idnits 2.17.1 draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-04.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 abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5620]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC5620, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC5620 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 12, 2012) is 4420 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) Summary: 3 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 Obsoletes: 5620 (if approved) J. Halpern (Ed.) 5 Intended status: Informational Ericsson 6 Expires: September 13, 2012 IAB 7 March 12, 2012 9 RFC Editor Model (Version 2) 10 draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-04 12 Abstract 14 The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out 15 by various people 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 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) 19 oversight by way of delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Committee 20 (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship between the IETF 21 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC. This 22 document reflects the experience gained with RFC Editor Model version 23 1, documented in [RFC5620] and obsoletes that document. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2012. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 2.1.2.2. External Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication . . . . 10 68 2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 2.1.5. Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 2.1.6. Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 2.1.7. Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 2.2. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 2.3. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 3. Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 3.1.1. RSOC Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 77 4. Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 78 4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher 79 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 80 4.2. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 81 4.3. Disagreements Among RFC Editor Related Entities . . . . . 18 82 4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 83 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 84 6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 85 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 86 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 87 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 88 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 90 1. Introduction 92 The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned 93 with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor 94 succession, maintaining RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility. 95 The IAB is also sensitive to the concerns of the IETF Administrative 96 Oversight Committee (IAOC) about providing the necessary services in 97 a cost effective and efficient manner. 99 The RFC series is described in [RFC4844]. Its Section 3.1 defines 100 "RFC Editor": 102 Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC 103 Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now 104 requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are 105 RFC Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be 106 multiple organizations working together to undertake the work 107 required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without 108 attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them, 109 this document refers to this collection of experts and 110 organizations as the "RFC Editor". 112 The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor, 113 acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC 114 Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the 115 RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition, 116 the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in 117 discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving 118 RFCs. 120 RFC 4844 does not explore the internal organization of the RFC 121 Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor 122 organizational structure. There have been several iterations on 123 efforts to improve and clarify this structure. These have been led 124 by the IAB, in consultation with the community and many leadership 125 bodies within the community. This first resulted in the publication 126 of [RFC5620], and then in further discussions leading to this 127 document. Some of the details on this evolution can be found below. 128 In undertaking this evolution, the IAB considered changes that 129 increase flexibility and operational support options, provide for the 130 orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of 131 the RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely 132 processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and 133 increasing cost transparency. The model set forth below describes 134 the internal organization of the RFC Editor, while remaining 135 consistent with RFC 4844. 137 Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC 138 Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo 139 provides a model for internal organization. This memo defines the 140 term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the 141 organizational components. 143 The contemporary RFC Editor model [RFC5620] was first approved in 144 October 1, 2008 and our understanding of the model has evolved with 145 our experience since then. During the implementation of version 1 of 146 the model [RFC5620] it was quickly realized that the role of the RSE 147 and the oversight responsibilities needed to be structured 148 differently. In order to gain experience with 'running code' a 149 transitional RFC Series Editor was hired who analyzed the managerial 150 environment and provided recommendations. This was followed by the 151 appointment of an acting RFC Series Editor, who ably managed the 152 series while work was undertaken to select and hire a permanent RSE. 153 This version of the model is based on the recommendations of both 154 temporary RFC Series Editors and the extensive discussion in the IETF 155 community, on the rfc-interest list and within the IAB. A such, this 156 document obsoletes [RFC5620]. 158 The document, and the resulting structures, will be modified as 159 needed through normal procedures. The RSE, and the IAB, through the 160 RFC Oversight Committee (see Section 3.1), will continue to monitor 161 discussions within the community about potential adjustments to the 162 RFC Editor model and recognizes that the process described in this 163 document may need to be adjusted to align with any changes that 164 result from such discussions, hence the version number in the title. 166 The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined 167 in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071]. 169 2. RFC Editor Model 171 The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series 172 into the following components: 174 o RFC Series Editor ("RSE"). 176 o RFC Production Center. 178 o RFC Publisher. 180 The structure and relationship of the components of the RFC Series 181 Production and Process is schematically represented by the figure 182 below. The picture does not depict oversight and escalation 183 relations. It does include the streams and their managers (which are 184 not part of the RFC Series Editor nor the production or publication 185 facilities) in order to more fully show the context in which the RFC 186 Series Editor operates. 188 +-------------+ 189 | | 190 +--------------+ IAB <------------+ 191 | | | | 192 | |=============| | 193 | | | | 194 | | RSOC <------------+ 195 | | | | 196 | +-------+-----+ +-----+-----+ 197 | | | | 198 | +...........|.........+ | Community | 199 | . | . | at | 200 | . +-------V-----+ . | Large | 201 | . | | . | | 202 | . | RFC | . +-----+-----+ 203 | . | Series | . | 204 | . | Editor <------------+ 205 | . | | . 206 | . +-+---------+-+ . 207 | . | | . 208 +-------------+ +-----V-------+ . +--V--+ +--V--+ . +-----+ 209 | | | | . | | | | . | | 210 | Independent | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E | 211 | Authors +--> Submission +-----> | | | . | n | 212 | | | Editor | . | P | | | . | d | 213 | | | | . | r | | RFC | . | | 214 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | | . | U | 215 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | d | | P | . | s | 216 | | | | . | u | | u | . | e | 217 | IAB +--> IAB +-----> c | | b | . | r | 218 | | | | . | t | | l | . | s | 219 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | i +---> i +--------> | 220 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | s | . | & | 221 | | | | . | n | | h | . | | 222 | IRTF +--> IRSG +---->| | | e | . | R | 223 | | | | . | C | | r | . | e | 224 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a | 225 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d | 226 | | | | . | t | | | . | e | 227 | IETF +--> IESG +-----> e | | | . | r | 228 | | | | . | r | | | . | s | 229 +-------------+ +-------------+ . +-----+ +-----+ . +-----+ 230 . . 231 +..... RFC Editor ....+ 233 Structure of RFC Series production and process. 235 Figure 1 237 In this model documents are produced and approved through multiple 238 document streams. The stream manager for each stream is responsible 239 for the content of that stream. The four streams that now exist are 240 described in [RFC4844]. The RFC Editor function is responsible for 241 the packaging and distribution of the documents. As such, documents 242 from these streams are edited and processed by the Production Center 243 and published by the Publisher. The RFC Series Editor will exercise 244 strategic leadership and management over the activities of the RFC 245 Publisher and the RFC Production Center (both of which can be seen as 246 back office functions) and will be the entity that: 248 o Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function within the 249 IETF and externally. 251 o Leads the community in the design of improvements to the RFC 252 Series. 254 o Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of 255 improvements in the RFC Editor Production and Access Processes. 257 o Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web site, 258 which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher. 260 o Is responsible for developing consensus versions of vision and 261 policy documents. These documents will be reviewed by the RFC 262 Series Oversight Committee (Section 3.1 and subject to its 263 approval before final publication. 265 These responsibilities are defined below, although the specific work 266 items under them are a matter for the actual employment contract and 267 its Statement of Work. 269 The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined 270 in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071]. More details on the oversight by the IAB 271 via the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) can be found in 272 Section 3.1. For example, the RSE does not have the direct authority 273 to hire or fire RFC Editor contractors or personnel. 275 2.1. RFC Series Editor 277 The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall responsibility 278 for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series. 280 The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the IAOC. The 281 IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the RSOC, which it 282 appoints. 284 The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IAOC and the stream 285 managers. 287 2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication and 288 Production Functions 290 With respect to the Publication and Production functions, the RSE 291 provides input to the IASA budget, statements of work, and manages 292 vendor selection processes. The RSE performs annual reviews of the 293 Production and Publication function which are then provided to the 294 RSOC the IASA, and the community. Normally private financial details 295 would not be included in a public version unless the IAOC concludes 296 it is necessary to make such information public. 298 The RSE is responsible for the performance of the Production Center 299 and Publisher. The RSE is responsible for issues that go beyond the 300 production or publication functions, such as cross-stream 301 coordination of priorities. Issues that require changes to the 302 budget or contracts shall be brought to the attention of the IAD by 303 the RSE. 305 The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and structures 306 that will allow for continuity of the RFC Series' in the face of 307 changes in contracts and personnel. 309 Vendor selection for the Production and Publisher functions is done 310 in cooperation with the streams and under final authority of the 311 IASA. Details on this process can be found in Section 4.1. 313 2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series 315 The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series. This 316 representation is important both internally, relative to the IETF, 317 and externally. 319 2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF 321 The RSE is the primary point of contact to the IETF on matters 322 relating to the RFC series in general, or policy matters relating to 323 specific documents. Issues of practical details in the processing of 324 specific documents are generally worked directly with the RFC 325 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, described in the following subsections, 334 must be understood and adhered to by the RSE in his or her 335 interactions with the community. These apply to the representation 336 function, as well as to the leadership the RSE provides for 337 Production and Series Development. 339 2.1.2.1.1. Volunteerism 341 The vast majority of Internet technical community work is led, 342 initiated, and done by community volunteers, including oversight, 343 policy-making, and direct production of, for example, many software 344 tools. The Series Editor while not a volunteer is dependent upon 345 these volunteer participants. Also, the spirit of the community is 346 heavily focused on and draws from these volunteers. As such, the 347 Series Editor needs to support the vitality and effectiveness of 348 volunteer participation. 350 2.1.2.1.2. Policy Authority 352 All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the broader 353 Internet community. The RSE is responsible for identifying 354 materially concerned interest groups within the Internet community 355 and reach out to them. Those interest groups include at least the 356 IETF community, the IRTF community, the network research community, 357 and the network operations community. Other interest groups might 358 also be materially interested. 360 The RSE must consult with the community on policy issues. The RSE 361 works with the community to achieve policy that meets the overall 362 quality, continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is charged with 363 meeting. As described below in Section 3.1 the RSE reports the 364 results of such interactions, to the RSOC, including a description of 365 the outreach efforts and the specific recommendations on policy. 366 This enables the RSOC to provide the oversight the IAB is required to 367 apply, as well as to confirm that the Internet community has been 368 properly consulted and considered in making policy. 370 2.1.2.2. External Representation 372 From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF 373 need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series. The RSE or 374 the RSE's designate serve this role. 376 Over time, the RSE should determine what if any means should be 377 employed to increase end-user awareness of the series, to reinforce 378 the stature of the Series, and will provide the contact point for 379 outside parties seeking information on the Series or the Editor. 381 2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication 383 Closely related to providing strategic leadership and management to 384 the RFC Production and Publication functions is the need to develop 385 and improve those functions. The RSE is responsible for ensuring 386 that such ongoing development takes place. 388 This effort must include the dimensions of document quality, 389 timeliness of production, and accessibility of results. It must also 390 specifically take into account issues raised by the IETF community, 391 including all the RFC Streams. 393 2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series 395 In order to develop the RFC Publication series the RSE is expected to 396 develop a relationships with the Internet technical community. The 397 Editor is expected to engage with the Internet technical community in 398 a process of articulating and refining a vision for the Series and 399 its continuous evolution. The RSE is expected to also engage with 400 other users of the RFC series, in particular with the consumers of 401 these documents such as those people who use them to specify 402 products, write code, test behaviors, or other related activities. 404 Concretely: 406 The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on 407 Series evolution among the Series' Stream participants and the 408 broader Internet technical community. 410 In time the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision for the 411 RFC Series, including examining: 413 * The RFC Series, as it continues to evolve. The RSE is expected 414 to take a broad view and be looking for the best ways to evolve 415 the series for the benefit of the entire Internet Community. 416 As such, the RSE may even consider evolution beyond the 417 historical 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis; and 419 * Its publication-technical environment: looking at whether it 420 should be slowly changing in terms of publication and archiving 421 techniques; particularly to better serve the communities that 422 produce and depend on the RFC Series. For example, all of 423 those communities have been slowly changing to include 424 significant multi-lingual and non-native-English populations. 425 Another example is that some of these constituencies also have 426 a shifted to include significant groups of members whose 427 primary focus is on the constraints and consequences of network 428 engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering 429 issues themselves. 431 For this type of responsibility the RSE cooperates closely with the 432 community and under oversight of the RSOC and thus ultimately under 433 oversight of the IAB. 435 2.1.5. Workload 437 The job is expected initially to take on average half of an FTE 438 (approx 20 hrs per week), with the workload per week near full time 439 during IETF weeks, well over 20 hours per week in the first few 440 months of the engagement, and higher during special projects. 442 2.1.6. Qualifications 444 The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional. The 445 following qualifications are desired: 447 1. Strategic leadership and management experience fulfilling the 448 requirements outlined in this document, the many aspects of this 449 role, and the coordination of the overall RFC Editor process. 451 2. Good understanding of the English language and technical 452 terminology related to the Internet. 454 3. Good communication skills. 456 4. Experience with editorial processes. 458 5. Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC 459 process. 461 6. Independent worker. 463 7. Willingness to, and availability for, Travel. 465 8. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and matrixed 466 environment with divided authority and responsibility similar to 467 that described in this document. 469 9. Experience with and ability to participate in, and manage 470 activities by email and teleconferences, not just face-to-face 471 interactions 473 10. Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management 474 of entire operations is desired. 476 11. Experience as an RFC author desired. 478 2.1.7. Conflict of Interest 480 The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of 481 interest or judgment in performing these roles. As such, the RSE is 482 barred from having any ownership, advisory, or other relationship to 483 the vendors executing the Publication or Production functions except 484 as specified elsewhere in this document. If necessary, an exception 485 can be made after public disclosure of those relationships and with 486 the explicit permission of the IAB and IAOC. 488 2.2. RFC Production Center 490 RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor 491 responsibilities include: 493 1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style 494 Manual, under the direction of the RSE; 496 2. Creating records of edits performed on documents; 498 3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact 499 and seeking necessary clarification; 501 4. Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds, IANA, 502 and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed; 504 5. Creating records of dialog with document authors; 506 6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed; 508 7. Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed; 510 8. Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC 511 Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external 512 reviews of the RFC Editor initiated by the IAB or IAOC; 514 9. Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry 515 actions; 517 10. Assigning RFC numbers; 519 11. Establishing publication readiness of each document through 520 communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA and/or 521 stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series 522 Editor; 524 12. Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher; 526 13. Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC 527 Publisher so these can be preserved; 529 14. Liaising with the streams as needed. 531 All these activities will be done under the general direction, but 532 not day to day management, of the RSE and need some level of 533 coordination with various submission streams and the RSE. 535 The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through an 536 IASA RFP process as described in Section 4.1. 538 2.3. RFC Publisher 540 The RFC Publisher responsibilities include: 542 1. Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs. 544 2. Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata. 546 3. Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata. 548 4. Providing backups. 550 5. Providing storage and preservation of records. 552 6. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings. 554 All these activities will be done under the general direction, but 555 not day to day management, of the RSE and need some level of 556 coordination with various submission streams and the RSE. 558 The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through an IASA RFP 559 process as described in Section 4.1. 561 3. Committees 563 3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) 565 The IAB is responsible for oversight over the RFC Series and acts as 566 a body for final conflict resolution, including the process described 567 in Section 4.3. 569 In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the nomcom 570 appointment cycle and assure that oversight includes suitable subject 571 matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group that implements 572 oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC). 574 The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: In general 575 it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision 576 documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the 577 community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due 578 diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed 579 the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB. 580 Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and 581 recommendations the benefit of the doubt. 583 For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g. hiring and 584 firing) the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB but final 585 decision is the responsibility of the IAB. For instance the RSOC 586 would: 588 o perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of these 589 reviews to the IAB. 591 o manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate 592 appointment (in other words select the RSE subject to IAB 593 approval) 595 RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of 596 interest and behave accordingly. 598 For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, RSOC will 599 propose a budget for the search process, and work with IASA to refine 600 that budget and develop remuneration criteria and an employment 601 agreement or contracting plans, as appropriate. 603 The RSOC will be responsible to ensure that the RFC Series is run in 604 a transparent and accountable manner. 606 The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order. 608 The initial RSOC was charged with designing and executing a 609 solicitation, search, and selection process for the first actual 610 (non-transition or "acting") RSE appointment. That process involved 611 iteration on this and related documents and evaluation of various 612 strategies and options. The RSOC was expected to describe the 613 process it ultimately selected to the community and did involve the 614 community in interim considerations when that was likely to be of 615 value. Following completion of the selection process, the RSOC will 616 determine the best way to share information learned and experience 617 gained with the community and to determine how to best preserve that 618 information for future use. 620 3.1.1. RSOC Composition 622 The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB 623 retaining final responsibility. The IAB will delegate authority and 624 responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE 625 relationships evolve. The RSOC will include people who are not 626 current IAB members. Currently, this is aligned with the IAB Program 627 structure. The IAB will designate the membership of the RSOC with 628 the goals of preserving effective stability, keeping it small enough 629 to be effective, but large enough to provide general Internet 630 Community expertise, specific IETF expertise, Publication expertise, 631 and stream expertise. Members serve at the pleasure of the IAB and 632 are expected to bring a balance between short and long term 633 perspective. Specific input about, and recommendations of, members 634 will be sought from the streams, the IASA, and the RSE. 636 In addition to the members from outside of the IAB appointed to the 637 RSOC, IAB members may participate as full members of the RSOC. Under 638 most circumstances, there will be a specific individual IAB member 639 appointed by the IAB as the program lead, who will be a full member 640 of the RSOC. This member's role is distinct from any RSOC internal 641 organizational roles, such as the RSOC choosing to appoint a chair 642 from among its members. Other IAB members may choose to be full 643 members of the RSOC, with the consent of the IAB. This consent is 644 primarily concerned with avoiding overpopulating the RSOC and 645 providing it with relatively stable membership, which will work best 646 if it is not too large a committee. 648 The IAOC will appoint an individual to serve as its Liaison to the 649 RSOC. The RSE and the IAOC Liaison will serve as non-voting ex- 650 officio members of the RSOC. Either or both can be excluded from its 651 discussions if necessary. 653 4. Administrative Implementation 655 The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual 656 activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF 657 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC, [RFC4071]) in cooperation 658 with the RFC Series Editor. The authority structure is described in 659 Figure 2 below. 661 +----------------+ +----------------+ 662 | | | | 663 | IAB | | IAOC | 664 | | | | 665 +==========+-----+ +-+--------------+ 666 | | . 667 | RSOC | . 668 | | . 669 +----+-----+ . 670 | . 671 | . 672 | ................... 673 | . . 674 +--------V---V----+ . 675 | | . 676 | RFC | . 677 | Series | . 678 | Editor | . 679 | | . 680 +--------+--------+ . 681 | . 682 | ................. 683 | . . 684 +--+----------------+ . 685 | . | . 686 | . | . 687 +---V-----V--+ +--V----V---+ 688 | RFC | | RFC | 689 | Production | | Publisher | 690 | Center | | | 691 +------------+ +-----------+ 693 Authority Structure of RFC Series 695 Legend: 697 ------- IAB RFC Series Oversight 698 ....... IAOC Contract/Budget Oversight 700 Figure 2 702 4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher Functions 704 As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation with the 705 streams and under the final authority of the IAOC. 707 The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and 708 participates in the IASA Vendor selection process. The work 709 definition is created within the IASA budget and takes into account 710 the stream managers and community input. 712 The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center, RFC 713 Publisher, and other RFC-related services, is as follows: 715 o The IAOC establishes the contract process, including the steps 716 necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the 717 contracting procedures. 719 o The IAOC establishes the Selection Committee, which will consist 720 of the RSE, the IAD, and other members selected by the RSOC and 721 the IAOC. The Committee shall be chaired by the RSE. 723 o The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to the 724 successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IAOC. In the 725 event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be 726 referred to the Selection Committee for further action. 728 o The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher either through 729 the IASA RFP process, or, at the Committee's option, the Committee 730 may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC Publisher services, 731 subject to negotiations in accordance with the IASA procedures. 733 4.2. Budget 735 The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They 736 have been and remain part of the IETF Administrative Support Activity 737 (IASA, [RFC4071]) budget. 739 The RFC Series portion of the IASA Budget shall include entries for 740 the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. The 741 IASA Budget shall also include entries for the streams, including the 742 independent stream. 744 The IAOC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor 745 budget (and the authority to deny it.) The RSE must work within the 746 IAOC budgetary process. 748 The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor to operate within 749 those budgets. If product needs change, the RSE is responsible for 750 working with the Production Center, and where appropriate, other RFC 751 Editor component institutions, relevant Streams, and/or the RSOC to 752 determine what the correct response should be. If they agree that a 753 budgetary change is needed, that needs to be taken to the IAD and the 754 IAOC. 756 4.3. Disagreements Among RFC Editor Related Entities 758 The RFC Series Editor, and the RFC Production and Publication 759 facilities, work with the various streams to produce RFCs. 760 Disagreements may arise between these entities during the execution 761 of the RFC Editor operations. In particular, different streams may 762 disagree with each other, or disagree with the RFC Editor function. 763 Potentially, even the RSOC or the IAOC could find themselves in 764 disagreement with some aspect of the RFC Editor operations. Note 765 that disagreements between an author and the production facility are 766 not cross-entity issues, and are to be resolved by the RSE, in 767 accordance with the rest of this document. 769 If such cross-entity disagreements arise, the community would 770 generally hope that they can be resolved politely and directly. 771 However, this is not always possible. At that point, any relevant 772 party would first formally request a review and reconsideration of 773 the decision. If the party still disagrees after the 774 reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or, especially 775 if the RSE is involved, the party may ask the IAB Chair (for a 776 technical or procedural matter) to mediate or appoint a mediator to 777 aid in the discussions, although he or she not is obligated to do so. 778 All parties should work informally and in good faith to reach a 779 mutually agreeable conclusion. As noted below, any such issues which 780 involve contractual matters must be brought to the addition of the 781 IAOC. If the IAB Chair is asked to assist in resolving the matter, 782 the Chair may ask for advice or seek assistance from anyone the Chair 783 deems helpful. The chair may also alert any appropriate individuals 784 or organizations to the existence of the issue. 786 If such a conclusion is not possible through those less formal 787 processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC Series 788 Oversight Committee. The RSOC may choose to offer advice to the RSE 789 or more general advice to the parties involved and may ask the RSE to 790 defer a decision until it formulates its advice. However, if a 791 timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation, and 792 mutual agreement, the Series Editor is expected to make whatever 793 decisions are needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC 794 Editor function; those decisions are final. 796 The RSE may make final decisions unilaterally only to assure the 797 functioning of the process and evaluation of whether current policies 798 are appropriately implemented in the decision or need adjustment. In 799 particular, it should be noted that final decisions about the 800 technical content of individual documents are the exclusive 801 responsibility of the stream approvers for those documents, as shown 802 in the illustration in Figure 1. 804 If informal agreements cannot be reached, then formal RSOC review and 805 decision making may be required. If so, the the RSE must identify 806 the issues involved to the community, so that the community is aware 807 of the situation. The RSE will the report the issue to the RSOC for 808 formal resolution by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its 809 oversight capacity. 811 IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected 812 to inform future changes to Series policies including possible 813 updates to this document. 815 4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact 817 If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual 818 consequences it falls under BCP 101 and IASA, and thus the Series 819 Editor must identify the issue and provide his or her advice to the 820 IAOC and, if the RSOC has provided advice, forward that advice as 821 well. The IAOC must notify the RSOC and IAB regarding the action it 822 concludes is required to resolve the issue based on it's applicable 823 procedures and provisions in the relevant contracts. 825 5. IANA considerations 827 This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor 828 structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of 829 registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center. The IAOC 830 will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC 831 Production Center and IANA. 833 This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any 834 values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required. 836 6. Security considerations 838 The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply. The 839 processes for the publication of documents must prevent the 840 introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains 841 the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to 842 prevent these published documents from being changed by external 843 parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed 844 to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents 845 (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, originals 846 that are not machine-readable) need to be secured against any kind of 847 data storage failure. 849 The IAOC should take these security considerations into account 850 during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC Editor model 851 contracts. 853 7. Acknowledgments 855 The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on 856 mail lists. The first iteration of the text on which this document 857 is based was first drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ray 858 Pelletier. In addition to the members of the IAOC and IAB in 859 conjunction with those roles, major and minor contributions were made 860 by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy 861 Ginoza, Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, 862 John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim Schaad. 864 The IAOC members at the time this RFC Editor model was approved were 865 (in alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba (ex officio), Eric Burger, 866 Dave Crocker, Marshall Eubanks, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley (ex 867 officio), Ole Jacobsen, Ray Pelletier (non-voting), and Lynn St.Amour 868 (ex officio). 870 The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved 871 were (in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, 872 Stuart Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry 873 Leiba, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, 874 Dave Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex- 875 officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive 876 Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair. 878 The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in 879 alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba, Ross Callon, Alissa Cooper, 880 Spencer Dawkins, Joel Halpern, Russ Housley, David Kessens, Olaf 881 Kolkman, Danny McPherson, Jon Peterson, Andrei Robachevsky, Dave 882 Thaler, and Hannes Tschofenig. In addition, the IAB included at the 883 time of approval two ex-officio members: Mary Barnes who was serving 884 as the IAB Executive Director, and Lars Eggert, who was serving as 885 the IRTF Chair. 887 8. References 889 8.1. Normative References 891 [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 892 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007. 894 [RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF 895 Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, 896 RFC 4071, April 2005. 898 [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of 899 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850, 900 May 2000. 902 8.2. Informative References 904 [RFC5620] Kolkman, O. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", 905 RFC 5620, August 2009. 907 Authors' Addresses 909 Olaf M. Kolkman 911 EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl 913 Joel M. Halpern 914 Ericsson 916 EMail: joel.halpern@ericsson.com 918 Internet Architecture Board 920 EMail: iab@iab.org