idnits 2.17.1 draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 7, 2011) is 4799 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4333 (Obsoleted by RFC 8711) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5620 (Obsoleted by RFC 6548, RFC 6635) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 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 Intended status: Informational J. Halpern (Ed.) 5 Expires: September 8, 2011 Ericsson 6 IAB 7 March 7, 2011 9 RFC Editor Model (Version 2) 10 draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-00 12 Abstract 14 The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out 15 by various persons or entities. The RFC Editor model described in 16 this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into 17 four functions: The RFC Series Editor, the Independent Submission 18 Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. The 19 function of the Independent Submission Editor is defined here. The 20 IAB oversight by way of delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Board 21 is described. This document reflects 1 year of experience with RFC 22 Editor Model version 1. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2011. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2. IAOC Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.1. Expenses for the RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3. RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 3.1.1. Executive Management of the Publication and 64 Production function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 3.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 3.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 3.1.2.2. External Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 3.1.3. Development of RFC Production and RFC Access . . . . . 10 69 3.1.4. Development of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 3.1.5. Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 3.1.6. Qualifications and Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 3.2. Independent Submission Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 3.3. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 3.4. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 75 4. Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 76 4.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 15 77 4.1.1. RSOC composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 78 4.1.2. Disagreements Among RFC Editor Entities . . . . . . . 16 79 4.2. Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board . . . . . . 17 80 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 81 6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 82 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 83 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 84 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 85 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 86 Appendix A. Internet Draft editing details . . . . . . . . . . . 19 87 A.1. Section 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 88 A.2. Section 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 89 A.3. Section 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 90 A.4. section 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 91 A.5. section 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 92 A.6. section 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 93 A.7. section 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 94 A.8. section 07->08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 96 1. Introduction 98 The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned 99 with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor 100 succession, maintaining RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility. 101 The IAB is also sensitive to the concerns of the IETF Administrative 102 Oversight Committee (IAOC) about providing the necessary services in 103 a cost effective and efficient manner. 105 The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844 [RFC4844]. 106 Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor": 108 | 3.1. RFC Editor 109 | 110 | Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC 111 | Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now 112 | requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are RFC 113 | Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be 114 | multiple organizations working together to undertake the work 115 | required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without 116 | attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them, 117 | this document refers to this collection of experts and organizations 118 | as the "RFC Editor". 119 | 120 | The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor, 121 | acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC 122 | Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the 123 | RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition, 124 | the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in 125 | discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving 126 | RFCs. 128 RFC 4844 makes no attempt to explore the internal organization of the 129 RFC Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor 130 organizational structure. In discussion with the Internet community, 131 the IAB considered changes that increase flexibility and operational 132 support options, provides for the orderly succession of the RFC 133 Editor, and ensures the continuity of the RFC series, while 134 maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely processing, ensuring 135 document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost 136 transparency. The model set forth below is the result of those 137 discussions and the experience gained since, as described immediately 138 below, and examines the internal organization of the RFC Editor, 139 while remaining consistent with RFC 4844. This version of the 140 document also reflects the discussions, as described below, that have 141 occurred since the first efforts to clarify that internal 142 organization. 144 Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC 145 Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo 146 provides a model for internal organization. This memo defines the 147 term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the 148 organizational components. 150 The RFC Editor model was first approved in October 1, 2008 and has 151 evolved since. During the implementation of version 1 of the model 152 [RFC5620] it was quickly realized that the role of the RSE and the 153 oversight responsibilities needed to be structured differently. In 154 order to gain experience with 'running code' a transitional RFC 155 Series Editor was hired who analyzed the managerial environment and 156 provided recommendations. This version of the model is based on his 157 recommendations and the subsequent discussion on the rfc-interest 158 list. 160 The document, and the resulting structures, will be modified as 161 needed through normal procedures. The RSE, and the IAB, through the 162 RFC oversight committee (see Section 4.1), will continue to monitor 163 discussions within the community about potential adjustments to the 164 RFC Editor model and recognizes that the process described in this 165 document may need to be adjusted to align with any changes that 166 result from such discussions, hence the version number in the title. 168 2. IAOC Implementation 170 The model is constructed in such a way that it sets boundary 171 conditions on whether these functions are to be implemented jointly 172 or under separate contractual arrangements. The exact implementation 173 is a responsibility of the IAOC in cooperation with the RFC Series 174 Editor. 176 2.1. Expenses for the RFC Editor 178 The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They 179 have been and remain part of the IASA budget. 181 3. RFC Editor Model 183 The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series 184 into the following components: 186 o RFC Series Editor ("RSE"). 188 o Independent Submission Editor ("ISE"). 190 o RFC Production Center. 192 o RFC Publisher. 194 The structure and relationship of the components of the RFC Series 195 Production and Process is schematically represented by the figure 196 below (the picture does not depict oversight and escalation 197 relations). 199 +--------------+ 200 | | 201 | IAB | 202 | | 203 +----V--------V+ 204 +.RFC Editor....|........V.................+ 205 . | . 206 +------------+ . +-----------V-+ +-----------+ . 207 | | . | RFC | | | . 208 | Community | . | Series | | RFC | . 209 | at <------> Oversight <--> Series | . 210 | Large | . | Committee | | Editor | . 211 | | . | | | | . 212 +------------+ . +-------------+ +-V-------V-+ . 213 +...............+ | | . 214 . | | . 215 +-----------+ +-------------+ . +----V--+ +V--------+ . +-----+ 216 | Community | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E | 217 | at +---> Submission +---> | | RFC | . | n | 218 | Large | | Editor | . | P | | | . | d | 219 | | | | . | r | | P | . | | 220 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | o +-->| u +-----> U | 221 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | d | | b | . | s | 222 | | | | . | u | | l | . | e | 223 | IAB +---> IAB +---> c | | i | . | r | 224 | | | | . | t | | s | . | s | 225 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | i | | h | . | | 226 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | o | | e | . | & | 227 | | | | . | n | | r | . | | 228 | IRTF +---> IRSG +---> | | | . | R | 229 | | | | . | C | | | . | e | 230 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a | 231 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d | 232 | | | | . | t | | | . | e | 233 | IETF +---> IESG +---> e | | | . | r | 234 | | | | . | r | | | . | s | 235 +-----------+ +-------------+ . +-------+ +---------+ . +-----+ 236 . . 237 +..........................+ 239 Structure of RFC Series production and process. 241 Figure 1 243 In this model documents are produced and approved through multiple 244 document streams. The four that now exist are described in 245 [RFC4844]. Documents from these streams are edited and processed by 246 the Production Center and published by the Publisher. The RFC Series 247 Editor will exercise executive management over the activities of the 248 RFC Publisher and the RFC Production Center (which can be seen as 249 back office functions) and will be the entity that: 251 o Provides Executive Management for the overall operation of the RFC 252 Editor, including the Production and Publication components. 254 o Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function within the 255 IETF and externally. 257 o Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of 258 improvements in the RFC Editor Production and Access Processes. 260 o Leads the community in the development of improvements to the RFC 261 Series. 263 These responsibilities are defined below, although the specific work 264 items under them are a matter for the actual employment contract and 265 its Statement of Work. 267 The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility. More 268 details on the oversight by the IAB via the RSOC can be found in 269 Section 4.1. 271 The RSE does not have the authority to hire or fire RFC Editor 272 contractors or personnel. Serious issues, such as those that might 273 be detected during the RSE annual review of the production facility, 274 would be brought by the RSE to the RSOC, and escalated from there if 275 appropriate. 277 3.1. RFC Series Editor 279 The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall responsibility 280 for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series. While 281 that individual may, in the future, have assistants; at present there 282 are no staff other than those associated with the RFC Series 283 Production and Publication facility. 285 The RSE is appointed by the IAB, and hired by the IAOC. The IAB 286 delegates the direct oversight of the IAB to the RSOC, which it 287 appoints. 289 3.1.1. Executive Management of the Publication and Production function 291 With respect to the Publication and Production functions, the RSE 292 provides input to the IASA budget, statements of work, and manages 293 vendor selection processes. The RSE performs annual reviews of the 294 Production and Publication function which are then provided to the 295 RSOC and the IASA. 297 Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under 298 final authority of the IASA. 300 Concretely: 302 o The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and 303 manages the vendor search processes. The work definition is 304 created within the (budgetary) boundary condition that are 305 negotiated with IASA and takes into account the RSE's requirements 306 and community input. 308 o The RSE manages the evaluation process of the bids against the SOW 309 and then provides a recommendation to the IASA. 311 o Final vendor selection is done by the IASA in close consultation 312 with the RSE to ensure that contract terms and other arrangements 313 are consistent with the SOW, consistent with the both RSE's and 314 contractor's requirements to satisfy the contract, and do not 315 conflict with the role of the RSE. 317 The IASA has the responsibility to approve the total RSE budget (and 318 the authority to deny it). The RSE has the responsibility to manage 319 all the series functions within that budget. It is assumed that 320 there is a level of cooperation between RSE and IASA that allows 321 decisions by the IASA to be 'pro forma'. In case of disagreement, 322 the IAB will attempt to mediate the issue. If no mutual agreement 323 can be reached, the IAB will make the final decision. 325 When budgets have been assigned by IASA the RSE is responsible for 326 managing the RFC Editor to operate within those budgets. 328 The RSE primarily supervises the on-going performance of the vendors 329 without asserting direct operational responsibility. However, the 330 RSE has operational responsibilities for issues that raise above the 331 responsibilities of the publication or publication functions such as 332 cross stream coordination of priorities and other issues. When the 333 RSE needs to take extra-budgetary or out-of contract measures those 334 actions will be coordinated with IASA. 336 Create documentation and structures that will allow for the RFC 337 Series' continuity when circumstances engender the need for the 338 execution of the publication and/or production functions by other 339 vendors. 341 For this type of responsibility the RSE is expected to cooperate 342 closely with the IASA and the various streams. 344 To prevent actual or apparent problems with conflicts of interest or 345 judgment, the RSE is barred from having any ownership, advisory, or 346 other relationship to the vendors executing the Publication or 347 Production functions except as specified elsewhere in this document. 348 If necessary, an exception can be made after public disclosure of 349 those relationships and with the explicit permission of the IAB and 350 IASA. 352 3.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series 354 The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series. This 355 representation is important both internally, relative to the IETF, 356 and externally. 358 3.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF 360 The RSE is the primary point of contact the IETF on matters other 361 than the practicalities of producing individual RFCs (which are 362 worked with the RFC Production staff.) 364 This includes providing suitable reports to the community at large; 365 providing email contact for policy questions and inputs; and enabling 366 and participating in suitable on-line forums for discussion of issues 367 related to the RFC Series. 369 Due to the history and nature of the interaction between the RSE and 370 the IETF, certain principles must be understood and adhered to by the 371 RSE in his interactions with the community. These apply to the 372 representation function, as well as to the leadership the RSE 373 provides in Production and Series Development. 375 3.1.2.1.1. Volunteerism 377 The vast majority of Internet technical community work is led, 378 initiated, and done by community volunteers, including oversight, 379 policy-making, and direct production of, for example, many software 380 tools. The Series Editor role relies on volunteer participation and 381 needs to support the vitality and effectiveness of volunteer 382 participation. 384 3.1.2.1.2. Policy Authority 386 All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the 387 community. The community is the arbiter of policy, not the RSE. The 388 RSE must consult with the community on policy issues. As described 389 below in Section 4.1 the RSE reports the results of such interactions 390 to the RSOC, including the specific recommendations on policy. This 391 enables the RSOC to provide the oversight the IAB is required to 392 apply, as well as to confirm that the IETF community has been 393 properly consulted and considered in making policy. 395 3.1.2.2. External Representation 397 From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF 398 need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series. The RSE is 399 that individual. 401 Over time, the RSE should determine what if any means should be 402 employed to increase end-user awareness of the series, and to 403 reinforce the stature of the Series, and will be the contact point 404 for outside parties seeking information on the Series or the Editor. 406 3.1.3. Development of RFC Production and RFC Access 408 Closely related to providing executive management to the RFC 409 Production and Publication functions is the need to develop and 410 improve those functions. The RSE is responsible for ensuring that 411 such ongoing development takes place. 413 This effort must include the dimensions of document quality, 414 timeliness of production, and accessibility of results. It must also 415 specifically take into account issues raised by the IETF community. 417 3.1.4. Development of the RFC Series 419 In order to develop the RFC Publication series the RSE is expected to 420 develop a relationships with the Internet technical community. With 421 that community, the Editor is expected to engage in a process of 422 articulating and refining a vision for the Series and its continuous 423 evolution. 425 Concretely: 427 The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on 428 Series evolution among the Series' Stream participants and the 429 broader Internet technical community. 431 In time the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision on 433 the technical specification series, as it continues to evolve 434 beyond the historical 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis; 435 and 436 its publication-technical environment: slowly changing in terms 437 of publication and archiving techniques; the communities that 438 produce and depend on the RFC Series. All of those communities 439 have been slowly changing to include significant multi-lingual 440 non-native-English populations.Some of them also have a primary 441 focus on the constraints and consequences of network 442 engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering 443 issues themselves. 445 The RSE will develop consensus versions of vision and policy 446 documents which will be approved by the RFC Series Oversight 447 Committee (Section 4.1). 449 For this type of responsibility the RSE cooperates closely with the 450 community and under oversight of the RSOC and thus ultimately under 451 oversight of the IAB. 453 3.1.5. Workload 455 The job is expected initially to take on average half of an FTE 456 (approx 20 hrs per week), with the workload per week near full time 457 during IETF weeks, over 20 hours per week in the first few months of 458 the engagement, and higher during special projects. 460 3.1.6. Qualifications and Selection 462 The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional with the 463 following qualifications: 465 1. Executive management experience suitable to managing the 466 requirements outlined elsewhere in this document and the many 467 aspects of this role, and to coordinating the overall RFC Editor 468 process. 470 2. Good understanding of the English language and technical 471 terminology related to the Internet. 473 3. Good communication skills. 475 4. Experience with editorial processes. 477 5. Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC 478 process. 480 6. Independent worker. 482 7. Experience as an RFC author desired. 484 As described below (Section 4.1) the IAB appoints the RSOC and 485 delegates authority to it. One of the first responsibilities of the 486 RSOC will be to define in detail the solicitation and selection 487 process for the next RSE. The RSOC is expected to document to the 488 community the process it selects. Upon completion of selection, the 489 RSOC should determine the best way to preserve this information for 490 future use. 492 3.2. Independent Submission Editor 494 [Editor's note: This section needs to be edited to make clear that 495 while the ISE is part of the RFC Editor function, he, and his stream, 496 are independent of the RSE.] 498 The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have 499 assistants and who is responsible for: 501 1. Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission 502 stream. 504 2. Reviewing, approving, and processing Independent Submissions. 506 3. Forwarding draft RFCs in the Independent Submission Stream to the 507 RFC Production Center. 509 4. Reviewing and approving Independent Submissions RFC errata. 511 5. Coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies 512 as specified by the IAB and RSE. 514 6. Providing statistics and documentation as requested by the RSE 515 and/or IAOC. 517 The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the 518 following qualifications are desired: 520 1. Technical competence, i.e., broad technical experience and 521 perspective across the whole range of Internet technologies and 522 applications, and specifically, the ability to work effectively 523 with portions of that spectrum in which no personal expertise 524 exists. 526 2. Thorough familiarity with the RFC series. 528 3. An ability to define and constitute advisory and document review 529 arrangements. If those arrangements include an Editorial Board 530 similar to the current one or some equivalent arrangement, assess 531 the technical competence of potential Editorial Board members. 533 4. Good standing in the technical community, in and beyond the IETF. 535 5. Demonstrated editorial skills, good command of the English 536 language, and demonstrated history of being able to work 537 effectively with technical documents and materials created by 538 others. 540 6. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment with 541 divided authority and responsibility similar to that described in 542 this document. 544 The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an advisory 545 board (see Section 4.2) and may form a team to perform the activities 546 needed to fulfill their responsibilities. 548 The individual with the listed qualifications will be selected by the 549 IAB after input is collected from the community. An approach similar 550 to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year 551 as described in [RFC4333] should be used. While the ISE itself is 552 considered a volunteer function, the IAB considers maintaining the 553 Independent Submission stream within the RFC Series part of the IAB's 554 supported activities, and will include the expenses made for the 555 support of the ISE in its IASA-supported budget. 557 3.3. RFC Production Center 559 RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor 560 responsibilities include: 562 1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style 563 Manual, under the direction of the RSE; 565 2. Creating records of edits performed on documents; 567 3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact 568 and seeking necessary clarification; 570 4. Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds, IANA, 571 and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed; 573 5. Creating records of dialog with document authors; 575 6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed; 577 7. Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed; 579 8. Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC 580 Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external 581 reviews of the RFC Editor initiated by the IAB or IAOC; 583 9. Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry 584 actions; 586 10. Assigning RFC numbers; 588 11. Establishing publication readiness of each document through 589 communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA and/or 590 stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series 591 Editor; 593 12. Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher; 595 13. Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC 596 Publisher so these can be preserved; 598 14. Liaising with the streams as needed. 600 All these activities will be done under general supervision of the 601 RSE and need some level of coordination with various submission 602 streams and the RSE. 604 The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected by the IAOC 605 through an RFP process. The IAOC will seek a bidder who, among other 606 things, is able to provide a professional, quality, timely, and cost 607 effective service against the established style and production 608 guidelines. Contract terms, including length of contract, extensions 609 and renewals, shall be as defined in an RFP. The opportunity to bid 610 shall be broadly available. 612 3.4. RFC Publisher 614 The RFC Publisher responsibilities include: 616 1. Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs. 618 2. Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata. 620 3. Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata. 622 4. Providing backups. 624 5. Providing storage and preservation of records. 626 6. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings. 628 All these activities will be done under general supervision of the 629 RSE and need some level of coordination with various submission 630 streams and the RSE. 632 The vendor selection by the IAOC is through an RFP process. This may 633 be part of the same contract as the RFC Production center, or may be 634 separate, as decided by the IAOC. 636 4. Committees 638 4.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) 640 The IAB is responsible for oversight over the RFC Series. 642 In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the nomcom 643 appointment cycle and assure that oversight is informed through 644 subject matter experts the IAB will establish a group that implements 645 oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC). 647 The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: In general 648 it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision 649 documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the 650 community. 652 In those general cases the IAB is ultimately responsible for 653 oversight and acts as a body for appeal and resolution. 655 For all aspects that affect the RSE itself (e.g. hiring and firing) 656 the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB but final decision is 657 the responsibility of the IAB. For instance the RSOC would: 659 o perform annual reviews of the RSE and reports to the IAB. 661 o manage RSE candidate selection and advises the IAB on candidate 662 appointment (in other words select the RSE, subject to IAB 663 approval) 665 It is expected that such oversight by the IAB is a matter of due 666 diligence and that the reports and recommendations from the RSOC are 667 approached as if they are binding. 669 RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of 670 interest and behave accordingly. 672 There is one aspect in which the RSOC will work with the IASA: the 673 remuneration of the RSE itself. The RSOC will propose a budget for 674 approval to the IASA. 676 The RSOC will be responsible to ensure that the RFC Series is run in 677 a transparent and accountable manner. 679 The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order. 681 4.1.1. RSOC composition 683 The RSOC will operate as a Program of the IAB, with the IAB retaining 684 final responsibility. The IAB will delegate authority and 685 responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE 686 relationships evolve. Like other IAB Programs, the RSOC will include 687 people who are not current IAB members. The IAB will designate the 688 membership of the RSOC with the goals of preserving effective 689 stability, keeping it small enough to be effective, but large enough 690 to provide general Internet Community expertise, specific IETF 691 expertise, Publication expertise, and stream expertise. Members 692 serve at the pleasure of the IAB and are expected to bring a balance 693 between short and long term perspective. Specific input about, and 694 recommendations of, members will be sought from the streams, the 695 IASA, and the RSE. 697 The RSE and a person designated to represent the IASA will serve as 698 ex-officio members of the RSOC but either or both can be excluded 699 from its discussions if necessary. 701 4.1.2. Disagreements Among RFC Editor Entities 703 If during the execution of their activities, a disagreement arises 704 over an implementation decision made by one of the entities in the 705 model, any relevant party should first request a review and 706 reconsideration of the decision. If that party still disagrees after 707 the reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or, 708 especially if the RSE is involved, that party may ask the IAB Chair 709 (for a technical or procedural matter) or IAD (for an administrative 710 or contractual one) to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in the 711 discussions, although neither is obligated to do so. All parties 712 should work informally and in good faith to reach a mutually 713 agreeable conclusion. 715 If such a conclusion is not possible through those informal 716 processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC Series 717 Oversight Committee. The RSOC may choose to offer advice to the RSE 718 or more general advice to the parties involved and may ask the RSE to 719 defer a decision until it formulates its advice. However, if a 720 timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation, and 721 mutual agreement, the Series Editor is expected to make whatever 722 decisions are needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC 723 Editor function; those decisions are final. 725 RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the 726 process and evaluation of whether current policies are appropriately 727 implemented in the decision or need adjustment. In particular, it 728 should be noted that final decisions about the technical content of 729 individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream 730 approvers for those documents, as shown in the illustration in 731 Figure 1. 733 If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual 734 consequences, the Series Editor must identify the issue to the IAOC 735 and, if the RSAG has provided advice, forward that advice as well. 736 After the IAOC has notified the IAB, the IAD as guided by the IAOC, 737 with advice provided by the Series Editor, has the responsibility to 738 resolve these contractual issues. 740 If informal agreements cannot be reached, then formal RSOC review and 741 decision making may be required. If so, the the RSE must identify 742 the issues involved to the community, so that the community is aware 743 of the situation. The RSE will the report the issue to the RSOC for 744 formal resolution by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its 745 oversight capacity. 747 IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected 748 to inform future changes to Series policies including possible 749 updates to this document. 751 4.2. Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board 753 Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board for the 754 review of Independent Submission stream documents. This board is 755 expected to evolve in what we will call the Independent Submission 756 Stream Editorial Board. This volunteer Editorial Board will exist at 757 the pleasure of the ISE, and the members serve at the pleasure of the 758 ISE. The existence of this board is simply noted within this model, 759 and additional discussion of such is considered out of scope of this 760 document. 762 5. IANA considerations 764 This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor 765 structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of 766 registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center. The IAOC 767 will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC 768 Production Center and IANA. 770 This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any 771 values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required. 773 6. Security considerations 775 The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply. The 776 processes for the publication of documents must prevent the 777 introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains 778 the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to 779 prevent these published documents from being changed by external 780 parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed 781 to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents 782 (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, non- 783 machine readable originals) need to be secured against failure of the 784 storage medium and other similar disasters. 786 The IAOC should take these security considerations into account 787 during the implementation of this RFC Editor model. 789 7. Acknowledgments 791 The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on 792 mail lists. The first iteration of the text on which this document 793 is based was first drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ray 794 Pelletier. In addition to the members of the IAOC and IAB in 795 conjunction with those roles, major and minor contributions were made 796 by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy 797 Ginoza, Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, 798 John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim Schaad. 800 The IAOC members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were 801 (in alphabetical order): Fred Baker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Ole 802 Jacobsen, Ed Juskevicius, Olaf Kolkman, Ray Pelletier (non-voting), 803 Lynn St.Amour, and Jonne Soininen. In addition, Marshall Eubanks was 804 serving as the IAOC Scribe. 806 The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved 807 were (in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, 808 Stuart Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry 809 Leiba, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, 810 Dave Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex- 811 officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive 812 Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair. 814 The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in 815 alphabetical order): Marcelo Bagnulo, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart 816 Cheshire, Vijay Gill, Russ Housley, John Klensin, Olaf Kolkman, 817 Gregory Lebovitz, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Jon 818 Peterson, and Dave Thaler. 820 8. References 821 8.1. Normative References 823 [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 824 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007. 826 8.2. Informative References 828 [RFC4333] Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, "The IETF Administrative 829 Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and 830 Process", BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005. 832 [RFC5620] Kolkman, O. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", 833 RFC 5620, August 2009. 835 Appendix A. Internet Draft editing details 837 [This appendix is to be removed at publication] 839 $Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 55 2009-06-08 12:32:59Z olaf $ 841 A.1. Section 00->01 843 Added Sandy and Alice to the acknowledgment section, they were 844 accidentally omitted 846 Added text so that the selection mechanism is explicitly documented. 847 The selection mechanism documents the use of an advisory committee 848 and is explicit about the fact that the community expands beyond the 849 IETF community. 851 Modified the RFC Editor Function name to "RFC Series Editor" in order 852 to minimize confusion between the collective of functions (RFC 853 Editor) and the function (Series Editor). 855 Added wording for specifying the technical competence needed by the 856 indep.subm.editor as suggested by JCK 858 Clarified the responsibilities of the production function in 859 Section 3.3 861 Enumerated qualifications of the RFC Editor 863 A.2. Section 01->02 865 Various nits corrected 867 Inconsistency in the use of RFC Production house and RFC Production 868 fixed: RFC Production Center used as term 869 Oversight over RFC consistency with the style manual has been made 870 explicit. 872 Clarified that the Independent Submission Stream Editors budget is 873 independent from the IETF/IASA. 875 Improved the language that clarified that the RFC Series editors and 876 Independent Submission Stream editor do not necessarily need to work 877 without assistants, while they bear the responsibility. 879 A.3. Section 02->03 881 Added Joel to the acknowledgments 883 Added the Advisory committee charter as a FYI 885 Added editorial skill and command of English as a requirement for the 886 ISE 888 In the responsibilities for the RFC series: Change "Participate in" 889 to "Provide input in" for IAOC Review. This makes the text more 890 implementation neutral. 892 Typo: Model is consistent with RFC4844 instead of 4884 894 Added "Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission 895 stream" as an explicit responsibility for the ISE. 897 A.4. section 03->04 899 [omitted by accident] 901 A.5. section 04->05 903 Introduced the concept of the RFC Series Advisory Group and reworked 904 the text to take this into account. This also caused the renaming of 905 the advisory group to an explicit "Independent Submission Stream 906 Editorial Board". 908 Rewrote the appeal process to take the RSAG into account 910 Extended the appointment period to 3 years 912 A.6. section 05->06 914 This version documents decisions made by the IAB during prior to 915 approval during its April 27-28 retreat 916 Addressed some nits 918 Rewritten details of dispute resolution. Also stopped using the 919 words appeal or dispute resolution as they have a specific meaning in 920 the standards process 922 The ISE's expenses are covered from the IASA budget. 924 The envisioned size of the RSAG is changed from 6 to un-specified, 925 the RSAG is allowed to advice on the size later 927 Rewrote/clarified requirements for RSE and ISE function 929 A.7. section 06->07 931 Fixed nits 933 Addressed some IAB concerns that were accidentally omitted in version 934 06 936 A.8. section 07->08 938 pen handed to Joel Halpern, added as Editor 940 clarified text on RSE non-authority to hire and fire. 942 Replaced structure diagram in section 3 with diagram developed by 943 Glenn Kowack. 945 Replaced responsibilities section (3) with a structure to match the 946 ongoing SoW, with content largely derived by Olaf Kolkman. 948 replaced RSAG section (4.1) with RSOC section, with new procedures 949 and responsibilities. 951 Removed description of 2009 selection process. 953 Authors' Addresses 955 Olaf M. Kolkman 957 EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl 958 Joel M. Halpern 959 Ericsson 961 EMail: joel.halpern@ericsson.com 963 Internet Architecture Board 965 EMail: iab@iab.org