| 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 May 7, 2009.
The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out 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 Series Editor, the Independent Submission Editor, RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. The model outlined here is intended 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 Series Editor
3.2.
Independent Submission Editor
3.3.
RFC Production Center
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.
IAB selection
A.1.
Ad-hoc advisory committee
A.2.
The IAB Selection Process of an RFC Series Editor and/or an Independent Stream Editor
A.2.1.
Nominations and Eligibility
A.2.2.
Selection
A.2.3.
Care of Personal Information
A.2.4.
Term of Office and Selection Time Frame
Appendix B.
Internet Draft editing details
B.1.
Section 00->01
B.2.
Section 01->02
| 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, provides for the orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensures 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, and examines the internal organization of the RFC Editor, while remaining consistent with RFC 4884.
Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo provides a model for internal organization. This memo introduces the term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the organizational components.
The IAB approved the RFC Editor model on October 1, 2008, based on a draft version of this this document which has received clarifications since. It should be noted that the publication of the document as an RFC does not cast the model in stone, as the primary purpose of this document, throughout the publication procession, is to encourgage normal community review in order to ascertain consensus to work to this model as a first step. The document, and the resulting structures, will be modified as needed through normal procedures. The IAB will continue to monitor discussions within the community about potential adjustments to the RFC Editor model and recognizes that the process described in this document, may need to be adjusted to align with any changes that result from such discussions.
| 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. The reporting structure will 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 components:
The RFC Series Production and Process under this structure is schematically represented by the figure below.
------ ----- ------ ---------
Stream | | | | | | |Community|
Pro- | IETF | | IAB | | IRTF | | at |
ducers | | | | | | | Large |
--^--- --^-- ---^-- ----^----
| | | |
| | | | -------
| | | | | RFC |
--v--- ---v--- ---v-- ----v------ | Edi- |
Stream | | | | | | |Independent| | torial|
Appro- | IESG | | IAB | | IRSG | | Stream |..... | |
vers | | | | | | | Editor | | .and .|
----^- ---^--- ----^--- ----^------ | |
| | | | | Advi- |
| | | | | ory |
| | | | | Board |
------ --v--------v----------v-----------v----- | |
| | | | -------
| IANA | <->| RFC Production Center <---. .
| | | | | .
------ -----------------^---------------------- | .
| | .
| ------v-------
------v--------- | |
| | | RFC Series |
| Publisher |<------->| Editor |
| | | |
---------------- --------------
| TOC |
The RFC Series Editor, or Series Editor for short, is an individual who may have assistants and who 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, the Series Editor is expected to be invited and participate in reviews of that implementation.
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional with the following qualifications:
The Series 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 Series Editor. The choice between these alternatives will be based on an RFI issued by the IAOC in December 2009.
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 provided in the RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available. Fees and expenses to support the administrative operation of the RFC Series 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 Appendix A (IAB selection) will be used. A stipend and expenses to support the administrative operation of the RFC Series Editor selected in this manner would be part of the IASA budget.
| TOC |
The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have assistants and who 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)) and may form a team to perform the activities needed to fulfill their responsibilities..
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 Appendix A (IAB selection) should be used. A stipend (if provided) and expenses to support the administrative operation of the Independent Submission Editor selected in this manner would be not be part of the IASA budget, but could be part of a 3rd party's budget.
| TOC |
RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor responsibilities include:
The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected by the IAOC through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the RFC Series Editor. The IAOC would seek a bidder who, among other things, is able to provide a professional, quality, 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 choice between these alternatives will be based on an RFI issued by the IAOC in December 2009.
The first alternative is to modify 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 Series 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 the Independent Submissions Editor and provide input and guidance to the Series Editor. The board(s) will exist at the pleasure of their advisee, and the members serve at the pleasure of their advisee. The existence of the board or boards is simply noted within this model, and additional discussion of such considered out of scope of this document.
| 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 Center. The IAOC will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC Production Center and IANA.
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.
| 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 should 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 iteration 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, Sandy Ginoza, Alice Hagens, 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 process is used by the IAB for the selection of the RFC Series Editor (if that position is not covered by the RFC Production Center contract) and for the selection of the Independent Submission Editor. The IAOC selects the RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher from vendors that choose to submit a proposal. The IAOC procurement process is not described in this document.
The selection process herein is taken from [2] (Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, “The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process,” December 2005.) but modified to allow for subject matter experts to advise the IAB, to take into account that the community with interest in the RFC series extends beyond the IETF community, and to prefer the incumbent.
| TOC |
It is expected that the IAB and IAOC will establish an ad-hoc advisory committee to assist them in the selection of the various functions. The names of the members of this committee, who do not need to be IAB members or IETF participants, will be made public through the IAB and IAOC minutes or otherwise.
The committee is expected to have an understanding of the RFC series and related processes, and of procedures and interests of the various streams.
Members of the subcommittee will be privy to confidential material and are expected to honour confidentiality.
The IAB and IAOC bear the responsibility for the selections of the candidates for defined functions, the committee provides advice only.
| TOC |
| TOC |
The IAB will be making a broad public call for nominations. The public call will specify the manner by which nominations will be accepted and the means by which the list of nominees will be published. Self-nominations are permitted. Along with the name and contact information for each candidate, details about the candidate's background and qualifications for the position should be attached to the nomination.
Members of the ad-hoc advisory committee mentioned above are not eligible, but besides those there are no limitations with respect to the eligibility for nomination: Nominees do not have to be actively contributing to the IETF and active participation as being a working group chair, an IETF Nominating Committee member, or an IAB or IESG member is not a limitation.
IAB members who accept a nomination for an IAB-selected position will recuse themselves from IAB selection discussions.
| TOC |
The IAB will publish the list of nominated persons prior to making a decision, allowing time for the community to pass any relevant comments to that body. When established the advisory committee will be asked to provide a motivated shortlist. The IAB will review the nomination material, any submitted comments, the shortlist from the advisory committee, and make its selection.
It is noted that the community mentioned above is the community with an interest in RFCs and the RFC Editor's functioning, the IETF community is only a part of that community.
The main intent is to select the incumbent or a superior candidate.
| TOC |
The following procedures will be used by the IAB in managing candidates' personal information:
| TOC |
The IAB will seat their selected member at the first IETF meeting of every second year, for a two-year term of office. Basic time frame requirements for the selection process are as follows:
About 3-4 weeks prior to the process, the IAB will announce the specific dates for the selection process for that year, following the guidelines above.
| TOC |
[This appendix is to be removed at publication]
$Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 23 2008-11-03 11:10:22Z olaf $
| TOC |
Added Sandy and Alice to the acknowledgement section, they were accidentally omitted
Added Appendix A (IAB selection) so that the selection mechanism is explicitly documented. The selection mechanism documents the use of an advisory committee and is explicit about the fact that the community expands beyond the IETF community.
Modified the RFC Editor Function name to "RFC Series Editor" in order to minimize confusion between the collective of functions (RFC Editor) and the function (Series Editor).
Added wording for specifying the technical competence needed by the indep.subm.editor as suggested by JCK
Clarified the responsibilities of the production function in Section 3.3 (RFC Production Center)
Enumerated qualifications of the RFC Editor
| TOC |
Various nits corrected
Inconsictency in the use of RFC Production house and RFC Production fixed: RFC Production Center used as term
Oversight over RFC consistency with the style manual has been made explicit.
Clarified that the Independent Stream Editors budget is independent from the IETF/IASA.
Improved the language that clarified that the RFC Series editors and Independent Stream editor do not necessarilly need to work without assistants, while they bear the responsibility.
| TOC |
| Olaf M. Kolkman | |
| EMail: | olaf@nlnetlabs.nl |
| Internet Architecture Board | |
| EMail: | iab@iab.org |
| 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.