on the constraints and 433 consequences of network engineering, rather than a primary 434 interest in the engineering issues themselves. 436 For this type of responsibility, the RSE cooperates closely with the 437 community, and operates under oversight of the RSOC: thus, 438 ultimately, under oversight of the IAB. 440 2.1.5. Workload 442 On average, the job is expected to take half of a full-time 443 equivalent position (FTE, thus approx 20 hrs per week), with the 444 workload per week nearing full time during IETF weeks. In addition, 445 the job is expected to take more than 20 hours per week in the first 446 few months of the engagement and when involved in special projects. 448 2.1.6. Qualifications 450 The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional. The 451 following qualifications are desired: 453 1. Strategic leadership and management experience fulfilling the 454 requirements outlined in this document, the many aspects of this 455 role, and the coordination of the overall RFC Editor process. 457 2. Good understanding of the English language and technical 458 terminology related to the Internet. 460 3. Good communication skills. 462 4. Experience with editorial processes. 464 5. Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC 465 process. 467 6. Independent worker. 469 7. Willingness to, and availability for, travel. 471 8. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and matrixed 472 environment with divided authority and responsibility similar to 473 that described in this document. 475 9. Experience with and ability to participate in, and manage, 476 activities by email and teleconferences, not just face-to-face 477 interactions. 479 10. Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management 480 of entire operations. 482 11. Experience as an RFC author. 484 2.1.7. Conflict of Interest 486 The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of 487 interest or judgment in performing these roles. As such, the RSE is 488 barred from having any ownership, advisory, or other relationship to 489 the vendors executing the RFC Publisher or Production Center 490 functions except as specified elsewhere in this document. If 491 necessary, an exception can be made after public disclosure of those 492 relationships and with the explicit permission of the IAB and IAOC. 494 2.2. RFC Production Center 496 The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid contractor, 497 and the contractor's responsibilities include the following: 499 1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style 500 Manual, under the direction of the RSE; 502 2. Creating records of edits performed on documents; 504 3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact 505 and seeking necessary clarification; 507 4. Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds, IANA, and/ 508 or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed; 510 5. Creating records of dialog with document authors; 512 6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed; 514 7. Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed; 516 8. Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC 517 Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external 518 reviews of the RFC Editor function initiated by the IAB or IAOC; 520 9. Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of IANA- 521 performed protocol registry actions; 523 10. Assigning RFC numbers; 525 11. Establishing publication readiness of each document through 526 communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA, and/or 527 stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series 528 Editor; 530 12. Forwarding documents that are ready for publication to the RFC 531 Publisher; 533 13. Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC 534 Publisher so these can be preserved; 536 14. Liaising with the streams as needed. 538 All these activities will be done under the general direction, but 539 not day-to-day management, of the RSE and need some level of 540 coordination with various submission streams and the RSE. 542 The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through an 543 IASA Request for Proposal (RFP) process as described in Section 4.1. 545 2.3. RFC Publisher 547 The RFC Publisher responsibilities include the following: 549 1. Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs. 551 2. Providing an on-line system to submit RFC Errata. 553 3. Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata. 555 4. Providing backups. 557 5. Providing storage and preservation of records. 559 6. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings. 561 All these activities will be done under the general direction, but 562 not day-to-day management, of the RSE and need some level of 563 coordination with various submission streams and the RSE. 565 The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through an IASA RFP 566 process as described in Section 4.1. 568 3. Committees 570 3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) 572 The IAB is responsible for the oversight of the RFC Series and acts 573 as a body for final conflict resolution, including the process 574 described in Section 4.3. 576 In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the NomCom 577 appointment cycle [RFC3777] and assure that oversight includes 578 suitable subject matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group 579 that implements oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight 580 Committee (RSOC). 582 The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: in general, 583 it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision 584 documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the 585 community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due 586 diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed 587 the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB. 588 Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and 589 recommendations the benefit of the doubt. 591 For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and 592 firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but the final 593 decision is the responsibility of the IAB. For instance the RSOC 594 would do the following: 596 o perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of these 597 reviews to the IAB. 599 o manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate 600 appointment (in other words, select the RSE subject to IAB 601 approval). 603 RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of 604 interest and behave accordingly. 606 For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, the RSOC will 607 propose a budget for the search process. It will work with IASA to 608 refine that budget and develop remuneration criteria and an 609 employment agreement or contracting plans, as appropriate. 611 The RSOC will be responsible for ensuring that the RFC Series is run 612 in a transparent and accountable manner. 614 The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order. 616 The initial RSOC was charged with designing and executing a 617 solicitation, search, and selection process for the first actual (not 618 transitional or "acting") RSE appointment. That process involved 619 iteration on this and related documents and evaluation of various 620 strategies and options. During the creation of this document, it was 621 expected that the RSOC would describe the process it ultimately 622 selected to the community. The RSOC did involve the community in 623 interim considerations when that was likely to be of value. 624 Following completion of the selection process, the RSOC will 625 determine the best way to share information learned and experience 626 gained with the community and determine how to best preserve that 627 information for future use. 629 3.1.1. RSOC Composition 631 The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB 632 retaining final responsibility. The IAB will delegate authority and 633 responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE 634 relationships evolve. The RSOC will include people who are not 635 current IAB members. Currently, this is aligned with the IAB program 636 structure. The IAB will designate the membership of the RSOC with 637 the following goals: preserving effective stability; keeping it small 638 enough to be effective, and keeping it large enough to provide 639 general Internet community expertise, specific IETF expertise, 640 publication expertise, and stream expertise. Members serve at the 641 pleasure of the IAB and are expected to bring a balance between 642 short- and long-term perspectives. Specific input about, and 643 recommendations of, members will be sought from the streams, the 644 IASA, and the RSE. 646 In addition to the members from outside of the IAB appointed to the 647 RSOC, IAB members may participate as full members of the RSOC. Under 648 most circumstances, there will be a specific individual IAB member 649 appointed by the IAB as the program lead, who will be a full member 650 of the RSOC. This member's role is distinct from any RSOC-internal 651 organizational roles, such as would be created by the RSOC choosing 652 to appoint a chair from among its members. Other IAB members may 653 choose to be full members of the RSOC, with the consent of the IAB. 654 This consent is primarily concerned with avoiding overpopulating the 655 RSOC and providing it with relatively stable membership, which will 656 work best if it is not too large a committee. 658 The IAOC will appoint an individual to serve as its liaison to the 659 RSOC. The RSE and the IAOC Liaison will serve as non-voting ex 660 officio members of the RSOC. Either or both can be excluded from its 661 discussions if necessary. 663 4. Administrative Implementation 665 The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual 666 activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF 667 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC, [RFC4071]) in cooperation 668 with the RFC Series Editor. The authority structure is described in 669 Figure 2 below. 671 +----------------+ +----------------+ 672 | | | | 673 | IAB | | IAOC | 674 | | | | 675 +==========+-----+ +-+--------------+ 676 | | . 677 | RSOC | . 678 | | . 679 +----+-----+ . 680 | . 681 | . 682 | ................... 683 | . . 684 +--------V---V----+ . 685 | | . 686 | RFC | . 687 | Series | . 688 | Editor | . 689 | | . 690 +--------+--------+ . 691 | . 692 | ................. 693 | . . 694 +--+----------------+ . 695 | . | . 696 | . | . 697 +---V-----V--+ +--V----V---+ 698 | RFC | | RFC | 699 | Production | | Publisher | 700 | Center | | | 701 +------------+ +-----------+ 703 Authority Structure of the RFC Series 705 Legend: 707 ------- IAB RFC Series Oversight 708 ....... IAOC Contract/Budget Oversight 710 Figure 2 712 4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher Functions 714 As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation with the 715 streams and under the final authority of the IAOC. 717 The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and 718 participates in the IASA vendor selection process. The work 719 definition is created within the IASA budget and takes into account 720 the stream managers and community input. 722 The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center, RFC 723 Publisher, and other RFC-related services, is as follows: 725 o The IAOC establishes the contract process, including the steps 726 necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the 727 contracting procedures. 729 o The IAOC establishes the Selection Committee, which will consist 730 of the RSE, the IAD, and other members selected by the RSOC and 731 the IAOC. The Committee shall be chaired by the RSE. 733 o The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to the 734 successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IAOC. In the 735 event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be 736 referred to the Selection Committee for further action. 738 o The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher either through 739 the IASA RFP process or, at the Committee's option, the Committee 740 may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC Publisher services, 741 subject to negotiations in accordance with the IASA procedures. 743 4.2. Budget 745 The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They 746 have been and remain part of the IETF Administrative Support Activity 747 (IASA, [RFC4071]) budget. 749 The RFC Series portion of the IASA budget shall include entries for 750 the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. The 751 IASA budget shall also include entries for the streams, including the 752 independent stream. 754 The IAOC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor 755 budget (and the authority to deny it). The RSE must work within the 756 IAOC budgetary process. 758 The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor function to 759 operate within those budgets. If production needs change, the RSE is 760 responsible for working with the Production Center, and where 761 appropriate, other RFC Editor component institutions, relevant 762 streams, and/or the RSOC to determine what the correct response 763 should be. If they agree that a budgetary change is needed, that 764 decision needs to be taken to the IAD and the IAOC. 766 4.3. Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor 768 The RFC Series Editor and the RFC Production Center and Publisher 769 facilities work with the various streams to produce RFCs. 770 Disagreements may arise between these entities during the execution 771 of the RFC Editor operations. In particular, different streams may 772 disagree with each other, or disagree with the RFC Editor function. 773 Potentially, even the RSOC or the IAOC could find themselves in 774 disagreement with some aspect of the RFC Editor operations. Note 775 that disagreements between an author and the RFC Production Center 776 are not cross-entity issues, and they are to be resolved by the RSE, 777 in accordance with the rest of this document. 779 If such cross-entity disagreements arise, the community would 780 generally hope that they can be resolved politely and directly. 781 However, this is not always possible. At that point, any relevant 782 party would first formally request a review and reconsideration of 783 the decision. If the party still disagrees after the 784 reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or, especially 785 if the RSE is involved, the party may ask the IAB Chair (for a 786 technical or procedural matter) to mediate or appoint a mediator to 787 aid in the discussions, although he or she not is obligated to do so. 788 All parties should work informally and in good faith to reach a 789 mutually agreeable conclusion. As noted below, any such issues that 790 involve contractual matters must be brought to the attention of the 791 IAOC. If the IAB Chair is asked to assist in resolving the matter, 792 the Chair may ask for advice or seek assistance from anyone the Chair 793 deems helpful. The Chair may also alert any appropriate individuals 794 or organizations to the existence of the issue. 796 If such a conclusion is not possible through the above less formal 797 processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC Series 798 Oversight Committee. The RSOC may choose to offer advice to the RSE 799 or more general advice to the parties involved and may ask the RSE to 800 defer a decision until it formulates its advice. However, if a 801 timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation, and 802 mutual agreement, the RSE is expected to make whatever decisions are 803 needed to ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Editor function; 804 those decisions are final. 806 The RSE may make final decisions unilaterally only to assure the 807 functioning of the process, and only while there is an evaluation of 808 current policies to determine whether they are appropriately 809 implemented in the decision or need adjustment. In particular, it 810 should be noted that final decisions about the technical content of 811 individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream 812 approvers from which those documents originate, as shown in the 813 illustration in Figure 1. 815 If informal agreements cannot be reached, then formal RSOC review and 816 decision making may be required. If so, the RSE must present the 817 issues involved to the community so that the community is aware of 818 the situation. The RSE will then report the issue to the RSOC for 819 formal resolution by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its 820 oversight capacity. 822 IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected 823 to inform future changes to RFC Series policies, including possible 824 updates to this document. 826 4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact 828 If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual 829 consequences, it falls under BCP 101 [RFC4071] and IASA; thus, the 830 RSE must identify the issue and provide his or her advice to the 831 IAOC; additionally, if the RSOC has provided advice, forward that 832 advice as well. The IAOC must notify the RSOC and IAB regarding the 833 action it concludes is required to resolve the issue based on its 834 applicable procedures and provisions in the relevant contracts. 836 5. IANA Considerations 838 This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor 839 structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of 840 registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center. The IAOC 841 will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC 842 Production Center and IANA. 844 This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any 845 values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required. 847 6. Security Considerations 849 The same security considerations as those in [RFC4844] apply. The 850 processes for the publication of documents must prevent the 851 introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains 852 the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to 853 prevent these published documents from being changed by external 854 parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed 855 to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents 856 (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, originals 857 that are not machine readable) need to be secured against any kind of 858 data storage failure. 860 The IAOC should take these security considerations into account 861 during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC Editor component 862 contracts. 864 7. Acknowledgments 866 The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on 867 mailing lists. The first iteration of the text on which this 868 document is based was first written by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, 869 and Ray Pelletier. In addition to the members of the IAOC and IAB in 870 conjunction with those roles, major and minor contributions were made 871 by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy 872 Ginoza, Alice Russo, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, 873 John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim Schaad. 875 The IAOC members at the time this RFC Editor model was approved were 876 (in alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba (ex officio), Eric Burger, 877 Dave Crocker, Marshall Eubanks, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley (ex 878 officio), Ole Jacobsen, Ray Pelletier (non-voting), and Lynn St. 879 Amour (ex officio). 881 The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved 882 were (in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, 883 Stuart Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry 884 Leiba, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, 885 Dave Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex 886 officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive 887 Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair. 889 The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in 890 alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba, Ross Callon, Alissa Cooper, 891 Spencer Dawkins, Joel Halpern, Russ Housley, David Kessens, Olaf 892 Kolkman, Danny McPherson, Jon Peterson, Andrei Robachevsky, Dave 893 Thaler, and Hannes Tschofenig. In addition, at the time of approval, 894 the IAB included two ex officio members: Mary Barnes who was serving 895 as the IAB Executive Director, and Lars Eggert, who was serving as 896 the IRTF Chair. 898 8. References 900 8.1. Normative References 902 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 903 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, 904 July 2007, . 906 [RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the 907 IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 908 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005, . 911 [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed., 912 "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 913 39, RFC 2850, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000, 914 . 916 8.2. Informative References 918 [RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", 919 RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009, 920 . 922 [RFC3777] Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, 923 and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 924 Committees", RFC 3777, DOI 10.17487/RFC3777, June 2004, 925 . 927 Authors' Addresses 929 Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) 931 EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl 933 Joel M. Halpern (editor) 934 Ericsson 936 EMail: joel.halpern@ericsson.com 938 Internet Architecture Board 940 EMail: iab@iab.org 942 Robert M. Hinden (editor) 943 Check Point Software 944 959 Skyway Road 945 San Carlos, CA 94070 946 USA 948 EMail: bob.hinden@gmail.com