idnits 2.17.1 draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02.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 (June 27, 2011) is 4685 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 4333 (Obsoleted by RFC 8711) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5620 (Obsoleted by RFC 6548, RFC 6635) Summary: 2 errors (**), 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: December 29, 2011 Ericsson 6 IAB 7 June 27, 2011 9 RFC Editor Model (Version 2) 10 draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 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 three functions: The RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, 18 and the RFC Publisher. The function of the Independent Submission 19 Editor is also defined here. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) 20 oversight by way of delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Committee 21 (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship between the IETF 22 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC. This 23 document reflects 1 year of experience with RFC Editor Model version 24 1. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2011. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2. RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 2.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 2.1.1. Executive Management of the Publication and 64 Production Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 2.1.2.2. External Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication . . . . 9 69 2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 2.1.5. Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 2.1.6. Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 2.1.7. Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 2.2. Independent Submission Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 2.3. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 2.4. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 76 3. Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 14 78 3.1.1. RSOC Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 79 3.2. Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board . . . . . . 16 80 4. Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 81 4.1. Vendor Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 82 4.2. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 83 4.3. Disagreements Among RFC Editor Entities . . . . . . . . . 19 84 4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 85 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 86 6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 87 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 88 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 89 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 90 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 91 Appendix A. Internet Draft editing details . . . . . . . . . . . 21 92 A.1. Section 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 93 A.2. Section 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 94 A.3. Section 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 95 A.4. section 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 96 A.5. section 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 97 A.6. section 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 98 A.7. section 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 99 A.8. section 07->08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 100 A.9. v2-00->v2-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 101 A.10. v2-01->v2-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 103 1. Introduction 105 The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned 106 with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor 107 succession, maintaining RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility. 108 The IAB is also sensitive to the concerns of the IETF Administrative 109 Oversight Committee (IAOC) about providing the necessary services in 110 a cost effective and efficient manner. 112 The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844 [RFC4844]. 113 Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor": 115 Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC 116 Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now 117 requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are 118 RFC Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be 119 multiple organizations working together to undertake the work 120 required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without 121 attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them, 122 this document refers to this collection of experts and 123 organizations as the "RFC Editor". 125 The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor, 126 acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC 127 Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the 128 RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition, 129 the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in 130 discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving 131 RFCs. 133 RFC 4844 makes no attempt to explore the internal organization of the 134 RFC Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor 135 organizational structure. In discussion with the Internet community, 136 the IAB considered changes that increase flexibility and operational 137 support options, provides for the orderly succession of the RFC 138 Editor, and ensures the continuity of the RFC series, while 139 maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely processing, ensuring 140 document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost 141 transparency. The model set forth below is the result of those 142 discussions and the experience gained since, as described immediately 143 below, and examines the internal organization of the RFC Editor, 144 while remaining consistent with RFC 4844. This version of the 145 document also reflects the discussions, as described below, that have 146 occurred since the first efforts to clarify that internal 147 organization. 149 Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC 150 Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo 151 provides a model for internal organization. This memo defines the 152 term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the 153 organizational components. 155 The RFC Editor model was first approved in October 1, 2008 and has 156 evolved since. During the implementation of version 1 of the model 157 [RFC5620] it was quickly realized that the role of the RSE and the 158 oversight responsibilities needed to be structured differently. In 159 order to gain experience with 'running code' a transitional RFC 160 Series Editor was hired who analyzed the managerial environment and 161 provided recommendations. This version of the model is based on his 162 recommendations and the subsequent discussion on the rfc-interest 163 list. 165 The document, and the resulting structures, will be modified as 166 needed through normal procedures. The RSE, and the IAB, through the 167 RFC oversight committee (see Section 3.1), will continue to monitor 168 discussions within the community about potential adjustments to the 169 RFC Editor model and recognizes that the process described in this 170 document may need to be adjusted to align with any changes that 171 result from such discussions, hence the version number in the title. 173 The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined 174 in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071]. 176 2. RFC Editor Model 178 The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series 179 into the following components: 181 o RFC Series Editor ("RSE"). 183 o RFC Production Center. 185 o RFC Publisher. 187 The structure and relationship of the components of the RFC Series 188 Production and Process is schematically represented by the figure 189 below (the picture does not depict oversight and escalation 190 relations). 192 +-------------+ 193 | | 194 +--------------+ IAB <------------+ 195 | | | | 196 | |=============| | 197 | | | | 198 | | RSOC <------------+ 199 | | | | 200 | +-------+-----+ +-----+-----+ 201 | | | | 202 | +...........|.........+ | Community | 203 | . | . | at | 204 | . +-------V-----+ . | Large | 205 | . | | . | | 206 | . | RFC | . +-----+-----+ 207 | . | Series | . | 208 | . | Editor <------------+ 209 | . | | . 210 | . +-+---------+-+ . 211 | . | | . 212 +-------------+ +-----V-------+ . +--V--+ +--V--+ . +-----+ 213 | | | | . | | | | . | | 214 | Independent | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E | 215 | Authors +--> Submission +-----> | | | . | n | 216 | | | Manager | . | P | | | . | d | 217 | | | | . | r | | RFC | . | | 218 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | | . | U | 219 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | d | | P | . | s | 220 | | | | . | u | | u | . | e | 221 | IAB +--> IAB +-----> c | | b | . | r | 222 | | | | . | t | | l | . | s | 223 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | i +---> i +--------> | 224 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | s | . | & | 225 | | | | . | n | | h | . | | 226 | IRTF +--> IRSG +---->| | | e | . | R | 227 | | | | . | C | | r | . | e | 228 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a | 229 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d | 230 | | | | . | t | | | . | e | 231 | IETF +--> IESG +-----> e | | | . | r | 232 | | | | . | r | | | . | s | 233 +-------------+ +-------------+ . +-----+ +-----+ . +-----+ 234 . . 235 +..... RFC Editor ....+ 237 Structure of RFC Series production and process. 239 Figure 1 241 In this model documents are produced and approved through multiple 242 document streams. The stream manager for each stream is responsible 243 for the content of that stream. The four streams that now exist are 244 described in [RFC4844]. The RFC Editor function is responsible for 245 the packaging and distribution of the documents. As such, documents 246 from these streams are edited and processed by the Production Center 247 and published by the Publisher. The RFC Series Editor will exercise 248 executive management over the activities of the RFC Publisher and the 249 RFC Production Center (which can be seen as back office functions) 250 and will be the entity that: 252 o Provides Executive Management for the overall operation of the RFC 253 Editor, including the Production and Publication components. 255 o Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function within the 256 IETF and externally. 258 o Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of 259 improvements in the RFC Editor Production and Access Processes. 261 o Leads the community in the development of improvements to the RFC 262 Series. 264 o Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web site, 265 which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher. 267 o The RSE will develop consensus versions of vision and policy 268 documents which will be approved by the RFC Series Oversight 269 Committee (Section 3.1). 271 These responsibilities are defined below, although the specific work 272 items under them are a matter for the actual employment contract and 273 its Statement of Work. 275 The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined 276 in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071]. More details on the oversight by the IAB 277 via the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) can be found in 278 Section 3.1. For example, the RSE does not have the direct authority 279 to hire or fire RFC Editor contractors or personnel. 281 2.1. RFC Series Editor 283 The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall responsibility 284 for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series. 286 The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the IAOC. The 287 IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the RSOC, which it 288 appoints. 290 The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IAOC and the stream 291 managers. 293 2.1.1. Executive Management of the Publication and Production Functions 295 With respect to the Publication and Production functions, the RSE 296 provides input to the IASA budget, statements of work, and manages 297 vendor selection processes. The RSE performs annual reviews of the 298 Production and Publication function which are then provided to the 299 RSOC and the IASA. 301 The RSE is responsible for the performance of the Production Center 302 and Publisher. The RSE is responsible for issues that go beyond the 303 production or publication functions, such as cross-stream 304 coordination of priorities. Issues that require changes to the 305 budget or contracts shall be brought to the IAD by the RSE. 307 The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and structures 308 that will allow for the RFC Series' continuity in the face of changes 309 in contracts and personnel. 311 Vendor selection for these functions is done in cooperation with the 312 streams and under final authority of the IASA. Details on this 313 process can be found in Section 4.1. 315 2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series 317 The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series. This 318 representation is important both internally, relative to the IETF, 319 and externally. 321 2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF 323 The RSE is the primary point of contact to the IETF on matters other 324 than the practicalities of producing individual RFCs (which are 325 worked with the RFC Production Center staff.) 327 This includes providing suitable reports to the community at large; 328 providing email contact for policy questions and inputs; and enabling 329 and participating in suitable on-line forums for discussion of issues 330 related to the RFC Series. 332 Due to the history and nature of the interaction between the RSE and 333 the IETF, certain principles must be understood and adhered to by the 334 RSE in his or her interactions with the community. These apply to 335 the representation function, as well as to the leadership the RSE 336 provides in Production and Series Development. 338 2.1.2.1.1. Volunteerism 340 The vast majority of Internet technical community work is led, 341 initiated, and done by community volunteers, including oversight, 342 policy-making, and direct production of, for example, many software 343 tools. The Series Editor role relies on volunteer participation and 344 needs to support the vitality and effectiveness of volunteer 345 participation. 347 2.1.2.1.2. Policy Authority 349 All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the Internet 350 community. The IETF community is the arbiter of policy. The RSE 351 must consult with the IETF community on policy issues. The RSE works 352 with the IETF community to achieve policy that meets the overall 353 quality, continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is charged with 354 meeting. As described below in Section 3.1 the RSE reports the 355 results of such interactions to the RSOC, including the specific 356 recommendations on policy. This enables the RSOC to provide the 357 oversight the IAB is required to apply, as well as to confirm that 358 the IETF community has been properly consulted and considered in 359 making policy. 361 2.1.2.2. External Representation 363 From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF 364 need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series. The RSE is 365 that individual. 367 Over time, the RSE should determine what if any means should be 368 employed to increase end-user awareness of the series, and to 369 reinforce the stature of the Series, and will be the contact point 370 for outside parties seeking information on the Series or the Editor. 372 2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication 374 Closely related to providing executive management to the RFC 375 Production and Publication functions is the need to develop and 376 improve those functions. The RSE is responsible for ensuring that 377 such ongoing development takes place. 379 This effort must include the dimensions of document quality, 380 timeliness of production, and accessibility of results. It must also 381 specifically take into account issues raised by the IETF community, 382 including all the RFC Streams. 384 2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series 386 In order to develop the RFC Publication series the RSE is expected to 387 develop a relationships with the Internet technical community. With 388 that community, the Editor is expected to engage in a process of 389 articulating and refining a vision for the Series and its continuous 390 evolution. 392 Concretely: 394 The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on 395 Series evolution among the Series' Stream participants and the 396 broader Internet technical community. 398 In time the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision for the 399 RFC Series, including examining: 401 the technical specification series, as it continues to evolve. 402 The RSE is expected to take a broad view and be looking for the 403 best ways to evolve the series for the benefit of the entire 404 Internet Community. As such, the RSE may even consider 405 evolution beyond the historical 'by engineers for engineers' 406 emphasis; and 408 its publication-technical environment: looking at whether it 409 should be slowly changing in terms of publication and archiving 410 techniques; particularly to better serve the communities that 411 produce and depend on the RFC Series. For example, all of 412 those communities have been slowly changing to include 413 significant multi-lingual and non-native-English populations. 414 Another example is that some of these constituencies also have 415 a shifted to include significant groups of members whose 416 primary focus is on the constraints and consequences of network 417 engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering 418 issues themselves. 420 For this type of responsibility the RSE cooperates closely with the 421 community and under oversight of the RSOC and thus ultimately under 422 oversight of the IAB. 424 2.1.5. Workload 426 The job is expected initially to take on average half of an FTE 427 (approx 20 hrs per week), with the workload per week near full time 428 during IETF weeks, over 20 hours per week in the first few months of 429 the engagement, and higher during special projects. 431 2.1.6. Qualifications 433 The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional. The 434 following qualifications are desired: 436 1. Executive management experience fulfilling the requirements 437 outlined in this document, the many aspects of this role, and the 438 coordination of the overall RFC Editor process. 440 2. Good understanding of the English language and technical 441 terminology related to the Internet. 443 3. Good communication skills. 445 4. Experience with editorial processes. 447 5. Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC 448 process. 450 6. Independent worker. 452 7. Experience as an RFC author desired. 454 8. Willingness to Travel. 456 9. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and matrixed 457 environment with divided authority and responsibility similar to 458 that described in this document. 460 2.1.7. Conflict of Interest 462 The RSE is barred from having any ownership, advisory, or other 463 relationship to the vendors executing the Publication or Production 464 functions except as specified elsewhere in this document in order to 465 prevent actual or apparent problems with conflicts of interest or 466 judgment. If necessary, an exception can be made after public 467 disclosure of those relationships and with the explicit permission of 468 the IAB and IAOC. 470 2.2. Independent Submission Editor 472 The Independent Submission Editor (ISE) is the head of the 473 Independent Submission Stream of RFCs, as defined by [RFC4844]. The 474 Independent Stream and the Independent Submission Editor are not 475 under the authority or direction of the RSE. As noted below, the ISE 476 is appointed by and is responsible directly to the IAB. 478 The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have 479 assistants and who is responsible for: 481 1. Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission 482 stream. 484 2. Reviewing, approving, and processing Independent Submissions. 486 3. Forwarding draft RFCs in the Independent Submission Stream to the 487 RFC Production Center. 489 4. Reviewing and approving Independent Submissions RFC errata. 491 5. Coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies 492 as specified by the IAB and RSE. 494 6. Providing statistics and documentation as requested by the RSE 495 and/or IAOC. 497 The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the 498 following qualifications are desired: 500 1. Technical competence, i.e., broad technical experience and 501 perspective across the whole range of Internet technologies and 502 applications, and specifically, the ability to work effectively 503 with portions of that spectrum in which no personal expertise 504 exists. 506 2. Thorough familiarity with the RFC series. 508 3. An ability to define and constitute advisory and document review 509 arrangements. If those arrangements include an Editorial Board 510 similar to the current one or some equivalent arrangement, assess 511 the technical competence of potential Editorial Board members. 513 4. Good standing in the technical community, in and beyond the IETF. 515 5. Demonstrated editorial skills, good command of the English 516 language, and demonstrated history of being able to work 517 effectively with technical documents and materials created by 518 others. 520 6. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment with 521 divided authority and responsibility similar to that described in 522 this document. 524 The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an advisory 525 board (see Section 3.2) and may form a team to perform the activities 526 needed to fulfill their responsibilities. 528 The individual with the listed qualifications will be selected by the 529 IAB after input is collected from the community. An approach similar 530 to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year 531 as described in [RFC4333] should be used. While the ISE itself is 532 considered a volunteer function, the IAB considers maintaining the 533 Independent Submission stream part of the IAB's supported activities, 534 and will include the expenses made for the support of the ISE in its 535 IASA-supported budget. 537 2.3. RFC Production Center 539 RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor 540 responsibilities include: 542 1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style 543 Manual, under the direction of the RSE; 545 2. Creating records of edits performed on documents; 547 3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact 548 and seeking necessary clarification; 550 4. Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds, IANA, 551 and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed; 553 5. Creating records of dialog with document authors; 555 6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed; 557 7. Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed; 559 8. Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC 560 Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external 561 reviews of the RFC Editor initiated by the IAB or IAOC; 563 9. Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry 564 actions; 566 10. Assigning RFC numbers; 568 11. Establishing publication readiness of each document through 569 communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA and/or 570 stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series 571 Editor; 573 12. Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher; 574 13. Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC 575 Publisher so these can be preserved; 577 14. Liaising with the streams as needed. 579 All these activities will be done under the general direction, but 580 not day to day management, of the RSE and need some level of 581 coordination with various submission streams and the RSE. 583 The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through an 584 IASA RFP process as described in Section 4.1. 586 2.4. RFC Publisher 588 The RFC Publisher responsibilities include: 590 1. Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs. 592 2. Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata. 594 3. Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata. 596 4. Providing backups. 598 5. Providing storage and preservation of records. 600 6. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings. 602 All these activities will be done under the general direction, but 603 not day to day management, of the RSE and need some level of 604 coordination with various submission streams and the RSE. 606 The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through an IASA RFP 607 process as described in Section 4.1. 609 3. Committees 611 3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) 613 The IAB is responsible for oversight over the RFC Series and acts as 614 a body for appeal and conflict resolution. 616 In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the nomcom 617 appointment cycle and assure that oversight is informed through 618 subject matter experts the IAB will establish a group that implements 619 oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC). 621 The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: In general 622 it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision 623 documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the 624 community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due 625 diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed 626 the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB. 627 Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and 628 recommendations the benefit of the doubt. 630 In those general cases the IAB is ultimately responsible for 631 oversight and acts as a body for appeal and resolution. 633 For all aspects that affect the RSE itself (e.g. hiring and firing) 634 the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB but final decision is 635 the responsibility of the IAB. For instance the RSOC would: 637 o perform annual reviews of the RSE and reports to the IAB. 639 o manage RSE candidate selection and advises the IAB on candidate 640 appointment (in other words select the RSE, subject to IAB 641 approval) 643 RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of 644 interest and behave accordingly. 646 RSOC will also work with the IASA, proposing a budget, and the 647 remuneration and employment agreement of the RSE position. 649 The RSOC will be responsible to ensure that the RFC Series is run in 650 a transparent and accountable manner. 652 The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order. 654 One of the first responsibilities of the RSOC will be to define in 655 detail the solicitation and selection process for the next RSE. The 656 RSOC is expected to document to the community the process it selects. 657 Upon completion of the selection, the RSOC should determine the best 658 way to preserve this information for future use. 660 3.1.1. RSOC Composition 662 The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB 663 retaining final responsibility. The IAB will delegate authority and 664 responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE 665 relationships evolve. The RSOC will include people who are not 666 current IAB members. Currently, this is aligned with the IAB Program 667 structure. The IAB will designate the membership of the RSOC with 668 the goals of preserving effective stability, keeping it small enough 669 to be effective, but large enough to provide general Internet 670 Community expertise, specific IETF expertise, Publication expertise, 671 and stream expertise. Members serve at the pleasure of the IAB and 672 are expected to bring a balance between short and long term 673 perspective. Specific input about, and recommendations of, members 674 will be sought from the streams, the IASA, and the RSE. 676 The IAOC will appoint an individual to serve as its Liaison to the 677 RSOC. The RSE and this Liaison will serve as non-voting ex-officio 678 members of the RSOC. Either or both can be excluded from its 679 discussions if necessary. 681 3.2. Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board 683 The Independent Submission Editor is supported by an Editorial Board 684 for the review of Independent Submission stream documents. This 685 board is known as the Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board. 686 This volunteer Editorial Board exists at the pleasure of the ISE, and 687 the members serve at the pleasure of the ISE. The existence of this 688 board is simply noted within this model, and additional discussion of 689 such is considered out of scope of this document. 691 4. Administrative Implementation 693 The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual 694 activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF 695 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC, [RFC4071]) in cooperation 696 with the RFC Series Editor. The authority structure is described in 697 Figure 2 below. 699 +----------------+ +----------------+ 700 | | | | 701 | IAB | | IAOC | 702 | | | | 703 +==========+--+--+ +-+-----------+--+ 704 | | | . . 705 | RSOC | | . . 706 | | | . . 707 +----+-----+ | . . 708 | +-------------------+ . 709 | . | . 710 | ................... | . 711 | . . | . 712 +--------V---V----+ . +--V----V--------+ 713 | | . | | 714 | RFC | . | Independent | 715 | Series | . | Series | 716 | Editor | . | Editor | 717 | | . | | 718 +--------+--------+ . +----------------+ 719 | . 720 | ................. 721 | . . 722 +--+----------------+ . 723 | . | . 724 | . | . 725 +---V-----V--+ +--V----V---+ 726 | RFC | | RFC | 727 | Production | | Publisher | 728 | Center | | | 729 +------------+ +-----------+ 731 Authority Structure of RFC Series 733 Legend: 735 ------- IAB RFC Series Oversight 736 ....... IAOC Contract/Budget Oversight 738 Figure 2 740 4.1. Vendor Selection 742 As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation with the 743 streams and under the final authority of the IAOC. 745 The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and 746 participates in the IASA Vendor selection process. The work 747 definition is created within the IASA budget and takes into account 748 the stream managers and community input. 750 The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center, RFC 751 Publisher, and other RFC-related services, is as follows: 753 o The IAOC establishes the contract process, including the steps 754 necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the 755 contracting procedures. 757 o The IAOC establishes the Selection Committee, which will consist 758 of the RSE, the IAD, and other members selected by the RSOC and 759 the IAOC. The Committee shall be chaired by the RSE. 761 o The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to the 762 successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IAOC. In the 763 event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be 764 referred to the Selection Committee for further action. 766 o The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher either through 767 the IASA RFP process, or, at the Committee's option, the Committee 768 may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC Publisher services, 769 subject to negotiations in accordance with the IASA procedures. 771 4.2. Budget 773 The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They 774 have been and remain part of the IETF Administrative Support Activity 775 (IASA, [RFC4071]) budget. 777 The RFC Series portion of the IASA Budget shall include entries for 778 the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. The 779 IASA Budget shall also include entries for the streams, including the 780 independent stream. 782 The IAOC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor 783 budget (and the authority to deny it.) The RSE must work within the 784 IAOC budgetary process. 786 The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor to operate within 787 those budgets. If product needs change, the RSE is responsible for 788 working with the Production Center to determine what the correct 789 response should be. If they agree that a budgetary change is needed, 790 that needs to be taken to the IAD and the IAOC. 792 4.3. Disagreements Among RFC Editor Entities 794 If during the execution of their activities, a disagreement arises 795 over an implementation decision made by one of the entities in the 796 model, any relevant party should first request a review and 797 reconsideration of the decision. If that party still disagrees after 798 the reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or, 799 especially if the RSE is involved, that party may ask the IAB Chair 800 (for a technical or procedural matter) to mediate or appoint a 801 mediator to aid in the discussions, although not is obligated to do 802 so. All parties should work informally and in good faith to reach a 803 mutually agreeable conclusion. 805 If such a conclusion is not possible through those informal 806 processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC Series 807 Oversight Committee. The RSOC may choose to offer advice to the RSE 808 or more general advice to the parties involved and may ask the RSE to 809 defer a decision until it formulates its advice. However, if a 810 timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation, and 811 mutual agreement, the Series Editor is expected to make whatever 812 decisions are needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC 813 Editor function; those decisions are final. 815 RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the 816 process and evaluation of whether current policies are appropriately 817 implemented in the decision or need adjustment. In particular, it 818 should be noted that final decisions about the technical content of 819 individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream 820 approvers for those documents, as shown in the illustration in 821 Figure 1. 823 If informal agreements cannot be reached, then formal RSOC review and 824 decision making may be required. If so, the the RSE must identify 825 the issues involved to the community, so that the community is aware 826 of the situation. The RSE will the report the issue to the RSOC for 827 formal resolution by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its 828 oversight capacity. 830 IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected 831 to inform future changes to Series policies including possible 832 updates to this document. 834 4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact 836 If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual 837 consequences it falls under BCP 101 and IASA, and thus the Series 838 Editor must identify the issue and provide his or her advice to the 839 IAOC and, if the RSOC has provided advice, forward that advice as 840 well. After the IAOC has notified the IAB, the IAD, as guided by the 841 IAOC, has the responsibility to resolve these contractual issues 842 under applicable procedures in BCP 101 and such appropriate 843 contracts. 845 5. IANA considerations 847 This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor 848 structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of 849 registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center. The IAOC 850 will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC 851 Production Center and IANA. 853 This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any 854 values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required. 856 6. Security considerations 858 The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply. The 859 processes for the publication of documents must prevent the 860 introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains 861 the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to 862 prevent these published documents from being changed by external 863 parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed 864 to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents 865 (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, non- 866 machine readable originals) need to be secured against failure of the 867 storage medium and other similar disasters. 869 The IAOC should take these security considerations into account 870 during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC Editor model 871 contracts. 873 7. Acknowledgments 875 The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on 876 mail lists. The first iteration of the text on which this document 877 is based was first drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ray 878 Pelletier. In addition to the members of the IAOC and IAB in 879 conjunction with those roles, major and minor contributions were made 880 by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy 881 Ginoza, Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, 882 John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim Schaad. 884 The IAOC members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were 885 (in alphabetical order): Fred Baker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Ole 886 Jacobsen, Ed Juskevicius, Olaf Kolkman, Ray Pelletier (non-voting), 887 Lynn St.Amour, and Jonne Soininen. In addition, Marshall Eubanks was 888 serving as the IAOC Scribe. 890 The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved 891 were (in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, 892 Stuart Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry 893 Leiba, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, 894 Dave Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex- 895 officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive 896 Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair. 898 The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in 899 alphabetical order): Marcelo Bagnulo, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart 900 Cheshire, Vijay Gill, Russ Housley, John Klensin, Olaf Kolkman, 901 Gregory Lebovitz, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Jon 902 Peterson, and Dave Thaler. 904 8. References 906 8.1. Normative References 908 [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 909 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007. 911 [RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF 912 Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, 913 RFC 4071, April 2005. 915 [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of 916 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850, 917 May 2000. 919 8.2. Informative References 921 [RFC4333] Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, "The IETF Administrative 922 Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and 923 Process", BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005. 925 [RFC5620] Kolkman, O. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", 926 RFC 5620, August 2009. 928 Appendix A. Internet Draft editing details 930 [This appendix is to be removed at publication] 932 $Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 55 2009-06-08 12:32:59Z olaf $ 934 A.1. Section 00->01 936 Added Sandy and Alice to the acknowledgment section, they were 937 accidentally omitted 939 Added text so that the selection mechanism is explicitly documented. 940 The selection mechanism documents the use of an advisory committee 941 and is explicit about the fact that the community expands beyond the 942 IETF community. 944 Modified the RFC Editor Function name to "RFC Series Editor" in order 945 to minimize confusion between the collective of functions (RFC 946 Editor) and the function (Series Editor). 948 Added wording for specifying the technical competence needed by the 949 indep.subm.editor as suggested by JCK 951 Clarified the responsibilities of the production function in 952 Section 2.3 954 Enumerated qualifications of the RFC Editor 956 A.2. Section 01->02 958 Various nits corrected 960 Inconsistency in the use of RFC Production house and RFC Production 961 fixed: RFC Production Center used as term 963 Oversight over RFC consistency with the style manual has been made 964 explicit. 966 Clarified that the Independent Submission Stream Editors budget is 967 independent from the IETF/IASA. 969 Improved the language that clarified that the RFC Series editors and 970 Independent Submission Stream editor do not necessarily need to work 971 without assistants, while they bear the responsibility. 973 A.3. Section 02->03 975 Added Joel to the acknowledgments 977 Added the Advisory committee charter as a FYI 979 Added editorial skill and command of English as a requirement for the 980 ISE 981 In the responsibilities for the RFC series: Change "Participate in" 982 to "Provide input in" for IAOC Review. This makes the text more 983 implementation neutral. 985 Typo: Model is consistent with RFC4844 instead of 4884 987 Added "Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission 988 stream" as an explicit responsibility for the ISE. 990 A.4. section 03->04 992 [omitted by accident] 994 A.5. section 04->05 996 Introduced the concept of the RFC Series Advisory Group and reworked 997 the text to take this into account. This also caused the renaming of 998 the advisory group to an explicit "Independent Submission Stream 999 Editorial Board". 1001 Rewrote the appeal process to take the RSAG into account 1003 Extended the appointment period to 3 years 1005 A.6. section 05->06 1007 This version documents decisions made by the IAB during prior to 1008 approval during its April 27-28 retreat 1010 Addressed some nits 1012 Rewritten details of dispute resolution. Also stopped using the 1013 words appeal or dispute resolution as they have a specific meaning in 1014 the standards process 1016 The ISE's expenses are covered from the IASA budget. 1018 The envisioned size of the RSAG is changed from 6 to un-specified, 1019 the RSAG is allowed to advice on the size later 1021 Rewrote/clarified requirements for RSE and ISE function 1023 A.7. section 06->07 1025 Fixed nits 1027 Addressed some IAB concerns that were accidentally omitted in version 1028 06 1030 A.8. section 07->08 1032 pen handed to Joel Halpern, added as Editor 1034 clarified text on RSE non-authority to hire and fire. 1036 Replaced structure diagram in section 3 with diagram developed by 1037 Glenn Kowack. 1039 Replaced responsibilities section (3) with a structure to match the 1040 ongoing SoW, with content largely derived by Olaf Kolkman. 1042 replaced RSAG section (4.1) with RSOC section, with new procedures 1043 and responsibilities. 1045 Removed description of 2009 selection process. 1047 A.9. v2-00->v2-01 1049 Editorial corrections and reference additions. 1051 Rewriting text on the vision for the development of the RFC Series. 1053 Clean up the text explaining the relationship between RSE management 1054 and IAOC budgetary authority. 1056 cleaned up text to better explain the RSE's role in judging community 1057 policy consensus. 1059 Clarified the general but not day to day managerial relationship of 1060 the RSE with the production and publication facilities. 1062 Highlight special handling of disagreements with contractual 1063 implications. 1065 Clarify that the ISE is part of the RFC Editor function, but not 1066 under the authority of the RSE. 1068 A.10. v2-01->v2-02 1070 Extensive reorganization of the text 1072 Significant clarification of the vendor selection process. 1074 Clarify which community the RFC Editor policies are supposed to 1075 serve, and which community is consulted in setting those policies. 1077 Authors' Addresses 1079 Olaf M. Kolkman 1081 EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl 1083 Joel M. Halpern 1084 Ericsson 1086 EMail: joel.halpern@ericsson.com 1088 Internet Architecture Board 1090 EMail: iab@iab.org