RFC 8728
RFC Editor Model (Version 2)
RFC 8728: RFC Editor Model (Version 2) 🎀
Okay bestie, this one comes from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) 💅 and it's the Request for Comments: 8728 entry in the series. The editors are O. Kolkman (Internet Society), J. Halpern (Ericsson), and R. Hinden (Check Point Software), and they're all marked as Ed. (editors) 🫶. It came out in February 2020 as Informational, so it's a permanent record and not a standard 🌸. The ISSN is 2070-1721. It obsoletes RFC 6635 (that's the big glow-up part, we'll get there), and the header doesn't list any RFC it updates ✨.
Abstract ✨
So the RFC Editor model in this doc splits the work for the RFC Series into three functions 💖: the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. It also covers how the IAB oversees things through the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) 🔥, and how the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company connects with the RSOC 👑. This doc builds on what people learned from "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)" in RFC 5620 🌈. It also obsoletes RFC 6635 so that every mention of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) and its related structures gets swapped out for the ones in the IASA 2.0 Model 🦋.
Status of This Memo
Not a Standards Track spec, just published for info 🍓. It's a product of the IAB and holds info the IAB thinks is worth keeping forever, so it reflects the IAB's consensus 💜. Documents the IAB approves can't become any level of Internet Standard, which is explained in Section 2 of RFC 7841 🙈.
For the current status, errata, and how to send feedback, check https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728 ⭐.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons named as document authors. All rights reserved 🎀. This doc is under BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stand on the publication date. Read those carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this doc 📜.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. The RFC Editor Function
2. RFC Editor Model
2.1. RFC Series Editor
2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication
and Production Functions
2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series
2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF
2.1.2.2. External Representation
2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication
2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series
2.1.5. Workload
2.1.6. Qualifications
2.1.7. Conflict of Interest
2.2. RFC Production Center
2.3. RFC Publisher
3. Committees
3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
3.1.1. RSOC Composition
4. Administrative Implementation
4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher Functions
4.2. Budget
4.3. Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor
4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact
5. IANA Considerations
6. Security Considerations
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses1. Introduction 🌸
This doc takes what we learned from "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", which is documented in [RFC5620], and updates the RFC Editor Model (Version 2) so it lines up with the new IASA 2.0 Model in [RFC8711] 🧚. That model creates the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC), which a board of directors runs (the IETF LLC Board) 💼. As part of the IASA 2.0 Model, the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) is gone, and its oversight and advising jobs now belong to the new IETF LLC 😭. This doc obsoletes [RFC6635] so that every reference to the IASA and its related structures gets replaced with the ones from the IASA 2.0 Model 💅.
The IAB looks after the Internet technical community's interests 🫶. It cares about keeping the RFC Series going, making sure RFC Editor succession happens in an orderly way, keeping RFC quality high, and making RFC documents accessible to everyone ✨. The IAB also gets that the IETF LLC wants these services to be cost-effective and efficient 💖.
The earlier RFC Editor model in [RFC5620] was first approved by the IAB in October 2008, and our understanding of it has grown with experience since then 🍓. While version 1 was being put into practice, it became clear that the RFC Series Editor (RSE) role and the oversight duties needed to be set up differently 👑. To get some "running code" under its belt, the team hired a transitional RSE, who looked at the management setup and made recommendations 🔥. After that, an acting RSE ran the series really well while they searched for and hired a permanent RSE 🌈. This version is based on what both temporary RFC Series Editors recommended, plus lots of discussion in the IETF community, on the rfc-interest list, and inside the IAB 🦋.
This doc and the structures it describes will change as needed, through the normal procedures 🎀. The RSE and the IAB, working through the RFC Series Oversight Committee (see Section 3.1), will keep watching community talks about possible tweaks to the RFC Editor model 👀. They also recognize that the process in this doc might need adjusting to match whatever comes out of those talks, which is why the version number is in the title 🧚♀️.
The IAB keeps its responsibilities as defined in [RFC2850] 💜.
1.1. The RFC Editor Function 💅
The RFC Series is described in [RFC8729]. Its Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor" 📖. In short, the RFC Series started with a single person acting as its editor, but the job grew until it needed a group of experts or an organization, and maybe several organizations down the line 🌸. To keep things simple, and without trying to predict how that work might get split up, the doc calls this whole group of experts and organizations the "RFC Editor" 🫶. The RFC Editor is an expert technical and series editor who supports the RFC Series' mission ✨. The implementer handling the editorial side of the series, following the defined processes, is the RFC Editor 🔥. The RFC Editor is also expected to be the expert and prime mover when it comes to policies for editing, publishing, and archiving RFCs 👑.
RFC 8729 doesn't dig into how the RFC Editor is organized inside 🙈. It does expect the structure to change, though, and people have been working on improving and clarifying it for a while 💖. The IAB has led these efforts, talking with the community and lots of leadership bodies 🌈. The first result was [RFC5620], and then more discussion led to [RFC6635] 🦋. Some of the details about how this evolved are coming up below 🎀. While the IAB was working through the changes, it looked for ways to add flexibility and more operational support options, make sure the RFC Editor can be succeeded in an orderly way, and keep the RFC Series going 🧚. It also wanted to keep RFC quality and timely processing, protect document accessibility, reduce costs, and make costs more transparent 💰. The model below describes the RFC Editor's internal organization and still fits with RFC 8729 ✨.
Quick note, bestie: RFC 8729 uses "RFC Editor function" or "RFC Editor" for the whole collection of responsibilities this memo gives an internal model for 📌. This memo defines "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the organizational components 💜.
2. RFC Editor Model ✨
Okay bestie, so the RFC Editor model splits up the responsibilities for the RFC Series into three components: 💅
- RFC Series Editor (RSE)
- RFC Production Center
- RFC Publisher
The structure and relationship of these components in RFC Series production is shown in Figure 1 below. The picture doesn't show oversight and escalation relations 🙈 but it does include the streams and their managers (which are not part of the RSE, the Production Center, or the Publisher) so you can see the whole context the RSE works in 🧚
+-------------+
| |
+--------------+ IAB <----------+
| | | |
| |=============| |
| | | |
| | RSOC <----------+
| | | |
| +-------+-----+ +----+----+
| | | |
| +...........|.........+ |Community|
| . | . | at |
| . +-------V-----+ . | Large |
| . | | . | |
| . | RFC | . +----+----+
| . | Series | . |
| . | Editor <----------+
| . | | .
| . +-+---------+-+ .
| . | | .
+-------------+ +-----V-------+ . +--V--+ +--V--+ . +-----+
| | | | . | | | | . | |
| Independent | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E |
| Authors +--> Submission +-----> | | | . | n |
| | | Editor | . | P | | | . | d |
| | | | . | r | | RFC | . | |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | | . | U |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | d | | P | . | s |
| | | | . | u | | u | . | e |
| IAB +--> IAB +-----> c | | b | . | r |
| | | | . | t | | l | . | s |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | i +---> i +--------> |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | s | . | & |
| | | | . | n | | h | . | |
| IRTF +--> IRSG +---->| | | e | . | R |
| | | | . | C | | r | . | e |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d |
| | | | . | t | | | . | e |
| IETF +--> IESG +-----> e | | | . | r |
| | | | . | r | | | . | s |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . +-----+ +-----+ . +-----+
. .
+..... RFC Editor ....+Figure 1: Structure of RFC Series Production and Process
So here's the vibe: documents get produced and approved through multiple document streams 📚 each stream manager is responsible for the content of their own stream. The four streams that exist right now are described in [RFC8729]. The RFC Editor function handles the packaging and distribution of the documents ✨ so documents from all these streams get edited and processed by the Production Center and published by the Publisher.
The RSE is the one with strategic leadership and management over the Publisher and Production Center (both basically back-office functions) 👑 and is the entity that:
- Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function within the IETF and externally.
- Leads the community in the design of improvements to the RFC Series.
- Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of improvements in the RFC Editor production and access processes.
- Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web site, which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher.
- Is responsible for developing consensus versions of vision and policy documents. These documents will be reviewed by the RFC Series Oversight Committee (Section 3.1) and subject to its approval before final publication.
These responsibilities are defined below 🦋 although the specific work items under them are a matter for the actual employment contract and its Statement of Work (SOW).
The IAB keeps its chartered responsibility as defined in [RFC2850]. More details on the IAB's oversight through the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) are in Section 3.1. For example, the RSE does not have the direct authority to hire or fire RFC Editor contractors or personnel 🙅♀️
2.1. RFC Series Editor
The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall responsibility for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series 🎀
The RSE is appointed by the IAB but formally hired by the IETF LLC. The IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the RSOC, which the IAB appoints. 🌸
The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IETF LLC and the stream managers 🫶
2.1.1. Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication and Production Functions
With respect to the RFC Publisher and Production Center functions, the RSE provides input to the IETF LLC budget and SOWs, and manages vendor selection processes. The RSE does annual reviews of the RFC Production Center and Publisher function, which then go to the RSOC, the IETF LLC, and the community. Normally, private financial details wouldn't be included in a public version unless the IETF LLC concludes it's necessary to make that information public 💰
The RSE is responsible for the performance of the RFC Production Center and Publisher. The RSE is also responsible for issues that go beyond the Production Center or Publisher functions, such as cross-stream coordination of priorities. Issues that require changes to the budget or contracts shall be brought to the attention of the IETF LLC by the RSE. 📣
The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and structures that will allow for continuity of the RFC Series in the face of changes in contracts and personnel 🧠
Vendor selection for the RFC Production Center and Publisher functions is done in cooperation with the streams and under the final authority of the IETF LLC. Details on this process are in Section 4.1 🍓
2.1.2. Representation of the RFC Series
The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series. This representation matters both internally, relative to the IETF, and externally 💖
2.1.2.1. Representation to the IETF
The RSE is the primary point of contact to the IETF on matters relating to the RFC Series in general, or on policy matters relating to specific documents. Practical details in processing specific documents are generally worked through directly with the RFC Production Center staff 💅
This includes providing suitable reports to the community at large, providing email contact for policy questions and inputs, and enabling and participating in suitable online forums for discussing issues related to the RFC Series 💬
Because of the history and nature of the interaction between the RSE and the IETF, certain principles, described in the following subsections, must be understood and adhered to by the RSE in his or her interactions with the community. These apply to the representation function, as well as to the leadership the RSE provides for production and series development. 🌈
2.1.2.1.1. Volunteerism
The vast majority of Internet technical community work is led, initiated, and done by community volunteers 🫶 including oversight, policy making, and direct production of things like many software tools. The RSE, while not a volunteer, is dependent upon these volunteer participants. The spirit of the community is also heavily focused on and drawn from these volunteers. So the RSE needs to support the vitality and effectiveness of volunteer participation 🌷
2.1.2.1.2. Policy Authority
All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the broader Internet community 🌍 The RSE is responsible for identifying materially concerned interest groups within the Internet community and reaching out to them. Those interest groups include at least the IETF community, the IRTF community, the network research community, and the network operations community. Other interest groups might also be materially interested 👀
The RSE must consult with the community on policy issues ⭐ The RSE works with the community to achieve policy that meets the overall quality, continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is charged with meeting. As described in Section 3.1, the RSE reports the results of such interactions to the RSOC, including a description of the outreach efforts and the specific recommendations on policy. This lets the RSOC provide the oversight the IAB is required to apply, and confirm that the Internet community has been properly consulted and considered in making policy 🔥
2.1.2.2. External Representation
From time to time, individuals or organizations outside the IETF need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series. The RSE, or the RSE's designate, fills this role 🧚
Over time, the RSE should determine what, if any, means should be used to increase end-user awareness of the series, to reinforce the stature of the series, and to provide a contact point for outside parties seeking information on the series or the Editor ✨
2.1.3. Development of RFC Production and Publication
Closely related to providing strategic leadership and management to the RFC Production Center and Publisher functions is the need to develop and improve those functions. The RSE is responsible for making sure that this ongoing development happens 🚀
This effort must cover the dimensions of document quality, timeliness of production, and accessibility of results. It must also specifically take into account issues raised by the IETF community, including all the streams feeding into the RFC Editor function 🌸
2.1.4. Development of the RFC Series ✨
okay so the RSE is expected to build a real relationship with the Internet technical community 🫶. The Editor is expected to get in there with the community and help articulate and keep refining a vision for the series and how it keeps evolving 🦋. The RSE is also expected to engage with the other users of the RFC Series, especially the consumers of these docs, like the people who use them to specify products, write code, test behaviors, or do other related stuff 💅.
Concretely:
The RSE is responsible for coordinating the discussion on series evolution among the series' stream participants and the broader Internet technical community 🌸.
In time, the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision for the RFC Series, including examining:
- The RFC Series, as it continues to evolve. The RSE is expected to take a broad view and look for the best ways to evolve the series for the benefit of the entire Internet community. As such, the RSE may even consider evolution beyond the historical 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis; and
- Its publication-technical environment, by looking at whether it should be slowly changing in terms of publishing and archiving techniques, particularly to better serve the communities that produce and depend on the RFC Series. For example, all of those communities have been slowly changing to include a significant population of multi-lingual individuals or non-native speakers of English. Another example is that some of these constituencies also have shifted to include significant groups whose primary focus is on the constraints and consequences of network engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering issues themselves.
For this type of responsibility, the RSE cooperates closely with the community and operates under oversight of the RSOC, which means, ultimately, under oversight of the IAB 🎀.
2.1.5. Workload 💼
On average, the job is expected to take half of a full-time equivalent position (FTE, thus approximately 20 hrs per week), with the workload per week nearing full time during IETF weeks. In addition, the job is expected to take more than 20 hours per week in the first few months of the engagement and when involved in special projects. it's a lot, bestie 😭
2.1.6. Qualifications 👑
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional. The following qualifications are desired:
- Strategic leadership and management experience fulfilling the requirements outlined in this document, the many aspects of this role, and the coordination of the overall RFC Editor process.
- Good understanding of the English language and technical terminology related to the Internet.
- Good communication skills.
- Experience with editorial processes.
- Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC process.
- Independent worker.
- Willingness to, and availability for, travel.
- The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and matrixed environment with divided authority and responsibility similar to that described in this document.
- Experience with and ability to participate in, and manage, activities by email and teleconferences, not just face-to-face interactions.
- Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management of entire operations.
- Experience as an RFC author.
2.1.7. Conflict of Interest 🙈
The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest or judgment in performing these roles. To ensure this, the RSE will be subject to a conflict of interest policy established by the IETF LLC.
2.2. RFC Production Center 🏭
The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor's responsibilities include the following:
- Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style Manual, under the direction of the RSE;
- Creating records of edits performed on documents;
- Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact and seeking necessary clarification;
- Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds, IANA, and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed;
- Creating records of dialog with document authors;
- Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;
- Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed;
- Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external reviews of the RFC Editor function initiated by the IAB or IETF LLC;
- Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of IANA-performed protocol registry actions;
- Assigning RFC numbers;
- Establishing publication readiness of each document through communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA, and/or stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series Editor;
- Forwarding documents that are ready for publication to the RFC Publisher;
- Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC Publisher so these can be preserved;
- Liaising with the streams as needed.
All these activities will be done under the general direction, but not day-to-day management, of the RSE, and they need some level of coordination with the various submission streams and the RSE 💖.
The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through an IETF LLC Request for Proposal (RFP) process as described in Section 4.1.
2.3. RFC Publisher 📚
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include the following:
- Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.
- Providing an on-line system to submit RFC Errata.
- Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.
- Providing backups.
- Providing storage and preservation of records.
- Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.
All these activities will be done under the general direction, but not day-to-day management, of the RSE, and they need some level of coordination with the various submission streams and the RSE 🫶.
The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through an IETF LLC RFP process as described in Section 4.1.
3. Committees 🧚
3.1. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) 👀
The IAB is responsible for the oversight of the RFC Series and acts as a body for final conflict resolution, including the process described in Section 4.3.
In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the NomCom appointment cycle [RFC8713] and assure that oversight includes suitable subject matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group that implements oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC).
The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB. In general, it will be the RSOC that approves consensus policy and vision documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB. Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and recommendations the benefit of the doubt 🌈.
For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB. The final recommendation to the IETF LLC is the responsibility of the IAB, after discussion with RSOC on the recommendations. For instance, the RSOC would do the following:
- perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of these reviews to the IAB.
- manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate appointment (in other words, select the RSE subject to IAB approval).
RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of interest and behave accordingly.
For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, the RSOC will propose a budget for the search process. It will work with the IETF LLC to refine that budget and develop remuneration criteria and an employment agreement or contracting plans, as appropriate.
The RSOC will be responsible for ensuring that the RFC Series is run in a transparent and accountable manner ✨.
The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order.
The initial RSOC was charged with designing and executing a solicitation, search, and selection process for the first actual (not transitional or "acting") RSE appointment. That process involved iteration on this and related documents and evaluation of various strategies and options. During the creation of what became [RFC6635], it was expected that the RSOC would describe the process it ultimately selected to the community. The RSOC did involve the community in interim considerations when that was likely to be of value. Following completion of the selection process, the RSOC will determine the best way to share information learned and experience gained with the community and determine how to best preserve that information for future use 🍓.
3.1.1. RSOC Composition 🎀
The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB retaining final responsibility. The IAB will delegate authority and responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE relationships evolve. The RSOC will include people who are not current IAB members. Currently, this is aligned with the IAB program structure. The IAB will designate the membership of the RSOC with the following goals: preserving effective stability; keeping it small enough to be effective, and keeping it large enough to provide general Internet community expertise, specific IETF expertise, publication expertise, and stream expertise. Members serve at the pleasure of the IAB and are expected to bring a balance between short- and long-term perspectives. Specific input about, and recommendations of, members will be sought from the streams, the IETF LLC, and the RSE.
In addition to the members from outside of the IAB appointed to the RSOC, IAB members may participate as full members of the RSOC. Under most circumstances, there will be a specific individual IAB member appointed by the IAB as the program lead, who will be a full member of the RSOC. This member's role is distinct from any RSOC-internal organizational roles, such as would be created by the RSOC choosing to appoint a chair from among its members. Other IAB members may choose to be full members of the RSOC, with the consent of the IAB. This consent is primarily concerned with avoiding overpopulating the RSOC and providing it with relatively stable membership, which will work best if it is not too large a committee.
The IETF LLC will appoint an individual to serve as its liaison to the RSOC. The RSE and the IETF LLC Liaison will serve as non-voting ex officio members of the RSOC. Either or both can be excluded from its discussions if necessary 💜.
4. Administrative Implementation ✨
Okay bestie, so the actual admin and contract stuff is handled by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company [RFC8711], working together with the RFC Series Editor 💼. Figure 2 shows who answers to who 👀
+----------------+ +----------------+
| | | |
| IAB | | IETF LLC |
| | | |
+==========+-----+ +-+--------------+
| | .
| RSOC | .
| | .
+----+-----+ .
| .
| .
| ...................
| . .
+--------V---V----+ .
| | .
| RFC | .
| Series | .
| Editor | .
| | .
+--------+--------+ .
| .
| .................
| . .
+--+----------------+ .
| . | .
| . | .
+---V-----V--+ +--V----V---+
| RFC | | RFC |
| Production | | Publisher |
| Center | | |
+------------+ +-----------+
Legend:
------- IAB RFC Series Oversight
....... IETF LLC Contract/Budget OversightFigure 2: Authority Structure of the RFC Series
4.1. Vendor Selection for the Production and Publisher Functions
As we said earlier, vendor selection happens in cooperation with the streams, and it's under the final authority of the IETF LLC 💅
The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and joins the IETF LLC vendor selection process 📋. The work definition gets created inside the IETF LLC budget and takes the stream managers and community input into account 🫶.
Here's how picking and contracting for an RFC Production Center, an RFC Publisher, and other RFC-related services goes 🎀:
- The IETF LLC sets up the contract process, including the steps needed to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the contracting procedures.
- The IETF LLC sets up the Selection Committee, which will consist of the RSE, the IETF LLC Executive Director, and other members picked by the RSOC and the IETF LLC. The Committee shall be chaired by the RSE.
- The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to successfully negotiating a contract approved by the IETF LLC. If a contract can't be reached, the matter shall be referred back to the Selection Committee for further action 🔥.
- The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher either through the IETF LLC RFP process or, if the Committee prefers, it may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC Publisher services, subject to negotiations in accordance with the IETF LLC procedures 🦋.
4.2. Budget
The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses 🙌. They have been, and still are, part of the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company [RFC8711] budget.
The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding to support the RSE, the RFC Production Center, the RFC Publisher, and the Independent Stream 💜.
The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor budget, and it has the authority to deny it. The RSE must work within the IETF LLC budgetary process 📊.
The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor function so it operates within those budgets. If production needs change, the RSE is responsible for working with the Production Center and, where appropriate, other RFC Editor component institutions, relevant streams, and/or the RSOC to figure out the right response 🧠. If they agree a budgetary change is needed, that decision needs to go to the IETF LLC 💖.
4.3. Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor
The RFC Series Editor and the RFC Production Center and Publisher facilities work with the various streams to produce RFCs 🌸. Disagreements can pop up between these entities during RFC Editor operations 😬. Different streams might disagree with each other, or disagree with the RFC Editor function. Potentially, even the RSOC or the IETF LLC could end up in disagreement with some part of the RFC Editor operations 🙈. Note that disagreements between an author and the RFC Production Center are not cross-entity issues, and they are to be resolved by the RSE, in accordance with the rest of this document 💅.
If these cross-entity disagreements happen, the community would generally hope they can be resolved politely and directly 🫶. Sometimes that just isn't possible 💀. In that case, any relevant party would first formally request a review and reconsideration of the decision. If the party still disagrees after the reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide. Or, especially if the RSE is involved, the party may ask the IAB Chair (for a technical or procedural matter) to mediate, or to appoint a mediator to help with the discussions. The Chair is not obligated to do so, though 🧚. All parties should work informally and in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion 🌈. As noted below, any such issues that involve contractual matters must be brought to the attention of the IETF LLC 🔥. If the IAB Chair is asked to help resolve the matter, the Chair may ask for advice or seek help from anyone the Chair deems helpful. The Chair may also alert any appropriate individuals or organizations to the existence of the issue 👑.
If that conclusion isn't possible through these less formal processes, the matter must be registered with the RFC Series Oversight Committee. The RSOC may choose to offer advice to the RSE, or more general advice to the parties involved, and it may ask the RSE to defer a decision until it has formulated its advice ⭐. However, if a timely decision can't be reached through discussion, mediation, and mutual agreement, the RSE is expected to make whatever decisions are needed to ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Editor function. Those decisions are final 🫠.
The RSE may make final decisions unilaterally only to assure the functioning of the process, and only while there is an evaluation of current policies to determine whether they are appropriately implemented in the decision or need adjustment. And in particular, final decisions about the technical content of individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream approvers from which those documents originate, as shown in the illustration in Figure 1. Hands off the technical content, RSE 🙅♀️💅
If informal agreements can't be reached, then formal RSOC review and decision making may be required. If so, the RSE must present the issues involved to the community so the community is aware of the situation. The RSE will then report the issue to the RSOC for formal resolution by the RSOC, with confirmation by the IAB in its oversight capacity 📣.
IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes is expected to inform future changes to RFC Series policies, including possible updates to this document 🔮.
4.4. Issues with Contractual Impact
If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual consequences, it falls under [RFC8711]. If this happens, the RSE must identify the issue and provide advice to the IETF LLC. Additionally, if the RSOC has also developed advice, it should forward that advice to the IETF LLC 💼.
The IETF LLC must notify the RSOC and IAB about the action it concludes is required to resolve the issue, based on its applicable procedures and the provisions in the relevant contracts 📜.
5. IANA Considerations
This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor structure, and it places the responsibility for coordinating registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center 🗂️. The IETF LLC 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, so no IANA action is required 🎀.
6. Security Considerations
Okay, this part is SERIOUS 😭🚨 The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply. The processes for publishing 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, originals that are not machine readable) need to be secured against any kind of data storage failure 💾💀. Protect the archive, bestie!!
The IETF LLC should take these security considerations into account during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC Editor component contracts 🛡️.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed.,
"Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)",
BCP 39, RFC 2850, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
[RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.
[RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.7.2. Informative References
[RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620>.
[RFC8713] Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood,
Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection,
Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF
Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8713>.IAB Members at the Time of Approval ✨
okay so bestie, this is the squad roster! 🎀 These are the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) members at the time this document was approved for publication 💅
- Jari Arkko
- Alissa Cooper
- Stephen Farrell
- Wes Hardaker
- Ted Hardie
- Christian Huitema
- Zhenbin Li
- Erik Nordmark
- Mark Nottingham
- Melinda Shore
- Jeff Tantsura
- Martin Thomson
- Brian Trammell
Acknowledgments 🫶
the RFC Editor model was literally conceived in hallways and on mailing lists, no cap 😭 the first draft of the text this document is based on was written by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ray Pelletier 💖 on top of the IAOC and IAB members who helped through those roles, big and small contributions came from (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy Ginoza, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, Alice Russo, and Jim Schaad 🌸
the IAOC members when RFC 6635 was approved were (in alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba (ex officio), Eric Burger, Dave Crocker, Marshall Eubanks, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley (ex officio), Ole Jacobsen, Ray Pelletier (non-voting), and Lynn St. Amour (ex officio) ✨
the IAB members when the initial RFC Editor model (Version 1, RFC 5620) 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 🦋 the IAB also had 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 when RFC 6635 was approved were (in alphabetical order): Bernard Aboba, Ross Callon, Alissa Cooper, Spencer Dawkins, Joel Halpern, Russ Housley, David Kessens, Olaf Kolkman, Danny McPherson, Jon Peterson, Andrei Robachevsky, Dave Thaler, and Hannes Tschofenig 💜 at that point the IAB had two ex officio members too: Mary Barnes, who was serving as the IAB Executive Director, and Lars Eggert, who was serving as the IRTF Chair 🌈
Bob Hinden served as document editor for this RFC, aligning it with the IASA 2.0 structure. He really did the work, periodt 👑
Authors' Addresses 💌
Olaf Kolkman (editor)
Internet Society
Email: kolkman@isoc.org
Joel M. Halpern (editor)
Ericsson
Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com
Robert M. Hinden (editor)
Check Point Software
959 Skyway Road
San Carlos, CA 94070
United States of America
Email: bob.hinden@gmail.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc8728 2020-02
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms