idnits 2.17.1 draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-overview-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard 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 (November 23, 2010) is 4875 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5620 (Obsoleted by RFC 6548, RFC 6635) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group G. Kowack, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Riveronce 4 Expires: May 27, 2011 November 23, 2010 6 RFC Editor Model Version 2 7 draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-overview-00 9 Abstract 11 The RFC Editor is a set of functions that accepts draft documents 12 from the community, makes edits and other changes for clarity and 13 formal correctness, and publishes and archives openly-accessible 14 RFCs. Editorial services are provided by a Production Center, 15 publication and access services by a 'Publisher'. The RFC Series 16 Editor is responsible for ensure ongoing operations as well as 17 development of the Editor function and the Series. 19 Status of this Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 27, 2011. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2.1. The RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2.2. Flexible Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 2.3. Internal Reporting Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 2.4. RFC Editor Editorial Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 3. RFC Editor Core Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3.1. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3.2. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 3.3. Contractor Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 4. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 4.1. Appointment, Reporting, and Duration . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 4.2. Series Editor Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 4.3. General Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 4.4. Series Editor Professional Qualifications . . . . . . . . 11 68 5. Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 69 5.1. RFC Editor Oversight Committee (REOC) . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 5.2. RFC Series Advisory Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 71 6. Resolution of Disagreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 72 6.1. Disagreements between RFC Editor Components and Model 73 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 6.2. Series Editor Review of Inter-Stream Conflicts . . . . . . 14 75 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 76 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 78 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 79 Appendix A. RFC End-User Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 80 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 82 1. Background 84 This memo presents version 2 of the RFC Editor model. Version 1 of 85 the model was described in [RFC5620]. This version of the model is 86 based on version 1 and on the experence of the Transitional RFC 87 Series Editor (TRSE). This document brings together all previous 88 documents on this subject, and is intended to be the basis for 89 community discussion during this period. 91 This document does not detail TRSE observations or motivations on 92 which this specification is based. Those, and differences from RFC 93 5620, will be described in an upcoming document. 95 2. RFC Editor 97 A block diagram of the RFC Editor, and major entities with which it 98 interacts, is shown in Figure 1. Documents are created and approved 99 by a number of "streams", which today includes the Internet 100 Engineering Task Force (IETF) -- publications approved by the Interet 101 Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the Internet Architecture Board 102 (IAB), the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) -- publications 103 approved by the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG), and the 104 general Internet community -- publications approved by the 105 Independent Submission Editor (ISE). The approved are edited for 106 clarity and formal correctness by the RFC Production House and 107 published as RFCs by the RFC Publisher. 109 2.1. The RFC Editor Model 111 The RFC Editor serves the community via two sets of customers: 113 o on the input side, the streams, 115 o on the output side, readers of RFCs, including users of the RFC 116 editor web site and access services. 118 The RFC Editor divides into services and executive management. 119 Today, RFC Editor services are provided by an: 121 o RFC Publisher (RFC Pub), and 123 o RFC Production Center (RPC). 125 Executive management of the RFC Editor function is provided by the: 127 o RFC Series Editor, with support from an Oversight Committee. 129 +--------------+ 130 | | 131 | IAB | 132 | | 133 +--V--------V--+ 134 +.RFC Editor....|........|..........................+ 135 . | | . 136 +------------+ . +-----------V-+ +---V-------+ +-----------+ . 137 | | . | RFC | | | | RFC | . 138 | Community | . | Editor | | RFC | | Series | . 139 | at <------> Oversight <--> Series <..> Advisory | . 140 | Large | . | Committee | | Editor | | Group | . 141 | | . | | | | | | . 142 +------------+ . +-------------+ +-V-------V-+ +-----------+ . 143 +...............+ | | +........+ 144 . | | . 145 +-----------+ +-------------+ . +----V--+ +V--------+ . +-----+ 146 | Community | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E | 147 | at +---> Submission +---> | | RFC | . | n | 148 | Large | | Editor | . | P | | | . | d | 149 | | | | . | r | | P | . | | 150 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | o +-->| u +-----> U | 151 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | d | | b | . | s | 152 | | | | . | u | | l | . | e | 153 | IAB +---> IAB +---> c | | i | . | r | 154 | | | | . | t | | s | . | s | 155 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | i | | h | . | | 156 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | o | | e | . | & | 157 | | | | . | n | | r | . | | 158 | IRTF +---> IRSG +---> | | | . | R | 159 | | | | . | C | | | . | e | 160 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a | 161 +-----------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d | 162 | | | | . | t | | | . | e | 163 | IETF +---> IESG +---> e | | | . | r | 164 | | | | . | r | | | . | s | 165 +-----------+ +-------------+ . +-------+ +---------+ . +-----+ 166 . . 167 +..........................+ 169 The RFC Editor Structure 171 In the figure above: 173 o production flows are indicated by one-way, dashed, horizontal 174 arrows ("+--->"), 176 o lines of coordination are indicated by two-way, dashed, horizontal 177 arrows ("<-->"), 179 o lines of advice are indicated by two-way, dotted, horizontal 180 arrows ("<..>"), and 182 o reporting lines are indicated by vertical, dashed arrows. 184 2.2. Flexible Implementation 186 This memo uses the term 'function', following the practice 187 established in [RFC4844], to indicate that a specific service may be 188 flexibly implemented. For example, RFC Editor functions could be 189 implemented under separate or joint contractual arrangements, and 190 bidders may make proposals that could include one or more 191 contractors. Determining the acceptability of various 192 implementations is the responsibility of the RFC Series Editor and 193 the IAOC, in consultation with the Policy Council. 195 2.3. Internal Reporting Structure 197 RFC Editor internal reporting structure is subject to change over 198 time depending, for example, on plans and the manner in which 199 contracts are awarded. The Series Editor may make such changes, but 200 only in coordination with the RFC Editor Oversight Committee, and, 201 when contracts are affected, the IAOC To preclude conflicts of 202 interest, the Series Editor must not be from an organization that 203 provides RFC Editor services. The IAB may, however, override this 204 provision in specific instances, but only after reviewing the matter 205 with the REOC and IAOC and informing the community. 207 2.4. RFC Editor Editorial Practices 209 The substantive technical content of individual documents is the 210 exclusive responsibility of the submitting stream. 212 3. RFC Editor Core Services 214 "Core services" are major and long-standing functions within the RFC 215 Editor, as distinct from RFC Editor services which may be minor, 216 developmental, or of limited duration. As of this date, the Core 217 Services are provided by the RFC Publisher and RFC Production Center. 219 3.1. RFC Publisher 221 The RFC Publisher is as described in RFC 5620, with the addition that 222 the Publisher will need to allocate resources to interact with the 223 Series Editor. 225 3.2. RFC Production Center 227 The RFC Production Center is as described in RFC 5620, with the 228 addition that the Production Center will need to allocate resources 229 to interact with the Series Editor. 231 3.3. Contractor Selection 233 RFC Publisher and RFC Production Center contractors are recommended 234 by the Series Editor and IAOC after an open RFP process, and approved 235 by the IAB. The RSE and IAOC will seek bidders who, among other 236 things, are able to provide a professional, quality, timely, and 237 cost- effective service against the established style and production 238 guidelines and adaptable to changes. Contract terms, including 239 length of contract, extensions and renewals, shall be as defined in 240 an RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available. 242 4. RFC Series Editor 244 4.1. Appointment, Reporting, and Duration 246 The RFC Series Editor appointee is an individual. The Series Editor 247 is designated by the IAB, and may be removed by the IAB, subject to 248 contractual requirements. The Series Editor reports to the REOC 249 (Section 5.1.3). 251 The initial term of office is three years with no restrictions on 252 renewals. Individual contract periods may be shorter due to 253 practical constraints (e.g,. applicant availability), as determined 254 by the IAB in cooperation with the IAOC. To maintain institutional 255 memory, terms of office for the RSE, ISE, and RFC Production Center 256 should be adjusted to minimize concurrent transitions. 258 4.2. Series Editor Responsibilities 260 The Series Editor acts as a single point of responsibility to the 261 community for the: 263 o overall, ongoing operation of the RFC Editor, 265 o refinement and development of RFC Editor processes and services, 267 o maintenance of quality and advancement of the Series, 268 o representation of the Series to the community, and 270 o representation of the Series to the rest of the world. 272 The Series Editor is responsible for ensuring that the Editor 273 policies are adhered to and developed in line with community 274 interests. When policies are insufficient, the Series Editor 275 initiates an RFC Editor policy review and development activity. 277 4.2.1. RFC Editor Operations 279 RFC Editor operations include ongoing operations and longer-term 280 review, planning and executive activities. RFC Editor ongoing 281 operations consist of: 283 o monitoring operations for compliance with policies and practices, 284 and providing direction as necessary, 286 o advising service provider management when existing policies appear 287 to be insufficient, 289 o handling complaints, exceptions, and unexpected events such as 290 escalation procedures, and 292 o organizing and leading meetings, including RFC Editor internet 293 meetings, as well as coordination meetings (including, e.g., 294 telechats) with the streams (production-side customers). 296 Longer-term planning and executive activities include: 298 o reviewing staff and contractor performance (including formal 299 reviews) and providing feedback, including participatin in IAB- 300 initiated reviews of the RFC Editor, 302 o leading development of statistics and other performance measures, 304 o reviewing contracts for update or renewal, preparing RFPs, and 306 o reviewing bids and making recommendations. 308 4.2.2. Internal Processes and Services Development 310 Internal process and services development looks for opportunities to: 312 o improve RFC Editor services to improve quality, reduce costs, or 313 improve service to customers, and 315 o new and modified services to output-side customers, e.g, improved 316 RFC access tools. 318 4.2.3. Series Quality Maintenance and Advancement 320 Series maintenance and advancement is comprised of: 322 o ensuring and improving constancy of output, 324 o improving the (editorial) quality of produced text, 326 o innovations to improve efficiency, coordination, and transparency, 327 including process experiments, 329 o ensuring availability of the Series, including refinement of the 330 community model of universal RFC access, and that the RFC Series 331 is accessible via conventional means, such as electronic card 332 catalogs, and ISSN numbers, which must be kept current, 334 o improving access tools, including search tools, and. 336 o consideration of support of formats for new access methods. 338 4.2.4. Represent the Series to the Community 340 The RSE must: 342 o provide all necessary points of contact and services to support 343 policy inputs and questions from the community, including 344 production-side and end-user customers, 346 o take part in (or delegate attendance at) formal meetings, 347 telechats, and other communications among entities (e.g., IESG and 348 IAB), as well as general meetings such as the IETF, or retreats, 349 as required, 351 o provide consistent communication of the status and plans of the 352 Editor, 354 o liaise and work with the IAB so that the IAB may be confident 355 there has been sufficient community review before significant 356 policies or policy changes are adopted, and 358 o engage all team members and the community with a spirit of common 359 purpose, accomplishment, and teamwork. 361 4.2.5. Represent the Series to the Rest of the World. 363 The Series Editor is the point of contact and presentation for those 364 from outside the community. Increasing the stature of the Series 365 reinforces other community initiatives. The Series Editor should: 367 o be available to entities that seek representation of the series, 368 including the press, and 370 o be open to support low-cost high-impact opportunities to promote 371 the series. 373 4.3. General Responsibilities 375 The Series Editor is responsible for maintaining series continuity 376 and quality, providing training to authors, and cooperating with the 377 IAOC. 379 4.3.1. Continuity 381 The RFC Editor has sustained operations for more than forty years. 383 4.3.1.1. Series Continuity 385 Series continuity is the maintenance and development of the editorial 386 character of the Series (e.g., look and feel, usage) in a way that 387 preserves series constancy. That is, changes must be made in a 388 deliberate, evolutionary way that respects long-standing editorial 389 practices. Changes must be well-motivated. Changes will be made 390 with input from editorial staff, and subject to community review. 392 The RFC Series Style Manual is the primary vehicle for maintaining, 393 and making changes to, editorial continuity. The Series Editor is 394 responsible for preparing and maintaining the RFC Style Manual to 395 describe clearly the grammar, style, usage, typography, punctuation, 396 and spelling standards that will guide the drafting and editing of 397 RFCs, so that all publications will appear in clear, concise 398 technical prose. The primary audiences for the Style Manual are 399 authors, editors, the stream managers, and the RFC Production Center. 401 4.3.1.2. Operational Continuity 403 Operational continuity means consistent, uninterrupted RFC 404 production. The RFC Series Procedures Manual is the primary document 405 for maintaining operational continuity. 407 If editorial services are disrupted, the RFC Series Editor, with the 408 support of the IAOC, is responsible for promptly acquiring and 409 directing new resources to maintain RFC output. Service from new 410 teams of editors or additional contractors may be acquired. The RSE 411 must keep the RFC Editor Procedures Manual and Style Manual up to 412 date to provide sufficient direction to alternate editors. The 413 Series Editor must maintain sound understanding of those processes in 414 order to direct new resources when required. Maintaining editorial 415 output during a disruption is referred to as "exceptional 416 continuity". 418 4.3.2. Quality 420 For the RFC Editor quality is comprised of: 422 o editorial quality - the quality of output text, 424 o production service quality - as provided to the streams, and 426 o RFC Archive accessibility and access services quality. 428 4.3.2.1. Policies and Practices 430 RFC Editor functions follow documented policies and practices that 431 have been reviewed by the community. Whenever procedural 432 documentation is insufficient (e.g., fails to address an issue), the 433 Series Editor is responsible for directing the relevant service 434 provider (e.g., Production Center) and maintaining ongoing operations 435 and updating policies and procedures in cooperation with the RFC 436 Editor Oversight Committee and the community. 438 The two primary documents that define the practices and procedures of 439 the RFC Editor are the RFC Style Manual, and the RFC Procedures 440 Manual. 442 4.3.2.2. Editorial Quality 444 Editorial quality must meet the requirements of three groups: 446 o authoritative community entities (e.g., the IETF Trust regarding 447 IP notices), 449 o authors and streams ("producer-side service quality"), and 451 o re-distributors and end users of RFCs ("consumption-side quality") 453 During 2010, it was determined that the community has only limted 454 knowledge of the demographics of RFC end-users, how they use RFCs, or 455 end-user requirements. To make informed decisions about quality, the 456 RSE should seek to learn more about how RFC end-users may cluster, 457 and how each uses RFCs. 459 4.3.2.3. Production Quality 461 In principle, the RFC Editor provides only one level of editing and 462 support, which does not vary according to the needs of particular 463 drafts. The RSE will explore whether an additional level of service 464 is required. Available on authors' request, this service would give 465 special attention, and possibly early review, to drafts thought to be 466 particularly complex, extensive, or to have an especially critical 467 audience. 469 4.3.2.4. Access Quality 471 Access quality concerns the suitability, completeness, accuracy, and 472 stability of tools for accessing the RFC Series. 474 4.3.3. Author Guidance and Training 476 The RFC Production Center will continue to support tutorials for the 477 community. 479 4.3.4. Coordination with the IAOC 481 The Series Editor must support the IAOC on request regarding legal 482 and financial matters. 484 4.4. Series Editor Professional Qualifications 486 The RFC Series Editor provides general and editorial leadership of 487 the RFC Editor, and meets the following qualifications: 489 1. experience as a executive with expertise in technical writing, 490 technical publications, and technical series development, 492 2. experience with complex organizations with extensive group 493 processes. The RSE must be skilled at participating in group 494 processes, and getting value from them. The RSE must understand 495 and appreciate delegation, 497 3. good understanding of the English language and technical 498 terminology related to the Internet, 500 4. excellent skill at communication and, especially, listening, 502 5. independent worker, 503 6. prior experience with and understanding of the IETF, RFC 504 processes, and the community, is desirable, and 506 7. experience as an RFC author is desirable. 508 5. Committees 510 5.1. RFC Editor Oversight Committee (REOC) 512 5.1.1. Duties 514 The REOC has the following duties: 516 o support the RSE in the process of community consultation, 518 o support the RSE in developing new or modified policy proposals on 519 an "advise and consent" model, 521 o support the RSE in presenting general policy proposals for 522 approval by the IAB, 524 o receive and review regular progress reports from the RSE, 526 o support the RSE in regular reporting to the community, 528 o promptly bring any serious issues with the Series to the IAB's 529 attention, 531 o when required, participate with the IASA in the RFP and 532 contracting process for components of the RFC Editor function, and 534 o when required, act as the hiring committee for the RSE, in 535 cooperation with the iAB and in liaison with IASA. 537 5.1.2. Membership 539 The REOC will be a small committee, defined by the IAB. Terms will 540 be two years renewable (with several one year terms initially, to 541 stagger the renewals). The membership will have the following skills 542 or backgrounds (members may satisfy more than one of these criteria): 544 o substantive knowledge of technical writing and publications, 546 o substantial experience at using RFC Editor services as a author or 547 editor, 549 o none may be from current streams approving bodies, 551 o there may be a non-voting IASA liaison member. 553 The REOC will elect its chair among the regular (non-liaison) 554 members. 556 5.1.3. The Series Editor and the REOC 558 The RSE will report to the regular (non-liaison) membership of the 559 REOC. 561 5.2. RFC Series Advisory Group 563 The RSE may, but is not required to, appoint an RFC Series Advisory 564 Group (RSAG) at his discretion, with no powers other than to advise 565 the RSE. The Series Editor will publish the names of members of the 566 Advisory Group. 568 6. Resolution of Disagreements 570 6.1. Disagreements between RFC Editor Components and Model 571 Participants 573 If during the execution of their activities, a disagreement arises 574 over an implementation decision made by one of the participants in 575 the model, any relevant party should first request a review and 576 reconsideration of the decision with the other party or parties, and 577 inform the RSE of such a request. All parties should work informally 578 and in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion. If the 579 parties resolve the issue, they should inform the RSE of the 580 resolution and specify any procedural or other changes that it may 581 entail. 583 If one party still disagrees after the reconsideration, that party 584 should ask the Series Editor to undertake a formal review. The RSE 585 must inform and engage the REOC in their oversight capacity, and may 586 call for a review committee including members of the REOC. The RSE 587 and REOC should seek to reach rough consensus on the resolution of 588 the matter. 590 If there is a technical or procedural matter that concerns the IAB, 591 or an administrative, legal, or financial issue that concerns the 592 IAOC, the RSE may request the guidance or participation of either or 593 both of those bodies. If the disagreement directly involves the RSE, 594 the RSE may ask the IAB to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in 595 the discussions. The REOC should be used in this capacity unless 596 there is good reason it should not (such as if the REOC itself is a 597 party to the disagreement). 599 If a timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation, 600 and mutual agreement, the Series Editor is expected to make whatever 601 decisions are needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC 602 Editor function. Such decisions must follow proper community- 603 oriented practices as described in Section 4. 605 RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the RFC 606 Editor processes and evaluation of whether current policies are being 607 implemented appropriately or need adjustment. As described in 608 Section 4, final decisions about the technical content of individual 609 documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream approvers 610 for those documents. 612 If a disagreement or decision has immediate or anticipated future 613 contractual consequences, the Series Editor must identify the issue 614 to the IAOC and, if the REOC has provided related advice, the RSE 615 should forward that to the IAOC. 617 6.2. Series Editor Review of Inter-Stream Conflicts 619 The streams are encouraged to resolve conflicts on their own. Any 620 stream approver may request a Series Editor review of an inter-stream 621 conflict at any time. Review by the Series Editor must include 622 assembling a review committee of four disinterested REOC members plus 623 the RSE, who will chair the committee. 625 7. IANA Considerations 627 This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor 628 structure, and it places the day-to-day coordination of registry 629 value assignments with the RFC Production Center under the direction 630 of the RSE. The IAOC will continue to facilitate the relationship 631 between the RFC Editor and IANA. 633 This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any 634 values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required. 636 8. Security Considerations 638 The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply. The 639 processes for the publication of documents must prevent the 640 introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains 641 the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to 642 prevent these published documents, and the index itself, from being 643 changed by external parties. The archive of RFC documents, any 644 source documents needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any 645 associated original documents (such as lists of errata, tools, and, 646 for some early items, non- machine-readable originals) need to be 647 secured against failure of the storage medium and other similar 648 disasters. 650 The RSE and IAOC should take these security considerations into 651 account during the implementation of this RFC Editor model. 653 9. Acknowledgments 655 [ed., TBD] 657 10. Normative References 659 [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and IAB, "", 4844 RFC, July 2007. 661 [RFC5620] Kolkman, O. and IAB, "RFC Series Editor Model (Version 662 1)", RFC 5620, August 2009. 664 Appendix A. RFC End-User Groupings 666 Work to date suggests that the end-user community may group into the 667 following: 669 o RFC implementers. This group intersects with working group 670 participants. The latter is an unknown proportion of the former, 672 o network operators (of RFC implementations), 674 o academics, researchers and students, 676 o marketers, and requirements writers, 678 o policy-makers, and 680 o re-distributors (e.g., mirror site operators) and publishers. 682 Author's Address 684 Glenn Kowack (editor) 685 Riveronce 687 Email: glenn@riveronce.com