| TOC |
|
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 5, 2009.
The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be performed by various persons or entities. The RFC Editor model presented in this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into four functions: The RFC Editor, the Independent Submission Editor, the RFC Production, and the RFC Publisher. The model intends to increase flexibility and operational support options, provide for the orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of the RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost transparency.
1.
Introduction
2.
IAOC Implementation
2.1.
Expenses for the RFC Editor
3.
RFC Editor Model
3.1.
RFC Editor
3.2.
Independent Submission Editor
3.3.
RFC Production
3.4.
RFC Publisher
3.5.
RFC Editorial Board
4.
IANA considerations
5.
Security considerations
6.
Acknowledgements Section
7.
References
7.1.
Normative References
7.2.
Informative References
Appendix A.
Internet Draft editing details
| TOC |
The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor succession, maintaining RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility. The IAB is also sensitive to the concerns of the IAOC about providing the necessary services in a cost effective and efficient manner.
The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844 [1] (Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, “The RFC Series and RFC Editor,” July 2007.). Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor":
| 3.1. RFC Editor | | Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC | Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now | requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are RFC | Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be | multiple organizations working together to undertake the work | required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without | attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them, | this document refers to this collection of experts and organizations | as the "RFC Editor". | | The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor, | acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC | Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the | RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition, | the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in | discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving | RFCs.
RFC 4844 makes no attempt to explore the internal organization of the RFC Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor organizational structure. In discussion with the Internet community, the IAB considered changes that increase flexibility and operational support options, provide for the orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of the RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost transparency. The model set forth below is the result of those discussions. The model examines the internal organization of the RFC Editor, yet it remains consistent with RFC 4884.
The IAB approved the RFC Editor model described in this document on October 1, 2008.
| TOC |
The model is constructed in such a way that it allows for all these functions to be implemented jointly or under separate contractual arrangements. In fact, a bidder could put together a proposal that includes one or more subcontractors. Since the reporting structure would depend on the manner that the contracts are awarded, and they are subject to change over time. As a result, the model describes only responsibilities, procedures, and process. The exact implementation is a responsibility of the IAOC.
| TOC |
The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They are part of the IASA budget. Today, these expenses are part of the RFC Editor contract with ISI.
| TOC |
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into the following:
The RFC Series Production and Process under this structure is schematically represented by the figure below.
[TO BE DONE] For now see:
http://www.iab.org/documents/resources/RFCEditorProd.png
| TOC |
The RFC Editor is a single person, and this person is responsible for:
There are many potential issues with respect to RFC Series continuity. To name a few: Look and feel of the series, indexing methodologies, accessibility of the publications, IPR and copyright issues, and formatting issues. After identifying the appropriate steps to address such issues, the implementation of those steps resides mostly with the RFC production and publishing functions. Since the IAOC maintains oversight of the implementation, RFC Editor participation in reviews of that implementation is expected.
The RFC Editor is a senior managerial position with a strong understanding of the IETF process and seasoned management skills. The RFC editor may seek support from an advisory board (see Section 3.5 (RFC Editorial Board)).
The IAOC has two alternative selection methods for selecting the individual to serve as the RFC Editor.
The first alternative involves a Request for Proposal (RFP) process run by the IAOC. The IAOC would seek a person with the listed qualifications in a broadly distributed RFP. The winner would be selected by the IAOC in consultation with the IAB, and then, the IAOC would contract for the services. Contract terms, including length of contract, extensions and renewals, shall be as defined in an RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available. Expenses to support the administrative operation of the RFC Editor would be part of the awarded contract and be part of the IASA budget.
The second alternative involves a nomination and confirmation process. Candidates are nominated, and then an individual with the listed qualifications is selected by the Internet community and confirmed by the IAB. An approach similar to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year as described in RFC 4333 could be used. A stipend (if provided) and expenses to support the administrative operation of the RFC Editor selected in this manner would be part of the IASA budget.
| TOC |
The Independent Submission Editor is a single person, and this person is responsible for:
The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the following qualifications are desired:
The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an advisory board (see Section 3.5 (RFC Editorial Board)).
The individual with the listed qualifications will be selected by the community and confirmed by the IAB. An approach similar to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year as described in RFC 4333 could be used. A stipend (if provided) and expenses to support the administrative operation of the Independent Submission Editor selected in this manner would be part of the IASA budget.
| TOC |
RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor responsibilities include:
The RFC Production contractor is to be selected by the IAOC through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the RFC Editor. The IAOC would seek a bidder who, among other things, is able to provide a timely and cost effective service against the established style and production guidelines. Contract terms, including length of contract, extensions and renewals, shall be as defined in an RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available.
| TOC |
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:
Implementation of the RFC publisher function can be pursued in two different ways.
The first alternative is to extend the IETF Secretariat contract to include these services. Expenses to support these services would be part of the revised contract.
The second alternative is a separate vendor selected by the IAOC through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the RFC Editor. Expenses to support service would be part of the awarded contract.
| TOC |
Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board. This board is expected to evolve into one or two advisory boards that support the review work of Independent Submissions Editor and provide input and guidance to the RFC Editor. The board or boards exist at the pleasure of their advisee, and the members serve at the pleasure of their advisee. The existence the board or boards is simply noted within this model.
| TOC |
This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of registry value assignments with the RFC Production function. The IAOC will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC Production function and IANA.
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any values in existing registries.
| TOC |
The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply: The processes for the publication of documents must prevent the introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to prevent these published documents from being changed by external parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, non-machine readable originals) need to be secured against failure of the storage medium and other similar disasters.
The IAOC ought to take these security considerations into account during the implementation of this RFC Editor model.
| TOC |
The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on mail lists. The first itteraton of the text on which this document is based was first drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ray Pelletier. In addition to the members of the IAOC and IAB, major and minor contributions were made by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Paul Hoffman, John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim Schaad.
The IAOC members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were (in alphabetical order): Fred Baker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Ole Jacobsen, Ed Juskevicius, Olaf Kolkman, Ray Pelletier (non-voting), Lynn St.Amour, and Jonne Soininen. In addition, Marshall Eubanks was serving as the IAOC Scribe.
The IAB members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were (in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex-officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.
| TOC |
| TOC |
| [1] | Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, “The RFC Series and RFC Editor,” RFC 4844, July 2007 (TXT). |
| TOC |
| [2] | Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, “The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process,” BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005 (TXT). |
| TOC |
[This appendix is to be removed at publication]
$Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 2 2008-10-02 15:48:52Z olaf $
| TOC |
| Olaf M. Kolkman | |
| EMail: | olaf@nlnetlabs.nl |
| Internet Architecture Board |
| TOC |
Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.