| TOC |
|
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and 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 October 24, 2009.
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
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. It also introduces the RFC Series Advicory group and an (optional) Independent Stream Editorial Board. 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
4.
Committees
4.1.
RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
4.1.1.
Charter
4.1.2.
membership
4.1.3.
The RSE, RSAG, IAB, and IAOC roles in case of disputes
4.2.
Independent Stream Editorial Board
5.
IANA considerations
6.
Security considerations
7.
Acknowledgements Section
8.
References
8.1.
Normative References
8.2.
Informative References
Appendix A.
IAB selection
A.1.
Ad-hoc advisory committee
A.1.1.
Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee Charter
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
B.3.
Section 02->03
B.4.
section 03->04
B.5.
section 04->05
| 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 4844.
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 the initial version of this RFC Editor model on October 1, 2008, the model 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 encourage 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, hence the version number in the title.
| 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 |
--^--- --^-- ---^-- ----^----
| | | |
| | | | -------
| | | | | Indep.|
--v--- ---v--- ---v-- ----v------ | Stream|
Stream | | | | | | |Independent| | Edi- |
Appro- | IESG | | IAB | | IRSG | | Stream |.....| torial|
vers | | | | | | | Editor | | Board |
----^- ---^--- ----^--- ----^------ -------
| | | |
| | | | -------
| | | | | RFC |
------ --v--------v----------v-----------v----- | Series|
| | | | | Adv. |
| IANA | <->| RFC Production Center <---. | Group |
| | | | | -------
------ -----------------^---------------------- | |
| | |
| ------v-------
------v--------- | |
| | | RFC Series |
| Publisher |<------->| Editor |
| | | |
---------------- --------------
In this model the RFC Series Editor (RSE or Series Editor) will exercise executive-level management over many of the activities of the RFC Publisher and the RFC Production Center (which can be seen as back office functions) and will be the entity that:
while the IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility. More details about the collaboration with the RSAG and the IAB responsibilities can be found in Section 4.1 (RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)).
The RSE does not have the authority to hire or fire RFC Editor contractors or personnel.
| TOC |
The RFC Series Editor, is an individual who may have assistants and who will regularly be provided support from an advisory group (see Section 4.1 (RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG))). The RSE 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:
There are alternative selection methods for selecting the individual to serve as the RFC Series 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 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.
Based on an Request for Information (RFI) issued by the IAOC in December 2008 the IAOC recommended that the second alternative is choosen for the 2009-2010 selection cycle.
| 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 4.2 (Independent Stream 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 and expenses to support the administrative operation of the Independent Submission Editor selected in this manner will be evaluated. The IAB considers maintaining the Independent stream within the RFC Series part of the IAB's supported activities, and will include these expenses in its IASA-supported 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 |
| TOC |
| TOC |
The purpose of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) is to provide expert, informed guidance (chiefly, to the RSE) in matters affecting the RFC Series operation and development. Such matters include, but are not limited to, issues in operation of the RFC model components, and consideration of additional RFC streams, to give a sense of the range of topics covered.
The RSAG is chartered by the IAB. As such, it operates independently of the IAB to fulfill that charter, and provides periodic reports to the IAB via the RSE.
The group provides guidance to the RSE, who in turn addresses immediate operational issues or opportunities with the ISE, Production House, or Publisher. In cases where these issues have contractual side-effects the RSE provides guidance to the IAD. The RSAG also serves to provide advice to the RSE on longer-term, larger-scale developments for the RFC Series. This informs the proposals the RSE takes to the community for discussion, and the IAD/IAOC as proposals for implementation.
The RSAG will assist the RSE in identifying and leading community discussion of important issues and opportunities facing the RFC Series. The IAB retains its oversight role and is responsible for ensuring that adequate community discussion has been held on any such significant topics.
| TOC |
The RSAG full members are all at large members, selected for their experience and interest in the RFC Series, to provide consistency and constancy of the RFC Series interpretation over time; the members do not represent a particular RFC stream or any organizations. The RSAG members are proposed by the Series Editor in consultation with the sitting RSAG members, and then confirmed and formally appointed by the IAB. In addition to these full members, each RFC stream will appoint a liaison to the RSAG to provide context specific to their stream. Initially there will be no IAOC or IAB liaison for their oversight role, however as experience is gained the IAOC, IAB, or RSAG may request for such. There is no requirement or expectation that RSAG members will be IAB members.
The RSAG does not select or appoint the RSE, or any other component of the RFC Editor model, although it acts as an important resource for informing any selection process.
It is envisioned that the RSAG will be composed of 6 appointed full members serving staggered 3 year terms, plus the RSE. The full members will serve at the pleasure of the IAB -- appointed by the IAB, and if necessary, removed by the IAB.
In order to provide continuity and to assist with a smooth transition of the RFC Editor function, the members of the existing RFC Editor Editorial Board who are willing to do so are asked to serve as an interim RSAG, effective as of the time of approval of this document. Within one year from the time the RFC Editor function transitions to the new model and after consideration of the operation of the new model in practice, the interim RSAG and RSE will formulate a recommendation to the IAB about the regular composition and selection process for the permanent RSAG.
| TOC |
If during the execution of their activities, a dispute arises over a policy implementation decision made by one of the four entities in the model, then the party having the conflict should first request a reconsideration of the decision. If that reconsideration is not satisfactory to the party, then the matter can be brought to the Series Editor for a decision. All parties should work in a good faith effort to resolve the situation to a mutually agreeable result. If the Series Editor decision is not satisfactory, then the the matter must be registered with the RFC Series Advisory Group. The RSAG may choose to offer advice to the RSE. While the Series Editor may be requested to wait with a final decision until the RSAG's advice is formulated, the Series Editor's decision is final.
Disputes registered with the RSAG and subsequent advice will need to be made available publicly and reported to the IAB in its oversight capacity.
The discussion of these disputes may inform future changes to Series policies
The RSE's decision is limited to evaluation of whether current policies are appropriately implemented in the decision. In particular, it should be noted that decisions about the technical content of individual documents are not within the purview of the Series Editor, but are the exclusive domain of the stream approvers, such as the IESG and the Independent Submission Editor.
In case a dispute has immediate or future contractual consequences, the Series Editor report to the IAOC and, when available, deliver the RSAG's advice. The IAD, under IAOC's guidance has the responsibility to resolve contractual issues whereby the Series Editor's report should be leading.
It should be noted that decisions about the technical content of individual documents are not within the purview of the Series Editor, but are the exclusive domain of the stream approvers, such as the IESG and the Independent Submission Editor.
| TOC |
Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board for the review of Independent stream documents. This board is expected to evolve in what we will call the Independent Stream Editorial Board. This Editorial Board will exist at the pleasure of the ISE, and the members serve at the pleasure of the ISE. The existence of this board 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, Joel M. Halpern, 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 initial 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.
The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in alphabetical order): Marcelo Bagnulo, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart Cheshire, Vijay Gill, Russ Housley, John Klensin, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Jon Peterson, and Dave Thaler.
| 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 |
The charter for the ad-hoc advisory committee that was established for the first implementation of this model is reproduced below for purely informational purposes.
RFC Services Selection Oversight Subcommittee.
The subcommittee will:
| 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 the IAB. 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 third year, for a three-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 43 2009-04-22 17:53:09Z 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 |
Added Joel to the acknowledgements
Added the Advisory comittee charter as a FYI
Added editorial skill and command of English as a requirement for the ISE
In the responsibilities for the RFC series: Change "Participate in" to "Provide input in" for IAOC Review. This makes the text more implementation neutral.
Typo: Model is consistent with RFC4844 instead of 4884
Added "Maintaining technical quality of the Independent stream" as an explicit responsibility for the ISE.
| TOC |
[ommitted by accident]
| TOC |
Introduced the concept of the RFC Series Advisory Group and reworked the text to take this into account. This also caused the renaming of the advisory group to an explicit "Independent Stream Editorial Board".
Rewrote the appeal process to take the RSAG into account
In Appendix A.2.4 (Term of Office and Selection Time Frame): Prolongued the appointment period to 3 years
| TOC |
| Olaf M. Kolkman | |
| EMail: | olaf@nlnetlabs.nl |
| Internet Architecture Board | |
| EMail: | iab@iab.org |