RFC 9280

RFC Editor Model (Version 3)

📅 published June 2022, from ietf

RFC 9280: RFC Editor Model (Version 3) 🎀

Request for Comments: 9280 💖 Authors: P. Saint-Andre, Ed. ✨ Publisher: Internet Architecture Board (IAB) 🧚 Date: June 2022 📅 Category: Informational 🦋 ISSN: 2070-1721 🌈 Obsoletes: RFC 8728 💅 Updates: RFCs 7841, 8729, and 8730 🫶

Abstract

okay so this doc is version 3 of the RFC Editor Model, and it's giving "who does what" energy 💅 it splits the big tasks into two buckets. First, policy definition is a team sport between the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which comes up with policy proposals, and the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which signs off on them ✨. Second, policy implementation is mostly the job of the RFC Production Center (RPC), which is contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC) 🔥. Some RFC Editor duties are now handled alone or together by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC 👑. Finally, this doc creates the Editorial Stream, which is where future policy documents from these processes get published 🎀.

This document obsoletes RFC 8728. This document updates RFCs 7841, 8729, and 8730.

Status of This Memo

not gonna lie, this one's not on the Internet Standards Track 🙈 it's just published for information 🌸

This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9280. 🦋

Copyright Notice

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. 📜

Table of Contents 🧾

1.  Introduction
2.  Overview of the Model
3.  Policy Definition
  3.1.  Structure and Roles
    3.1.1.  RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
    3.1.2.  RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
  3.2.  Process
    3.2.1.  Intent
    3.2.2.  Workflow
    3.2.3.  Community Calls for Comment
    3.2.4.  Appeals
    3.2.5.  Anti-Harassment Policy
    3.2.6.  RFC Boilerplates
4.  Policy Implementation
  4.1.  Roles and Processes
  4.2.  Working Practices
  4.3.  RPC Responsibilities
  4.4.  Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC
  4.5.  Point of Contact
  4.6.  Administrative Implementation
    4.6.1.  Vendor Selection for the RPC
    4.6.2.  Budget
5.  RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)
  5.1.  RSCE Selection
  5.2.  RSCE Performance Evaluation
  5.3.  Temporary RSCE Appointment
  5.4.  Conflict of Interest
6.  Editorial Stream
  6.1.  Procedures Request of the IETF Trust
  6.2.  Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream
  6.3.  Editorial Stream Boilerplate
7.  Historical Properties of the RFC Series
  7.1.  Availability
  7.2.  Accessibility
  7.3.  Language
  7.4.  Diversity
  7.5.  Quality
  7.6.  Stability
  7.7.  Longevity
8.  Updates to This Document
9.  Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model
  9.1.  RFC Editor Function
  9.2.  RFC Series Editor
  9.3.  RFC Publisher
  9.4.  IAB
  9.5.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
  9.6.  RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
  9.7.  Editorial Stream
10. Security Considerations
11. IANA Considerations
12. References
  12.1.  Normative References
  12.2.  Informative References
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Acknowledgments
Author's Address

1. Introduction ✨

okay so the Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archive where Internet technical specs live 📚 it covers general contributions from the Internet research and engineering community, plus standards documents too. RFCs are free for anyone to grab over the Internet 🎁 and as [RFC8700] explains, they've been coming out continually since 1969. iconic behavior honestly 👑

RFCs are generated and approved by multiple document streams 🌈 each stream has its own approving body [RFC8729] that owns the content of that stream, but the RFC Editor function is the one responsible for producing and distributing all the RFCs 💅 The four existing streams are described in [RFC8729]. This document adds a fifth stream, the Editorial Stream, for publishing policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole 🫶

The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function is described in [RFC8729], and this doc updates it by defining version 3 of the RFC Editor Model 🎀 Under this version, various RFC Editor responsibilities are handled alone or in combination by the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), RFC Series Advisory Board (RSAB), RFC Production Center (RPC), RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC) [RFC8711]. Together, they make up the RFC Editor function 🧚 The goal is sustainable maintenance and support for the RFC Series, built on expert implementation, clear management and direction, and appropriate community input [RFC8729]. main character energy 🦋

This document obsoletes [RFC8728] by defining version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. It updates [RFC7841] by defining boilerplate text for the Editorial Stream. It updates [RFC8729] by replacing the RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and RSCE. It also updates [RFC8730] by removing the dependency on certain policies specified by the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE). If you want the full scoop on what changed from version 2, check out Section 9 🔍

2. Overview of the Model 🌸

okay so this doc splits the RFC Series responsibilities into two high-level tasks 💖

Policy definition governing the RFC Series as a whole. This is a joint responsibility of two entities. First, the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is an open working group, independent of the IETF, that generates policy proposals. Second, the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) is an appointed body that approves those proposals for publication in the Editorial Stream. The RSAB includes representatives of the streams [RFC8729] as well as an expert in technical publishing, the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE).
Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the streams that form the RFC Series. This is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC), as contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC) [RFC8711].

As the rest of the doc explains, the core activities and responsibilities look like this 👀

The RSWG proposes policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole, with input from the community, the RSAB, and the RSCE.
The RSAB considers those proposals and either approves them or returns them to the RSWG, which may make further changes or remove them from further consideration.
If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the Editorial Stream and thus define the policies to be followed by the RSWG, RSAB, RSCE, and RPC. ✨
The RSCE provides expert advice to the RPC and RSAB on how to implement established policies on an ongoing and operational basis, which can include raising issues or initiating proposed policy changes within the RSWG.
The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in its day-to-day editing and publication of RFCs from all of the streams.
If issues arise with the implementation of particular policies, the RPC brings those issues to the RSAB, which interprets the policies and provides interim guidance to the RPC, informing the RSWG of those interpretations.

this model is designed to ensure public processes and policy documents, clear lines of responsibility and authority, transparent mechanisms for updates and changes to policies governing the RFC Series as a whole, and effective operational implementation of the RFC Series 💜 thus meeting the requirements specified in Section 4 of [RFC8729]. that's the whole vibe 🫶

The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail 🧚

3. Policy Definition 🎀

Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through the following high-level process 💅

Proposals must be submitted to, adopted by, and discussed within the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG).
Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working group and a community call for comments (see Section 3.2.3).
Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).

Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series 🦋

3.1. Structure and Roles 🌈

3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) 💖

3.1.1.1. Purpose

The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that govern the RFC Series ✨

3.1.1.2. Participation

okay bestie, all interested individuals are welcome to join the RSWG 🫶 participants are subject to anti-harassment policies as described in Section 3.2.5, so keep it kind 🙈 This includes but is not limited to participants in the IETF and IRTF, members of the IAB and IESG, developers of software or hardware systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and Internet-Drafts, individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, scholarly researchers, and representatives of standards development organizations other than the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC Board members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFC Production Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited to participate as community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted by any relevant IETF LLC policies 🎀 Members of the RSAB are also expected to participate actively 👑

3.1.1.3. Chairs ✨

okay so the RSWG gets two chairs 👑, one appointed by the IESG and one appointed by the IAB. When the group first forms, the IESG's chair serves for one (1) year and the IAB's chair serves for two (2) years 🦋. After that, chairs serve two-year terms, and there are no term limits on renewal, so they can keep going as long as people want them 💅. The IESG and IAB get to decide their own appointment processes, but they shall take any potential conflicts of interest into account 🙈.

If community members have concerns about how an RSWG Chair is doing, they should send their feedback to the appointing body, using whatever mechanisms that body specifies when the RSWG is formed 🫶. The IESG and IAB can remove their own chairs whenever they want, and they can name a replacement, who shall finish out the original chair's term. Iconic power move 😤.

It's the chairs' job to encourage rough consensus inside the RSWG and to follow that consensus when they make decisions, like deciding whether to accept new proposals and whether to move proposals along to the RSAB 🌸.

3.1.1.4. Mode of Operation 🎀

The goal is for the RSWG to work kind of like IETF working groups do 💜. So all RSWG meetings and discussion venues shall be open to everyone who's interested, and all RSWG contributions shall follow intellectual property policies. Those policies shall be consistent with the IETF's, as laid out in [BCP78] and [BCP79] 📜.

When the RSWG is formed, all discussion shall happen on an open email discussion list, and that list shall be publicly archived 📬.

The RSWG can hold in-person, online-only, or hybrid meetings 🌈. These should be announced with enough notice that lots of people can join. The IESG Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim Meetings, at https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-guidance-2016-01-16/, is a reasonable starting point 🧚. In-person meetings should make room for effective online participation, for anyone who can't make it to the room 💖.

The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, which is a way of working that [RFC2418] describes informally ✨.

The RSWG may decide, by rough consensus, to use extra tooling (like GitHub, as specified in [RFC8874]), other forms of communication, and other working methods (like design teams) 🛠️. The only condition is that these stay consistent with this document and with [RFC2418] or whatever comes after it.

If this document doesn't say something specific about how the RSWG operates, then the general guidance in Section 6 of [RFC2418] should be considered appropriate 📖.

The IETF LLC is asked to provide the tooling needed to support RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies 🫡.

The IAB is asked to convene the RSWG when it first forms, so that the IAB's handover of authority over the RFC Editor Model gets formalized 🦋.

3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) 👑

3.1.2.1. Purpose 🌟

The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) includes representatives from all of the streams 🌈. It's the body that approves proposals generated within the RSWG, which gives us a proper set of checks and balances on what the RSWG puts out 🫶. The RSAB's only policy-making role is reviewing policy proposals generated by the RSWG. It shall not have any independent authority to make policy on its own, no going rogue 🙅‍♀️. The RSAB is expected to respect the RSWG's rough consensus wherever it can, but it doesn't give up its responsibility to review RSWG proposals, as Section 3.2.2 explains in more detail 💅.

3.1.2.2. Members 💜

The RSAB is made up mostly of these voting members:

A stream representative for the IETF Stream: either an IESG member or someone appointed by the IESG 💖
A stream representative for the IAB Stream: either an IAB member or someone appointed by the IAB 🌸
A stream representative for the IRTF Stream: either the IRTF Chair or someone appointed by the IRTF Chair 🦋
A stream representative for the Independent Stream: either the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) [RFC8730] or someone appointed by the ISE 🎀
The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) 👑

If a new stream is ever created, the document that creates it shall say whether a voting member representing that stream shall also be added to the RSAB 🌈. It should also spell out any rules and processes for that representative, like whether they're a member of the body in charge of the stream or an appointed delegate of that body 🧚.

The RSCE is a voting member of the RSAB, but the RSCE does not act as a representative of the Editorial Stream 💅. That's an important distinction, bestie 🙈.

To keep the RFC Series running smoothly, the RSAB shall also include these non-voting, ex officio members:

The IETF Executive Director or their delegate. The reasoning is that the IETF LLC is accountable for carrying out the policies that govern the RFC Series 🫡.
A representative of the RPC, named by the RPC. The reasoning is that the RPC is responsible for carrying out the policies that govern the RFC Series 🛠️.

On top of that, the RSAB may include other non-voting members whenever it wants 🌸. These can be ex officio members or liaisons from groups or organizations the RSAB decides it needs to formally work with or coordinate with 💜.

3.1.2.3. Appointment and Removal of Voting Members 🦋

The appointing bodies (that's the IESG, IAB, IRTF Chair, and ISE) get to set their own processes for appointing RSAB members. Processes related to the RSCE are in Section 5, so check there for those 🧚. Each appointing body has the power to remove its own appointed RSAB member at its discretion, at any time 😤. Appointing bodies should make sure voting members are seated at all times, and they should fill any vacancies with all due speed, on a temporary basis if that's necessary 🫶.

If the IRTF Chair or ISE is incapacitated, or otherwise can't appoint someone to serve as a delegate, then the IAB steps in 🌈. As the appointing body for the IRTF Chair and ISE, the IAB shall act as the temporary appointing body for those streams and shall appoint a temporary RSAB member. That temporary member serves until the IAB has appointed an IRTF Chair or ISE, who can then serve as an RSAB member or appoint a delegate through normal processes 💖.

3.1.2.4. Vacancies 🌸

If a voting member seat is vacant, the RSAB operates like this 🍓:

Activities related to implementing policies that are already in force shall continue as normal ✨.
Voting on approval of policy documents produced by the RSWG shall be delayed until the vacancy or vacancies are filled, up to a maximum of three (3) months. If another vacancy pops up during that three-month period, the delay should be extended by up to another three months 🕰️. After the delay period expires, the RSAB should keep processing documents as described below 🫡.

This method for handling vacancies doesn't apply to a vacancy in the RSCE role. It only applies to vacancies in the stream representative seats listed in Section 3.1.2.2 🙅‍♀️.

3.1.2.5. Chair 👑

The RSAB shall choose a chair from among its members every year, using a method of its own choosing 🗳️. If the chair position is vacated during the chair's term, the RSAB shall choose a new chair from among its members 💅.

3.1.2.6. Mode of Operation 💻

The RSAB is expected to operate through an email discussion list, in-person meetings, teleconferencing systems, and any extra tooling it decides it needs 🌈.

The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions 📝. The main email discussion list the RSAB uses shall be publicly archived. The one exception is topics that need confidentiality, like personnel matters. Those may be left out of the archives or discussed in private 🙈. Meeting minutes may leave out detailed information about topics discussed in executive session, but they should note that those topics were discussed 🤫.

The RSAB shall announce its meeting plans and agendas on the RFC Editor website and by email to the RSWG at least a week before each meeting 📣. Meetings shall be open for public attendance, and the RSAB may consider allowing open participation too 🦋. If the RSAB needs to discuss a confidential matter in executive session, that part of the meeting shall be private to the RSAB. But it must be noted on the agenda, and it must be documented in the minutes with as much detail as confidentiality requirements allow 🔒.

The IETF LLC is asked to provide the tooling and staff needed to support RSAB communication, decision processes, and policies 🫶.

The IAB is asked to convene the RSAB when it first forms, so that the IAB's handover of authority over the RFC Editor Model gets formalized 💜.

3.2. Process 🎀

This section specifies the RFC Series Policy Definition Process. It shall be followed in producing all Editorial Stream RFCs 📜.

3.2.1. Intent 🌷

The point is to give everyone an open forum where policies related to the RFC Series get defined and evolved 🌍. The general expectation is that all interested parties take part in the RSWG. RSAB members should only need to hold CONCERN positions (as described in Section 3.2.2) under extreme circumstances 😬.

Policy issues can be hard and contentious, so RSWG participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work together in good faith and mutual understanding to reach rough consensus (see [RFC2418]) 🤝. Specifically, RSWG members are encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously. RSAB members are encouraged to express their concerns clearly and early in the process, and to stay responsive to the community 👂. Everyone is encouraged to respect the value of each stream and the long-term health and viability of the RFC Series 💖.

This process is meant to be continuous consultation 🔁. RSAB members should consult their constituent stakeholders (authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs, for example) on an ongoing basis. That way, when it's time to consider approving a proposal, there should be no surprises 🫣. Appointing bodies are expected to set up whatever processes they think are appropriate to help reach this goal ✨.

3.2.2. Workflow ✨

okay so the RSWG has a whole recipe for cooking up or tweaking RFC Series policies, and it goes like this, bestie 🍓

someone (or a little squad of someones) writes up a proposal as an Internet-Draft (it must be done in full conformance with [BCP78] and [BCP79] 📝) and asks the RSWG to adopt it as a working group item.
the RSWG may adopt it if the chairs decide (using working group rough consensus procedures) that people are actually interested 👀. it's basically how a regular IETF working group runs (see [RFC2418]), so it's giving familiar vibes 💜.
the RSWG then keeps discussing and developing the proposal 🧵. everyone should watch closely for anything that could seriously change long-standing policies or the historical vibes of the RFC Series (see Section 7), but especially the RSAB members 👑. RSAB members are expected to take part as individuals in every discussion about RSWG proposals. this way they're in the loop early in the RFC Series Policy Definition Process and can raise worries while the thing is still being built, not wait until the RSAB review period 🫶. the RSWG Chairs are expected to participate as individuals too, obviously ✨.
at some point, if the RSWG Chairs think the proposal might have rough consensus to move forward, they'll issue a Last Call for comments within the working group 📣.
after a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG Chairs decide whether rough consensus actually exists 🧐. they count their own feedback as individuals along with everyone else's. if comments came in and there were big changes, more Last Calls may be needed 🔁. once the chairs decide consensus is reached, they announce it on the RSWG email discussion list and forward the document to the RSAB 📬.
once the RSWG has consensus, the RSAB shall issue a community call for comments (more on that in Section 3.2.3) 📢. if a bunch of substantial comments come back, the RSAB may send the proposal back to the RSWG to consider them and revise 🔄. at the same time, the RSAB shall also consider the proposal itself 💅.
if the revisions from the previous step were substantial, the RSAB should issue another community call for comments, and the RSWG should consider that feedback 🔥.
once the RSWG Chairs confirm that the concerns from the community call(s) have been handled, they shall tell the RSAB the document is ready for balloting 🗳️.
within a reasonable amount of time, the RSAB polls its members for their positions 🫣. the options are:
- YES: the proposal should be approved ✅
- CONCERN: the proposal raises substantial concerns that must be addressed 😬
- RECUSE: the person holding the position has a conflict of interest 🙅‍♀️

any RSAB member holding a CONCERN must explain it to the community in detail 🗣️. but ngl, the RSWG might still not be able to reach consensus on changes that fix the member's concern 💀.

there are three reasons an RSAB member might file a CONCERN 🚩:

they believe the proposal is a serious problem for one or more of the individual streams
they believe the proposal would seriously harm the overall RFC Series, including its long-term health and viability
they believe, based on the community call(s) for comments (Section 3.2.3), that rough consensus to advance the proposal is lacking

since RSAB members are expected to join the RSWG discussions and raise concerns there, most CONCERNs shouldn't be a surprise to the RSWG 🙈. still, late CONCERNs are always possible if issues pop up during RSAB review or the community call(s) for comments 😅.

if a CONCERN exists, the discussion moves to the RSWG 💬. again, all RSAB members are expected to participate. if substantial changes are made to address CONCERN positions, another community call for comments might be needed 🔁.
a proposal with no CONCERN positions is approved 🎉.
if CONCERN positions are still around after a suitable amount of time, the RSAB takes a vote 🗳️. if at least three voting members vote YES, the proposal is approved 👑.
if the proposal isn't approved, it goes back to the RSWG, which can then consider more changes 🔙.
if the proposal is approved, a notification goes out to the community, and the document enters the queue for publication as an RFC within the Editorial Stream 🦋.
policies may take effect immediately after RSAB approval and before the relevant RFC is published 🚀, unless they're held up while the IETF LLC sorts out pending resource or contract issues ⏳.

3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment 📢

the RSAB is in charge of starting and managing community calls for comments on proposals that the RSWG has reached consensus on 🧑‍💼. the RSAB should actively go looking for a wide range of input 👀. at a minimum, it does this by sending a notice to the rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org (mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org) email discussion list, or to its successor or future equivalent 📧. RSAB members should also send a notice to the communities they directly represent (for example, the IETF and IRTF) 🌈. notices are also made available and archived on the RFC Editor website 🗂️. other channels can be set up for notices too, like an RSS feed or posting on social media 📱.

if a proposal could seriously change the long-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFC Series (see Section 7), the RSAB should take extra care to reach out to a very wide range of communities that use RFCs (see Section 3.1.1.2) 🌍. those communities might not be actively involved in the RSWG directly 🥲. the RSAB should work with the stream approving bodies and the IETF LLC to find and set up contacts in those communities, with extra help from the RSCE in particular 🫶.

the RSAB should keep a public list of the communities contacted during calls for comments 📋.

a notice of a community call for comments includes the following 💌:

a subject line beginning with Call for Comments:
a clear, concise summary of the proposal
a URL pointing to the Internet-Draft that defines the proposal
any explanations or questions for the community that the RSAB decides are necessary (using its usual decision-making procedures)
clear instructions on how to send public comments
a deadline for comments

a comment period will last not less than two weeks, and should be longer if wide outreach is needed ⏰. comments are publicly archived on the RFC Editor website 🗃️.

the RSAB is responsible for considering the comments it receives during a community call for comments 🧠. if RSAB members conclude the comments raise important issues that need fixing, they should talk about those issues within the RSWG, or (if the issues meet the criteria in Step 9 of Section 3.2.2) file a CONCERN position during RSAB balloting 🚩.

3.2.4. Appeals ⚖️

appeals of RSWG Chair decisions go to the RSAB 🙋‍♀️. RSWG Chair decisions can only be appealed on grounds of failure to follow the correct process 📏. appeals should be filed within thirty (30) days of an action or, if there was a failure to act, of notice being given to the RSWG Chairs 🗓️. the RSAB then decides whether the process was followed and tells the RSWG Chairs which procedural steps are required 🧾.

RSAB decisions can be appealed on grounds of failure to follow the correct process 🔍. there's also an extra case: if the RSAB makes a decision to resolve a disagreement between authors and the RPC (as described in Section 4.4), appeals can be filed on the basis that the RSAB misinterpreted an approved policy 🤓. apart from these two cases, disagreements about how the RSAB conducts itself are not subject to appeal 🙅‍♀️. appeals of RSAB decisions go to the IAB and should be filed within thirty (30) days of public notice of the relevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are posted) 📝. the IAB decides whether a process failure occurred and what corrective action, if any, should happen 🫡.

3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy 🫶

the IETF anti-harassment policy (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-harassment-policy/) also applies to the RSWG and RSAB 🌸. both groups strive to create and maintain a space where people of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect 💖. participants are expected to behave according to professional standards and show appropriate workplace behavior 💼. for more info on these policies, see [RFC7154], [RFC7776], and [RFC8716] 📚.

3.2.6. RFC Boilerplates 🎀

RFC boilerplates (see [RFC7841]) are part of the RFC Style Guide, as defined in Section 4.2 ✨. new or modified boilerplates considered under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model must be approved by the following parties, and each one has its own area of responsibility when it comes to boilerplates 🧩:

the applicable stream, which approves that the boilerplate meets its needs
the RSAB, which approves that the boilerplate doesn't conflict with the boilerplate used in the other streams
the RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate is consistent with the RFC Style Guide
the IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly states the Trust's position on rights and ownership 🌷

4. Policy Implementation ✨

4.1. Roles and Processes 🎀

Okay bestie, so publishing RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC) 💅 Here are a few general things to know:

The general roles and responsibilities of the RPC are defined by RFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by the RSWG, RSAB, or RSCE), by existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and by the requisite contracts. 📜
The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and it has a duty to consult with them under specific circumstances, such as those relating to disagreements between authors and the RPC as described in Section 4.4. 🤝
The RPC is overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that it performs in accordance with contracts in place. 👀

All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance targets are between the RPC and IETF LLC. It's giving very "adults handle the money" energy 💼✨

The RPC shall regularly provide reports to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG, and broader community regarding its activities and any key risks or issues affecting it. Transparency is iconic 🌸

If the RPC has to make a decision without the consultation that would normally be needed, or makes a decision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify the RSAB. No sneaky decisions, periodt 🙈

This document does not specify the exact relationship between the IETF LLC and the RPC. For example, the work of the RPC could be performed by a separate corporate entity under contract to the IETF LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or the IETF LLC could engage with independent contractors for some or all aspects of such work. The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC to determine. So many options, bestie 🦋

The IETF LLC is responsible for the method and management of the engagement of the RPC. Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority over negotiating performance targets for the RPC and also has responsibility for ensuring that those targets are met. Such performance targets are set based on the RPC's publication load and additional efforts required to implement policies specified in Editorial Stream RFCs, in existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and in the requisite contracts. The IETF LLC may consult with the community regarding these targets. The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a manager or to convene a committee to complete these activities. Main character energy from the IETF LLC 👑

If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the performance of the RPC, they can request that the matter be investigated by the IETF LLC Board, the IETF Executive Director, or a point of contact designated by the IETF LLC Board. Even if the IETF LLC opts to delegate this activity, concerns should be raised with the IETF LLC. The IETF LLC is ultimately answerable to the community via the mechanisms outlined in [RFC8711]. Accountability, the way it's giving 💜

4.2. Working Practices 🧚

In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in the interest of specifying the detail of its implementation of such policies, the RPC can document working practices regarding the editorial preparation, final publication, and dissemination of RFCs. Examples include:

Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards for RFCs; specifically, the RFC Style Guide consists of [RFC7322] and the other documents and resources listed at [STYLEGUIDE]. 📖
Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as input to the editing and publication process. 📄
Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published documents. In the context of the XML vocabulary [RFC7991], such guidelines could include clarifications regarding the preferred XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic content of RFCs. 🍓

4.3. RPC Responsibilities 💅

The core responsibility of the RPC is the implementation of RFC Series policies through publication of RFCs (including the dimensions of document quality, timeliness of publication, and accessibility of results), while taking into account issues raised by the community through the RSWG and by the stream approving bodies. More specifically, the RPC's responsibilities at the time of writing include the following:

Editing documents originating from all RFC streams to ensure that they are consistent with the editorial standards specified in the RFC Style Guide. ✏️
Creating and preserving records of edits performed on documents.
Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact and seeking necessary clarification.
Establishing the publication readiness of each document through communication with the authors, IANA, or stream-specific contacts, supplemented if needed by the RSAB and RSCE.
Creating and preserving records of dialogue with document authors.
Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
Participating within the RSWG in the creation of new Editorial Stream RFCs that impact the RPC, specifically with respect to any challenges the RPC might foresee with regard to implementation of proposed policies.
Identifying topics and issues while processing documents or carrying out other responsibilities on this list for which they lack sufficient expertise, and identifying and conferring with relevant experts as needed. 🧠
Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans.
Consulting with the community on its plans.
Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC.
Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC performance by the IETF LLC.
Coordinating with IANA to ensure that RFCs accurately document registration processes and assigned values for IANA registries.
Assigning RFC numbers. 🔢
Liaising with stream approving bodies and other representatives of the streams as needed.
Publishing RFCs, which includes:
- posting copies to the RFC Editor site both individually and in collections
- depositing copies with external archives
- creating catalogs and catalog entries
- announcing the publication to interested parties 📣
Providing online access to RFCs. 🌐
Providing an online system to facilitate the submission, management, and display of errata to RFCs. 🩹
Maintaining the RFC Editor website.
Providing for the backup of RFCs. 💾
Ensuring the storage and preservation of records.
Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings. ⚖️

4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC 🫶

During the process of editorial preparation and publication, disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the RPC. Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in collaboration with stream-specific contacts.

However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies or if it is unclear how to interpret an existing policy, the parties may need to consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB, IESG, IRSG, or stream approving bodies) to help achieve a resolution. The following points are intended to provide more specific guidance.

If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, to help achieve a resolution, the RPC should consult with the relevant stream approving body (such as the IESG or IRSG) and other representatives of the relevant stream as appropriate.
If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should consult with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.
The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by an existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies, as described above. In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a) resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary so that the relevant stream document(s) can be published before a new policy is defined and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so that a new policy can be defined. 🧩

4.5. Point of Contact 📬

From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF and the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC Series. Such inquiries should be directed to the rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org) email alias or to its successor or future equivalent and then handled by the appropriate bodies (e.g., RSAB and RPC) or individuals (e.g., RSWG Chairs and RSCE). Slide into the right inbox, bestie 💌

4.6. Administrative Implementation 🧾

The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. This section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such activities.

4.6.1. Vendor Selection for the RPC 🛍️

Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under the final authority of the IETF LLC.

The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) for the RPC and manages the vendor-selection process. The work definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into account the RPC responsibilities (as described in Section 4.3), the needs of the streams, and community input.

The process to select and contract for the RPC and other RFC-related services is as follows:

The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps necessary to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) when necessary, the timing, and the contracting procedures.
The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will consist of the IETF Executive Director and other members selected by the IETF LLC in consultation with the stream approving bodies. The committee shall select a chair from among its members. 🪑
The selection committee selects the vendor, subject to the successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC. In the event that a contract cannot be signed, the matter shall be referred to the selection committee for further action.

4.6.2. Budget 💰

Most expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They have been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.

The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding to support the RSCE, the RFC Production Center, and the Independent Stream.

The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor budget (and the authority to deny it). All relevant parties must work within the IETF LLC budgetary process. Budget tea, fully spilled 🌈✨

5. RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) 💅✨

Okay so the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a senior technical publishing pro, bestie, and they're going to bring their deep knowledge of publishing processes to the RFC Series. Iconic energy 👑

The main things the RSCE does:

Sits as a voting member on the RSAB 🗳️
Spots problems in the RFC publication process and finds ways to level it up 📈
Gives expert advice inside the RSWG on policy proposals 🧠
Gives expert advice to the RPC and the IETF LLC 🫶

Stuff the RSCE might weigh in on (see also Section 4 of [RFC8729]) includes:

Editing, processing, and publication of RFCs 📝
Publication formats for the RFC Series 🎀
Changes to the RFC Style Guide 💜
Series-wide guidelines about document content and quality 🌸
Web presence for the RFC Series 🌐
Copyright matters related to the RFC Series ©️
Archiving, indexing, and accessibility of RFCs ♿

The IETF LLC handles how the RSCE gets engaged, including picking them, evaluating them, and filling the seat on time if it opens up. So whether the RSCE is a contractor or an employee is totally the IETF LLC's call 🤷‍♀️

5.1. RSCE Selection 🔍

A selection committee is in charge of recommending an RSCE to the IETF LLC. The IETF LLC should propose a starting lineup for that committee, making sure to include community members with diverse perspectives, and then check in with the stream representatives on the final membership. When making its recommendation, the committee looks at the role definition plus anything else it finds useful or necessary. The IETF LLC handles the contracting or hiring of the RSCE 💼

5.2. RSCE Performance Evaluation 📊

From time to time, the IETF LLC evaluates how the RSCE is doing, and that includes asking the community for confidential input 🤫 The IETF LLC drafts an evaluation for review by RSAB members (other than the RSCE), and those members send their feedback back to the IETF LLC 💖

5.3. Temporary RSCE Appointment ⏳

If the current RSCE is going to be unavailable for an extended stretch, the IETF LLC may appoint a Temporary RSCE through whatever recruitment process it thinks is appropriate. A Temporary RSCE acts as the RSCE in all aspects for the length of their appointment 🦋

5.4. Conflict of Interest 🚫

The RSCE is expected to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest or bad judgment while doing their job, so the RSCE is subject to a conflict-of-interest policy set by the IETF LLC. Serious about it, no cap 🧐

The RPC service provider may contract services from the RSCE service provider, and the other way around, including services provided to the IETF LLC. All contracts between the two MUST be disclosed to the IETF LLC. Where those services relate to services provided to the IETF LLC, IETF LLC policies apply, including publication of relevant parts of the contract 📜

Disclosure is not optional here, bestie. Every contract between the RPC service provider and the RSCE service provider goes to the IETF LLC. ⚠️

6. Editorial Stream 🌈

This document creates the Editorial Stream, a separate space for publishing policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related info about the RFC Series as a whole. It's giving organised 🗂️

The Editorial Stream MUST be used only to specify and update policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related information regarding the RFC Series as a whole. No other use of the Editorial Stream is authorized by this memo, and no other streams are so authorized either. This policy MAY be changed only by agreement of the IAB, IESG, and IETF LLC 🔒

All documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB MUST be published as RFCs in the Editorial Stream with a status of Informational. (Quick side note: the Editorial Stream is not authorized to publish RFCs that are Standards Track or Best Current Practice, since those are reserved for the IETF Stream [RFC8729].) Even though they're Informational, it's important to remember that documents published in the Editorial Stream define policies for the RFC Series as a whole 🧚

The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams are outside the scope of this document 🤷‍♀️

6.1. Procedures Request of the IETF Trust 🙏

The IAB asks the IETF Trust and its Trustees to help meet the goals and procedures in this document 💌

The Trustees are asked to publicly confirm that they're willing and able to take responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for the Editorial Stream 🎀

Specifically, the Trustees are asked to develop the boilerplate needed to mark documents properly, so the IETF Trust receives the rights specified in [BCP78]. These procedures also need to let authors indicate either no rights to make derivative works or, preferably, the right to make unlimited derivative works. It's up to the Trust to decide exactly how that gets clearly indicated in each document 🦋

6.2. Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream ⚖️

As specified above, contributors to Editorial Stream documents are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, following the rules in [BCP9]. That includes disclosing patent and trademark issues that are known to the contributor, or that can reasonably be expected to be known 📣

Disclosing license terms for patents is also requested, as specified in [BCP79]. The Editorial Stream uses the IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism (https://www.ietf.org/ipr/) for this purpose. The IAB would prefer the most liberal terms possible for Editorial Stream documents, and terms that don't require fees or licensing are preferable. Non-discriminatory terms are strongly preferred over terms that discriminate among users 💖 Disclosure is required, and the RSWG and RSAB may consider disclosures and terms when deciding whether to submit a document for publication. But there are no specific requirements on the licensing terms for intellectual property related to Editorial Stream publication, so that part is flexible 🌸

6.3. Editorial Stream Boilerplate 📝

This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes to this boilerplate MUST be made through the RFC Series Policy Definition Process specified in Section 3 of this document 🔐

Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section MUST be as specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].

The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section MUST be as follows:

   This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
   Process.  It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working
   Group approved by the RFC Series Approval Board.  Such documents
   are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see
   Section 2 of RFC 7841.

The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section MUST be as specified in Section 3.5 of [RFC7841].

7. Historical Properties of the RFC Series 🏛️

This section lists some of the properties that have historically been seen as important to the RFC Series. Proposals that affect these properties are possible within the processes defined in this document. As described in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, proposals that might have a detrimental effect on these properties SHOULD receive heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB review. The point of that scrutiny is to make sure all changes are deliberate and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as they can be identified, have been carefully considered 🔍

7.1. Availability 🌍

Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades, with no restrictions on access or distribution 🎉

7.2. Accessibility ♿

RFC Series documents have been published in a format meant to be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities, e.g., people with impaired sight 👓

7.3. Language 🗣️

All existing RFC Series documents have been published in English. However, since the very beginning of the RFC Series, documents have been published under terms that explicitly allow translation into languages other than English without asking for permission 🌏

7.4. Diversity 🎨

The RFC Series has included many types of documents: standards for the Internet, procedural and informational documents, thought experiments, speculative ideas, research papers, histories, humor, and even eulogies 💀

7.5. Quality ✨

RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality and edited by professionals with the goal of making sure documents are clear, consistent, and readable [RFC7322] 💅

7.6. Stability 🧊

Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed 🔒

7.7. Longevity ⏳

RFC Series documents have been published in a form meant to be comprehensible to humans for decades or longer 📚

8. Updates to This Document 🔄

Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced using the process documented here, but they SHALL be published and operative only after (a) obtaining the agreement of the IAB and the IESG and (b) ensuring that the IETF LLC has no objections regarding its ability to implement any proposed changes 🫶

9. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model 🦋

The processes and organizational models for publishing RFCs have changed a lot over the years. Most recently, in 2009, [RFC5620] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1), and in 2012, [RFC6635] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), which was then modified slightly in 2020 by [RFC8728] 🕰️

However, the community ran into several problems with versions 1 and 2, including a lack of transparency, a lack of avenues for community input into policy definition, and unclear lines of authority and responsibility. Not ideal, bestie 😭

To fix this, in 2020 the IAB formed the RFC Editor Future Development Program to run a community discussion and consensus process for further evolving the RFC Editor Model. Under the Program's umbrella, the community considered changes that would increase transparency and community input into defining policies for the RFC Series as a whole. At the same time, the goal was to keep the RFC Series continuous, maintain quality and timely publication of RFCs, ensure document accessibility, and clarify lines of authority and responsibility 🌈

This document is the result of discussion within the Program and describes version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while staying consistent with [RFC8729] 💜

The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in more detail 👑

9.1. RFC Editor Function

okay bestie, so a bunch of jobs that used to belong to the RFC Editor (or the RFC Editor function, which is the whole vibe 💅) are now handled by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC, either solo or as a team 🫶. Those jobs are:

strategic leadership (Section 2.1.1 of [RFC8728])
representation of the RFC Series (Section 2.1.2 of [RFC8728])
development of RFC production and publication (Section 2.1.3 of [RFC8728])
development of the RFC Series (Section 2.1.4 of [RFC8728])
operational oversight (Section 3.3 of [RFC8729])
policy oversight (Section 3.4 of [RFC8729])
the editing, processing, and publication of documents (Section 4.2 of [RFC8729])
development and maintenance of guidelines and rules that apply to the RFC Series (Section 4.4 of [RFC8729])

Among other things, this changes the dependency on the RFC Series Editor (RSE) from Section 2.2 of [RFC8730], which said the RSE was in charge of "coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies as specified by the IAB and RSE." 🙈 It's a big shift. Various details about these responsibilities have also been tweaked to match the framework in this document ✨.

9.2. RFC Series Editor

So, following from the changes in the last section, the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or role (which is different from the overall RFC Editor function, fyi) is now split up and shared between the RSWG, RSAB, RSCE, RPC, and IETF LLC, either alone or in combination 🎀. The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model has a lot of different responsibilities compared to the RFC Series Editor under version 2 of the RFC Editor Model, so they're not the same thing at all 💀. In general, when older documents mention the RSE, you can read that as the RFC Editor function described here, but you should not read it as the RSCE.

9.3. RFC Publisher

In practice, the RFC Production Center (RPC) and the RFC Publisher roles have been done by the same entity, and that's expected to keep going 🌸. So this document drops the distinction between the two and just refers to the RPC 💖.

9.4. IAB

Under earlier versions of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB was in charge of overseeing the RFC Series and acted as the final tiebreaker for RFC Series conflicts ⚖️. The IAB's authority here is described in the IAB Charter ([RFC2850], as updated by [RFC9283]). Under version 2 of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB handed some of that power off to the RFC Series Oversight Committee (see Section 9.5) 🦋. Under version 3, the authority to define policy lives with the RSWG, which is an independent space for community members to do their work 🌈. Approving policy proposals is the job of the RSAB, which represents the streams and includes the RSCE. Meanwhile, the authority to implement policy lives with the IETF LLC 👑.

9.5. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)

ngl the relationships and lines of authority and responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE got kinda unwieldy and pretty opaque in practice 😭. To fix that, this document dispenses with the RSOC 🫠. References to the RSOC in documents such as [RFC8730] are obsolete, because this document disbands the RSOC 🪦.

9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)

Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC5620] specified the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), but version 2 of the RFC Editor Model didn't keep it around 🧚. Just so there's zero confusion, this document confirms that the RSAG has been disbanded ✨. Don't mix it up with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which this document is the one to establish 💅.

9.7. Editorial Stream

This document creates the Editorial Stream, on top of the streams that were already described in [RFC8729] 🎀.

10. Security Considerations 🔐

Okay, the same security considerations as in [RFC8729] apply here 🫶. The processes for publishing documents have to stop unapproved changes from getting in, full stop 🚨. Because a bunch of entities in this document (especially the RPC) help maintain the index of publications, there has to be enough security in place so outside parties can't change the published documents 😤. The RFC archive, any source documents needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any related original documents (like errata lists, tools, and, for some early items, originals that aren't machine-readable) need protection against data storage failure 💾. Hard stop, this stuff is important.

The IETF LLC (along with any other contracting or contracted entities) should take these security considerations into account when implementing and enforcing any relevant contracts 📜.

11. IANA Considerations 🦋

The RPC is responsible for working with the IANA so that RFCs accurately document registration processes and assigned values for IANA registries 🌸.

The IETF LLC helps manage the relationship between the RPC and IANA 🫶.

This document doesn't create a new registry, and it doesn't register any values in existing registries, so no IANA action is required 🙌.

12. References 📚

12.1. Normative References

[BCP9]     Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
           3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

           Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
           and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
           Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.

           Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
           Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
           October 2011.

           Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official
           Protocol Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100,
           December 2013.

           Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
           of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127, January 2014.

           Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in
           an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, March 2015.

           Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream
           Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789,
           June 2020.

           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>

[BCP78]    Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
           Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
           November 2008.

           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>

[BCP79]    Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
           Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179, May 2017.

           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>

[RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
           Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
           September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.

[RFC7154]  Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
           RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>.

[RFC7322]  Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.

[RFC7776]  Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
           Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
           2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.

[RFC7841]  Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed.,
           "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7841>.

[RFC8716]  Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IETF Anti-
           Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF
           Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF
           Administration LLC", BCP 25, RFC 8716,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC8716, February 2020,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716>.

[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>.

[RFC8730]  Brownlee, N., Ed. and B. Hinden, Ed., "Independent
           Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730,
           February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8730>.

12.2. Informative 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>.

[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>.

[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>.

[RFC7991]  Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
           RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.

[RFC8700]  Flanagan, H., Ed., "Fifty Years of RFCs", RFC 8700,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC8700, December 2019,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8700>.

[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>.

[RFC8728]  Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
           "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728>.

[RFC8874]  Thomson, M. and B. Stark, "Working Group GitHub Usage
           Guidance", RFC 8874, DOI 10.17487/RFC8874, August 2020,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8874>.

[RFC9283]  Carpenter, B., Ed., "IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor
           Model", BCP 39, RFC 9283, DOI 10.17487/RFC9283, June 2022,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9283>.

[STYLEGUIDE]
           RFC Editor, "Style Guide",
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>.

IAB Members at the Time of Approval 🌟

Here are the Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was approved for publication 🧚:

Jari Arkko
Deborah Brungard
Lars Eggert
Wes Hardaker
Cullen Jennings
Mallory Knodel
Mirja Kühlewind
Zhenbin Li
Tommy Pauly
David Schinazi
Russ White
Qin Wu
Jiankang Yao

This document is the product of the IAB's RFC Editor Future Development Program 🌈. That program allowed for open participation and used a rough consensus model for decision making 🫶.

Acknowledgments ✨

okay bestie, this is the big thank-you list 🫶 Portions of this document were borrowed from [RFC5620], [RFC6635], [RFC8728], [RFC8729], the Frequently Asked Questions of the IETF Trust, and earlier proposals submitted within the IAB's RFC Editor Future Development Program by Brian Carpenter, Michael StJohns, and Martin Thomson. Huge thanks to Eliot Lear and Brian Rosen, who chaired the Program, for their leadership and help 👑

Thanks also to everyone who gave feedback and proposed text, and they're a lot of icons 🌟 Jari Arkko, Sarah Banks, Carsten Bormann, Scott Bradner, Nevil Brownlee, Ben Campbell, Jay Daley, Martin Dürst, Wesley Eddy, Lars Eggert, Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Sandy Ginoza, Bron Gondwana, Joel Halpern, Wes Hardaker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Christian Huitema, Ole Jacobsen, Sheng Jiang, Benjamin Kaduk, John Klensin, Murray Kucherawy, Mirja Kühlewind, Ted Lemon, John Levine, Lucy Lynch, Jean Mahoney, Andrew Malis, Larry Masinter, S. Moonesamy, Russ Mundy, Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly, Colin Perkins, Julian Reschke, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Adam Roach, Dan Romascanu, Doug Royer, Alice Russo, Rich Salz, John Scudder, Stig Venaas, Tim Wicinski, and Nico Williams 💖🦋

Author's Address 💌

Peter Saint-Andre (editor) 🎀

Email: stpeter@stpeter.im 🌸

📦 where this page comes from

ietf: rfc9280 2022-06
💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on 2026-10-19: a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms