idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-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 (January 3, 2019) is 1940 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-03 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6635 (Obsoleted by RFC 8728) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3777 (Obsoleted by RFC 7437) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5620 (Obsoleted by RFC 6548, RFC 6635) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 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: 6635 (if approved) J. Halpern, Ed. 5 Intended status: Informational Ericsson 6 Expires: July 7, 2019 IAB 8 R. Hinden, Ed. 9 Check Point Software 10 January 3, 2019 12 RFC Editor Model (Version 2) 13 draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-02 15 Abstract 17 The RFC Editor model described in this document divides the 18 responsibilities for the RFC Series into three functions: the RFC 19 Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. 20 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight via the RFC Series 21 Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship 22 between the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company and the 23 RSOC. This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor 24 Model (Version 1)", documented in RFC 5620; and obsoletes RFC 6635 to 25 replace all references to the IASA and related structures with those 26 defined by the IASA 2.0 Model. 28 Status of This Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 7, 2019. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 52 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 53 publication of this document. Please review these documents 54 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 55 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 56 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 57 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 58 described in the Simplified BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 1.1. The RFC Editor Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 2. RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 2.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the 67 Publication and Production Functions . . . . . . . . 8 68 2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 2.1.2.2. External Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication . . . . 10 72 2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 2.1.5. Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 2.1.6. Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 75 2.1.7. Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 2.2. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 2.3. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 3. Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 79 3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 3.1.1. RSOC Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 81 4. Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 82 4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher 83 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 84 4.2. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 85 4.3. Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor . 18 86 4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 87 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 88 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 89 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 90 8. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . 20 91 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 92 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 93 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 94 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 96 1. Introduction 98 This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor Model 99 (Version 1)", documented in [RFC5620], and updates the RFC Editor 100 Model (Version 2) to be aligned with the new IASA 2.0 Model 101 [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] that creates a IETF Administration 102 Limited Liability Company ("LLC") managed by a board of directors 103 ("LLC Board"). As part of the IASA 2.0 Model the Internet 104 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) is eliminated, and its 105 oversight and advising functions transferred to the new LLC. This 106 document obsoletes [RFC6635] to replace all references to the IASA 107 and related structures with those defined by the IASA 2.0 Model. 109 The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned 110 with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor 111 succession, RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility. The IAB is 112 also sensitive to the concerns of the LLC about providing the 113 necessary services in a cost-effective and efficient manner. 115 The contemporary RFC Editor model [RFC5620] was first approved in 116 October 2008, and our understanding of the model has evolved with our 117 experience since. During the implementation of version 1 of the 118 model [RFC5620], it was quickly realized that the role of the RFC 119 Series Editor (RSE) and the oversight responsibilities needed to be 120 structured differently. In order to gain experience with "running 121 code", a transitional RSE was hired who analyzed the managerial 122 environment and provided recommendations. This was followed by the 123 appointment of an acting RSE, who ably managed the series while work 124 was undertaken to select and hire a permanent RSE. This version of 125 the model is based on the recommendations of both temporary RFC 126 Series Editors and the extensive discussion in the IETF community, on 127 the rfc-interest list, and within the IAB. 129 This document, and the resulting structures, will be modified as 130 needed through normal procedures. The RSE, and the IAB, through the 131 RFC Oversight Committee (see Section 3.1), will continue to monitor 132 discussions within the community about potential adjustments to the 133 RFC Editor model and recognize that the process described in this 134 document may need to be adjusted to align with any changes that 135 result from such discussions; hence, the version number in the title. 137 The IAB maintains it's responsibilities as defined in [RFC2850]. 139 1.1. The RFC Editor Function 141 The RFC Series is described in [RFC4844]. Its Section 3.1 defines 142 "RFC Editor": 144 Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC 145 Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now 146 requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are 147 RFC Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be 148 multiple organizations working together to undertake the work 149 required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without 150 attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them, 151 this document refers to this collection of experts and 152 organizations as the "RFC Editor". 154 The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor, 155 acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC 156 Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the 157 RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In 158 addition, the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime 159 mover in discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and 160 archiving RFCs. 162 RFC 4844 does not explore the internal organization of the RFC 163 Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor 164 organizational structure. There have been several iterations on 165 efforts to improve and clarify this structure. These have been led 166 by the IAB, in consultation with the community and many leadership 167 bodies within the community. This first resulted in the publication 168 of [RFC5620] and then in further discussions leading to this 169 document. Some of the details on this evolution can be found below. 170 In undertaking this evolution, the IAB considered changes that 171 increase flexibility and operational support options, provide for the 172 orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of 173 the RFC Series, while maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely 174 processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and 175 increasing cost transparency. The model set forth below describes 176 the internal organization of the RFC Editor, while remaining 177 consistent with RFC 4844. 179 Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC 180 Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo 181 provides a model for internal organization. This memo defines the 182 term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the 183 organizational components. 185 2. RFC Editor Model 187 The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series 188 into the following components: 190 o RFC Series Editor (RSE) 192 o RFC Production Center 194 o RFC Publisher 196 The structure and relationship of the components of the RFC Series 197 production and process is schematically represented by the figure 198 below. The picture does not depict oversight and escalation 199 relations. It does include the streams and their managers (which are 200 not part of the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, or 201 Publisher facilities) in order to more fully show the context in 202 which the RFC Series Editor operates. 204 +-------------+ 205 | | 206 +--------------+ IAB <------------+ 207 | | | | 208 | |=============| | 209 | | | | 210 | | RSOC <------------+ 211 | | | | 212 | +-------+-----+ +-----+-----+ 213 | | | | 214 | +...........|.........+ | Community | 215 | . | . | at | 216 | . +-------V-----+ . | Large | 217 | . | | . | | 218 | . | RFC | . +-----+-----+ 219 | . | Series | . | 220 | . | Editor <------------+ 221 | . | | . 222 | . +-+---------+-+ . 223 | . | | . 224 +-------------+ +-----V-------+ . +--V--+ +--V--+ . +-----+ 225 | | | | . | | | | . | | 226 | Independent | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E | 227 | Authors +--> Submission +-----> | | | . | n | 228 | | | Editor | . | P | | | . | d | 229 | | | | . | r | | RFC | . | | 230 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | | . | U | 231 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | d | | P | . | s | 232 | | | | . | u | | u | . | e | 233 | IAB +--> IAB +-----> c | | b | . | r | 234 | | | | . | t | | l | . | s | 235 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | i +---> i +--------> | 236 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | s | . | & | 237 | | | | . | n | | h | . | | 238 | IRTF +--> IRSG +---->| | | e | . | R | 239 | | | | . | C | | r | . | e | 240 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a | 241 +-------------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d | 242 | | | | . | t | | | . | e | 243 | IETF +--> IESG +-----> e | | | . | r | 244 | | | | . | r | | | . | s | 245 +-------------+ +-------------+ . +-----+ +-----+ . +-----+ 246 . . 247 +..... RFC Editor ....+ 249 Structure of RFC Series Production and Process 251 Figure 1 253 In this model, documents are produced and approved through multiple 254 document streams. The stream manager for each stream is responsible 255 for the content of that stream. The four streams that now exist are 256 described in [RFC4844]. The RFC Editor function is responsible for 257 the packaging and distribution of the documents. As such, documents 258 from these streams are edited and processed by the Production Center 259 and published by the Publisher. The RFC Series Editor will exercise 260 strategic leadership and management over the activities of the RFC 261 Publisher and the RFC Production Center (both of which can be seen as 262 back-office functions) and will be the entity that: 264 o Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function within the 265 IETF and externally. 267 o Leads the community in the design of improvements to the RFC 268 Series. 270 o Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of 271 improvements in the RFC Editor production and access processes. 273 o Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web site, 274 which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher. 276 o Is responsible for developing consensus versions of vision and 277 policy documents. These documents will be reviewed by the RFC 278 Series Oversight Committee (Section 3.1) and subject to its 279 approval before final publication. 281 These responsibilities are defined below, although the specific work 282 items under them are a matter for the actual employment contract and 283 its Statement of Work (SOW). 285 The IAB maintain it's chartered responsibility as defined in 286 [RFC2850]. More details on the oversight by the IAB via the RFC 287 Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) can be found in Section 3.1. For 288 example, the RSE does not have the direct authority to hire or fire 289 RFC Editor contractors or personnel. 291 2.1. RFC Series Editor 293 The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall responsibility 294 for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series. 296 The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the LLC. The 297 IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the RSOC, which it 298 appoints. 300 The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the LLC and the stream 301 managers. 303 2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication and 304 Production Functions 306 With respect to the RFC Publisher and Production Center functions, 307 the RSE provides input to the LLC budget, SOWs, and manages vendor 308 selection processes. The RSE performs annual reviews of the RFC 309 Production Center and Publisher function, which are then provided to 310 the RSOC, the LLC, and the community. Normally, private financial 311 details would not be included in a public version unless the LLC 312 concludes it is necessary to make such information public. 314 The RSE is responsible for the performance of the RFC Production 315 Center and Publisher. The RSE is responsible for issues that go 316 beyond the RFC Production Center or Publisher functions, such as 317 cross-stream coordination of priorities. Issues that require changes 318 to the budget or contracts shall be brought to the attention of the 319 LLC by the RSE. 321 The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and structures 322 that will allow for continuity of the RFC Series in the face of 323 changes in contracts and personnel. 325 Vendor selection for the RFC Production Center and Publisher 326 functions is done in cooperation with the streams and under final 327 authority of the LLC. Details on this process can be found in 328 Section 4.1. 330 2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series 332 The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series. This 333 representation is important both internally, relative to the IETF, 334 and externally. 336 2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF 338 The RSE is the primary point of contact to the IETF on matters 339 relating to the RFC Series in general, or policy matters relating to 340 specific documents. Issues of practical details in the processing of 341 specific documents are generally worked through directly with the RFC 342 Production Center staff. 344 This includes providing suitable reports to the community at large, 345 providing email contact for policy questions and inputs, and enabling 346 and participating in suitable on-line forums for discussion of issues 347 related to the RFC Series. 349 Due to the history and nature of the interaction between the RSE and 350 the IETF, certain principles, described in the following subsections, 351 must be understood and adhered to by the RSE in his or her 352 interactions with the community. These apply to the representation 353 function, as well as to the leadership the RSE provides for 354 production and series development. 356 2.1.2.1.1. Volunteerism 358 The vast majority of Internet technical community work is led, 359 initiated, and done by community volunteers, including oversight, 360 policy making, and direct production of, for example, many software 361 tools. The RSE, while not a volunteer, is dependent upon these 362 volunteer participants. Also, the spirit of the community is heavily 363 focused on and draws from these volunteers. As such, the RSE needs 364 to support the vitality and effectiveness of volunteer participation. 366 2.1.2.1.2. Policy Authority 368 All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the broader 369 Internet community. The RSE is responsible for identifying 370 materially concerned interest groups within the Internet community 371 and reaching out to them. Those interest groups include at least the 372 IETF community, the IRTF community, the network research community, 373 and the network operations community. Other interest groups might 374 also be materially interested. 376 The RSE must consult with the community on policy issues. The RSE 377 works with the community to achieve policy that meets the overall 378 quality, continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is charged with 379 meeting. As described in Section 3.1, the RSE reports the results of 380 such interactions to the RSOC, including a description of the 381 outreach efforts and the specific recommendations on policy. This 382 enables the RSOC to provide the oversight the IAB is required to 383 apply, as well as to confirm that the Internet community has been 384 properly consulted and considered in making policy. 386 2.1.2.2. External Representation 388 From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF 389 need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series. The RSE, or 390 the RSE's designate, serves this role. 392 Over time, the RSE should determine what, if any, means should be 393 employed to increase end-user awareness of the series, to reinforce 394 the stature of the series, and to provide the contact point for 395 outside parties seeking information on the series or the Editor. 397 2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication 399 Closely related to providing strategic leadership and management to 400 the RFC Production Center and Publisher functions is the need to 401 develop and improve those functions. The RSE is responsible for 402 ensuring that such ongoing development takes place. 404 This effort must include the dimensions of document quality, 405 timeliness of production, and accessibility of results. It must also 406 specifically take into account issues raised by the IETF community, 407 including all the streams feeding into the RFC Editor function. 409 2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series 411 In order to develop the RFC Series, the RSE is expected to develop a 412 relationship with the Internet technical community. The Editor is 413 expected to engage with the Internet technical community in a process 414 of articulating and refining a vision for the series and its 415 continuous evolution. The RSE is also expected to engage other users 416 of the RFC Series, in particular, the consumers of these documents, 417 such as those people who use them to specify products, write code, 418 test behaviors, or other related activities. 420 Concretely: 422 The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on 423 series evolution among the series' stream participants and the 424 broader Internet technical community. 426 In time, the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision for 427 the RFC Series, including examining: 429 * The RFC Series, as it continues to evolve. The RSE is expected 430 to take a broad view and look for the best ways to evolve the 431 series for the benefit of the entire Internet community. As 432 such, the RSE may even consider evolution beyond the historical 433 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis; and 435 * Its publication-technical environment, by looking at whether it 436 should be slowly changing in terms of publishing and archiving 437 techniques -- particularly to better serve the communities that 438 produce and depend on the RFC Series. For example, all of 439 those communities have been slowly changing to include a 440 significant population of multi-lingual individuals or non- 441 native speakers of English. Another example is that some of 442 these constituencies also have shifted to include significant 443 groups whose primary focus is on the constraints and 444 consequences of network engineering, rather than a primary 445 interest in the engineering issues themselves. 447 For this type of responsibility, the RSE cooperates closely with the 448 community, and operates under oversight of the RSOC: thus, 449 ultimately, under oversight of the IAB. 451 2.1.5. Workload 453 On average, the job is expected to take half of a full-time 454 equivalent position (FTE, thus approx 20 hrs per week), with the 455 workload per week nearing full time during IETF weeks. In addition, 456 the job is expected to take more than 20 hours per week in the first 457 few months of the engagement and when involved in special projects. 459 2.1.6. Qualifications 461 The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional. The 462 following qualifications are desired: 464 1. Strategic leadership and management experience fulfilling the 465 requirements outlined in this document, the many aspects of this 466 role, and the coordination of the overall RFC Editor process. 468 2. Good understanding of the English language and technical 469 terminology related to the Internet. 471 3. Good communication skills. 473 4. Experience with editorial processes. 475 5. Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC 476 process. 478 6. Independent worker. 480 7. Willingness to, and availability for, travel. 482 8. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and matrixed 483 environment with divided authority and responsibility similar to 484 that described in this document. 486 9. Experience with and ability to participate in, and manage, 487 activities by email and teleconferences, not just face-to-face 488 interactions. 490 10. Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management 491 of entire operations. 493 11. Experience as an RFC author. 495 2.1.7. Conflict of Interest 497 The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of 498 interest or judgment in performing these roles. As such, the RSE is 499 barred from having any ownership, advisory, or other relationship to 500 the vendors executing the RFC Publisher or Production Center 501 functions except as specified elsewhere in this document. If 502 necessary, an exception can be made after public disclosure of those 503 relationships and with the explicit permission of the IAB and LLC. 505 2.2. RFC Production Center 507 The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid contractor, 508 and the contractor's responsibilities include the following: 510 1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style 511 Manual, under the direction of the RSE; 513 2. Creating records of edits performed on documents; 515 3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact 516 and seeking necessary clarification; 518 4. Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds, IANA, and/ 519 or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed; 521 5. Creating records of dialog with document authors; 523 6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed; 525 7. Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed; 527 8. Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC 528 Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external 529 reviews of the RFC Editor function initiated by the IAB or LLC; 531 9. Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of IANA- 532 performed protocol registry actions; 534 10. Assigning RFC numbers; 536 11. Establishing publication readiness of each document through 537 communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA, and/or 538 stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series 539 Editor; 541 12. Forwarding documents that are ready for publication to the RFC 542 Publisher; 544 13. Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC 545 Publisher so these can be preserved; 547 14. Liaising with the streams as needed. 549 All these activities will be done under the general direction, but 550 not day-to-day management, of the RSE and need some level of 551 coordination with various submission streams and the RSE. 553 The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through an LLC 554 Request for Proposal (RFP) process as described in Section 4.1. 556 2.3. RFC Publisher 558 The RFC Publisher responsibilities include the following: 560 1. Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs. 562 2. Providing an on-line system to submit RFC Errata. 564 3. Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata. 566 4. Providing backups. 568 5. Providing storage and preservation of records. 570 6. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings. 572 All these activities will be done under the general direction, but 573 not day-to-day management, of the RSE and need some level of 574 coordination with various submission streams and the RSE. 576 The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through an LLC RFP 577 process as described in Section 4.1. 579 3. Committees 581 3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) 583 The IAB is responsible for the oversight of the RFC Series and acts 584 as a body for final conflict resolution, including the process 585 described in Section 4.3. 587 In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the NomCom 588 appointment cycle [RFC3777] and assure that oversight includes 589 suitable subject matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group 590 that implements oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight 591 Committee (RSOC). 593 The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: in general, 594 it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision 595 documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the 596 community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due 597 diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed 598 the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB. 599 Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and 600 recommendations the benefit of the doubt. 602 For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and 603 firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but the final 604 decision is the responsibility of the IAB. For instance the RSOC 605 would do the following: 607 o perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of these 608 reviews to the IAB. 610 o manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate 611 appointment (in other words, select the RSE subject to IAB 612 approval). 614 RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of 615 interest and behave accordingly. 617 For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, the RSOC will 618 propose a budget for the search process. It will work with the LLC 619 to refine that budget and develop remuneration criteria and an 620 employment agreement or contracting plans, as appropriate. 622 The RSOC will be responsible for ensuring that the RFC Series is run 623 in a transparent and accountable manner. 625 The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order. 627 The initial RSOC was charged with designing and executing a 628 solicitation, search, and selection process for the first actual (not 629 transitional or "acting") RSE appointment. That process involved 630 iteration on this and related documents and evaluation of various 631 strategies and options. During the creation of this document, it was 632 expected that the RSOC would describe the process it ultimately 633 selected to the community. The RSOC did involve the community in 634 interim considerations when that was likely to be of value. 635 Following completion of the selection process, the RSOC will 636 determine the best way to share information learned and experience 637 gained with the community and determine how to best preserve that 638 information for future use. 640 3.1.1. RSOC Composition 642 The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB 643 retaining final responsibility. The IAB will delegate authority and 644 responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE 645 relationships evolve. The RSOC will include people who are not 646 current IAB members. Currently, this is aligned with the IAB program 647 structure. The IAB will designate the membership of the RSOC with 648 the following goals: preserving effective stability; keeping it small 649 enough to be effective, and keeping it large enough to provide 650 general Internet community expertise, specific IETF expertise, 651 publication expertise, and stream expertise. Members serve at the 652 pleasure of the IAB and are expected to bring a balance between 653 short- and long-term perspectives. Specific input about, and 654 recommendations of, members will be sought from the streams, the LLC, 655 and the RSE. 657 In addition to the members from outside of the IAB appointed to the 658 RSOC, IAB members may participate as full members of the RSOC. Under 659 most circumstances, there will be a specific individual IAB member 660 appointed by the IAB as the program lead, who will be a full member 661 of the RSOC. This member's role is distinct from any RSOC-internal 662 organizational roles, such as would be created by the RSOC choosing 663 to appoint a chair from among its members. Other IAB members may 664 choose to be full members of the RSOC, with the consent of the IAB. 665 This consent is primarily concerned with avoiding overpopulating the 666 RSOC and providing it with relatively stable membership, which will 667 work best if it is not too large a committee. 669 The LLC will appoint an individual to serve as its liaison to the 670 RSOC. The RSE and the LLC Liaison will serve as non-voting ex 671 officio members of the RSOC. Either or both can be excluded from its 672 discussions if necessary. 674 4. Administrative Implementation 676 The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual 677 activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF 678 Administration Limited Liability Company [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] 679 in cooperation with the RFC Series Editor. The authority structure 680 is described in Figure 2 below. 682 +----------------+ +----------------+ 683 | | | | 684 | IAB | | LLC | 685 | | | | 686 +==========+-----+ +-+--------------+ 687 | | . 688 | RSOC | . 689 | | . 690 +----+-----+ . 691 | . 692 | . 693 | ................... 694 | . . 695 +--------V---V----+ . 696 | | . 697 | RFC | . 698 | Series | . 699 | Editor | . 700 | | . 701 +--------+--------+ . 702 | . 703 | ................. 704 | . . 705 +--+----------------+ . 706 | . | . 707 | . | . 708 +---V-----V--+ +--V----V---+ 709 | RFC | | RFC | 710 | Production | | Publisher | 711 | Center | | | 712 +------------+ +-----------+ 714 Authority Structure of the RFC Series 716 Legend: 718 ------- IAB RFC Series Oversight 719 ....... LLC Contract/Budget Oversight 721 Figure 2 723 4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher Functions 725 As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation with the 726 streams and under the final authority of the LLC. 728 The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and 729 participates in the LLC vendor selection process. The work 730 definition is created within the LLC budget and takes into account 731 the stream managers and community input. 733 The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center, RFC 734 Publisher, and other RFC-related services, is as follows: 736 o The LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps 737 necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the 738 contracting procedures. 740 o The LLC establishes the Selection Committee, which will consist of 741 the RSE, the LLC Executive Director, and other members selected by 742 the RSOC and the LLC. The Committee shall be chaired by the RSE. 744 o The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to the 745 successful negotiation of a contract approved by the LLC. In the 746 event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be 747 referred to the Selection Committee for further action. 749 o The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher either through 750 the LLC RFP process or, at the Committee's option, the Committee 751 may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC Publisher services, 752 subject to negotiations in accordance with the LLC procedures. 754 4.2. Budget 756 The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They 757 have been and remain part of the IETF Administration Limited 758 Liability Company [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] budget. 760 The RFC Series portion of the LLC budget shall include entries for 761 the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. The LLC 762 budget shall also include entries for the streams, including the 763 independent stream. 765 The LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor budget 766 (and the authority to deny it). The RSE must work within the LLC 767 budgetary process. 769 The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor function to 770 operate within those budgets. If production needs change, the RSE is 771 responsible for working with the Production Center, and where 772 appropriate, other RFC Editor component institutions, relevant 773 streams, and/or the RSOC to determine what the correct response 774 should be. If they agree that a budgetary change is needed, that 775 decision needs to be taken to the LLC. 777 4.3. Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor 779 The RFC Series Editor and the RFC Production Center and Publisher 780 facilities work with the various streams to produce RFCs. 781 Disagreements may arise between these entities during the execution 782 of the RFC Editor operations. In particular, different streams may 783 disagree with each other, or disagree with the RFC Editor function. 784 Potentially, even the RSOC or the LLC could find themselves in 785 disagreement with some aspect of the RFC Editor operations. Note 786 that disagreements between an author and the RFC Production Center 787 are not cross-entity issues, and they are to be resolved by the RSE, 788 in accordance with the rest of this document. 790 If such cross-entity disagreements arise, the community would 791 generally hope that they can be resolved politely and directly. 792 However, this is not always possible. At that point, any relevant 793 party would first formally request a review and reconsideration of 794 the decision. If the party still disagrees after the 795 reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or, especially 796 if the RSE is involved, the party may ask the IAB Chair (for a 797 technical or procedural matter) to mediate or appoint a mediator to 798 aid in the discussions, although he or she not is obligated to do so. 799 All parties should work informally and in good faith to reach a 800 mutually agreeable conclusion. As noted below, any such issues that 801 involve contractual matters must be brought to the attention of the 802 LLC. If the IAB Chair is asked to assist in resolving the matter, 803 the Chair may ask for advice or seek assistance from anyone the Chair 804 deems helpful. The Chair may also alert any appropriate individuals 805 or organizations to the existence of the issue. 807 If such a conclusion is not possible through the above less formal 808 processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC Series 809 Oversight Committee. The RSOC may choose to offer advice to the RSE 810 or more general advice to the parties involved and may ask the RSE to 811 defer a decision until it formulates its advice. However, if a 812 timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation, and 813 mutual agreement, the RSE is expected to make whatever decisions are 814 needed to ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Editor function; 815 those decisions are final. 817 The RSE may make final decisions unilaterally only to assure the 818 functioning of the process, and only while there is an evaluation of 819 current policies to determine whether they are appropriately 820 implemented in the decision or need adjustment. In particular, it 821 should be noted that final decisions about the technical content of 822 individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream 823 approvers from which those documents originate, as shown in the 824 illustration in Figure 1. 826 If informal agreements cannot be reached, then formal RSOC review and 827 decision making may be required. If so, the RSE must present the 828 issues involved to the community so that the community is aware of 829 the situation. The RSE will then report the issue to the RSOC for 830 formal resolution by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its 831 oversight capacity. 833 IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected 834 to inform future changes to RFC Series policies, including possible 835 updates to this document. 837 4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact 839 If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual 840 consequences, it falls under [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis]; thus, the 841 RSE must identify the issue and provide his or her advice to the LLC; 842 additionally, if the RSOC has provided advice, forward that advice as 843 well. The LLC must notify the RSOC and IAB regarding the action it 844 concludes is required to resolve the issue based on its applicable 845 procedures and provisions in the relevant contracts. 847 5. IANA Considerations 849 This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor 850 structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of 851 registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center. The LLC 852 will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC 853 Production Center and IANA. 855 This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any 856 values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required. 858 6. Security Considerations 860 The same security considerations as those in [RFC4844] apply. The 861 processes for the publication of documents must prevent the 862 introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains 863 the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to 864 prevent these published documents from being changed by external 865 parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed 866 to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents 867 (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, originals 868 that are not machine readable) need to be secured against any kind of 869 data storage failure. 871 The LLC should take these security considerations into account during 872 the implementation and enforcement of the RFC Editor component 873 contracts. 875 7. Acknowledgments 877 The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on 878 mailing lists. The first iteration of the text on which this 879 document is based was first written by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, 880 and Ray Pelletier. In addition to the members of the IAOC and IAB in 881 conjunction with those roles, major and minor contributions were made 882 by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy 883 Ginoza, Alice Russo, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, 884 John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim Schaad. 886 The IAOC members at the time this RFC Editor model was approved were 887 (in alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba (ex officio), Eric Burger, 888 Dave Crocker, Marshall Eubanks, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley (ex 889 officio), Ole Jacobsen, Ray Pelletier (non-voting), and Lynn St. 890 Amour (ex officio). 892 The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved 893 were (in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, 894 Stuart Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry 895 Leiba, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, 896 Dave Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex 897 officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive 898 Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair. 900 The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in 901 alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba, Ross Callon, Alissa Cooper, 902 Spencer Dawkins, Joel Halpern, Russ Housley, David Kessens, Olaf 903 Kolkman, Danny McPherson, Jon Peterson, Andrei Robachevsky, Dave 904 Thaler, and Hannes Tschofenig. In addition, at the time of approval, 905 the IAB included two ex officio members: Mary Barnes who was serving 906 as the IAB Executive Director, and Lars Eggert, who was serving as 907 the IRTF Chair. 909 Bob Hinden served as documented editor for this version of this 910 document that aligned it with the IASA 2.0 model. 912 8. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] 914 draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-02, 2019-January-3 916 * Changed references to point to current IASA 2.0 structure 917 document [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] 919 draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-01, 2018-August-23 920 * Changed to Obsolete RFC6635 from Update. 921 * Changed remaining occurrences of Board. 922 * Changed IETF Administration Limited Liability Corporation to 923 IETF Administration Limited Liability Company. 924 * Editorial Changes. 926 draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-00, 2018-August-22 928 * Working Group draft. 929 * Removed remaining references to RFC4071. 930 * Changed most occurrences of LLC Board to LLC. 931 * Editorial Changes. 933 draft-hinden-iasa2-rfc6635bis-01, 2018-August-6 935 * Changed occurrences of IASA to IETF Administration Limited 936 Liability Corporation ("LLC"). 937 * Changed occurrences of IAOC to LLC Board. 938 * Changed occurrences of IAD to LLC Executive Director. 939 * Added paragraph to introduction about purpose of this version 940 of the document, and updated Abstract similarly. 941 * Added new editor to acknowledgement section. 942 * Changed document to now oboslete RFC6635. 944 draft-hinden-iasa2-rfc6635bis-00, 2018-August-6 946 * Original version with only changes from RFC6635 were to convert 947 to ID format. 949 9. References 951 9.1. Normative References 953 [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] 954 Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of 955 the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0", 956 draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-03 (work in progress), 957 December 2018. 959 [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed., 960 "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 961 39, RFC 2850, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000, 962 . 964 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 965 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, 966 July 2007, . 968 [RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor 969 Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June 970 2012, . 972 9.2. Informative References 974 [RFC3777] Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, 975 and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 976 Committees", RFC 3777, DOI 10.17487/RFC3777, June 2004, 977 . 979 [RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", 980 RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009, 981 . 983 Authors' Addresses 985 Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) 987 Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl 989 Joel M. Halpern (editor) 990 Ericsson 992 Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com 994 Internet Architecture Board 996 Email: iab@iab.org 998 Robert M. Hinden (editor) 999 Check Point Software 1000 959 Skyway Road 1001 San Carlos, CA 94070 1002 USA 1004 Email: bob.hinden@gmail.com