RFC 9920

RFC Editor Model (Version 3)

📅 published February 2026, from ietf

RFC 9920: RFC Editor Model (Version 3) 🎀

Okay bestie, the title block is giving organized 💅 This is RFC 9920, called RFC Editor Model (Version 3), and it's an Editorial Stream document (that's a brand-new stream, more on that later ✨). It's Informational, ISSN 2070-1721, dated February 2026. The authors are P. Hoffman (ICANN) and A. Rossi (RFC Series Consulting Editor). It obsoletes RFC 9280 and updates RFCs 7841, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, 8729, 8730, and 9720 🦋 That's a whole crew of updates, periodt.

Abstract ✨

So this doc lays out version 3 of the RFC Editor Model 💜 The model has two big tasks for the RFC Series. First, policy definition is a team sport: the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) drafts policy proposals, and the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) signs off on them. Second, policy implementation is mainly the RFC Production Center (RPC)'s job, and it's contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC) 🫶 On top of that, bits of the RFC Editor function are now handled alone or in combos by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC. Lastly, the doc sets up the Editorial Stream for publishing future policy definition documents made through these processes 🌈

Since RFC 9280 came out, the crew has learned some lessons about running this model 🙈 This document lists some of them and updates RFC 9280 based on that experience. It also obsoletes RFC 9280.

This document updates RFCs 7841, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, 8729, 8730, and 9720.

Status of This Memo

Not an Internet Standards Track spec, babe. It's published for informational purposes only 🌸

This doc comes out of the RFC Series Policy Definition Process. It reflects consensus from the RFC Series Working Group, approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. These docs can't be candidates for any level of Internet Standard, see Section 2 of RFC 7841 🍓

Want the current status, any errata, or a way to send feedback? Head to https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9920 ✨

Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved 💜

This doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they're in effect on the publication date. Read those carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document 📜

Table of Contents 🧚

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Changes to RFC 9280
     1.2.  RPC Roles and Responsibilities
       1.2.1.  Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs
       1.2.2.  Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions
       1.2.3.  RFC Consumers
     1.3.  Updates to RFC 9720
       1.3.1.  RFCs May Be Reissued
       1.3.2.  Consistency Policy
     1.4.  Purview of the RSWG and RSAB
     1.5.  Updates to RFCs 7991 through 7997
     1.6.  Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280
   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
     3.3.  RFC Consumers
   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
     7.8.  Consistency
   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
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction 🌷

The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series for documenting Internet technical specs. That covers general contributions from the Internet research and engineering community, plus standards docs too 📚 RFCs are free for anyone to get over the Internet. As described in [RFC8700], RFCs have been published continually since 1969, so they've been serving us for a long time 🫶

RFCs come out of multiple document streams. Each stream has an approving body [RFC8729] that's responsible for that stream's content. The RFC Editor function is responsible for producing and distributing all RFCs. The four existing streams are described in [RFC8729]. This document specifies 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 document updates it. This doc defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. Under this version, bits of the RFC Editor function are handled alone or together 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 of the RFC Series, built on expert implementation, clear management and direction, and appropriate community input [RFC8729] 💖

This document 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 more detail on what changed from version 2 of the RFC Editor Model, check out Section 9 🧚

1.1. Changes to RFC 9280 🦋

This section walks through the changes [RFC9280] got from the RSWG starting in 2022. If you don't care how this doc changed, skip straight to Section 2, no hard feelings 🙈

[RFC9280] brought big changes to how RFCs get published. Those changes made new structures and new processes. Now that people have been using them, the community has spotted spots to improve, and some process gaps turned up too. This document updates [RFC9280] based on those findings 💅

The layout of this RFC is different from typical RFCs. The reason is to keep the section numbering the same as [RFC9280]. Because of that, the Introduction is much longer and has several subsections that point back to the main body 🌈

The rest of this introduction is a list of changes to [RFC9280]. Those changes show up in the rest of the document, and there are cross-references between the list and the main body ✨

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Lowercase versions don't count as BCP 14 keywords, so watch the caps 👑

1.2. RPC Roles and Responsibilities 🎀

[RFC9280] created a new structure for the RFC Editor function. It set up the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) and the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), and it gave new responsibilities to the RFC Production Center (RPC). The big picture: the RSWG writes policies for the Editorial Stream, the RSAB approves those policies, and the RPC implements them 💜 However, [RFC9280] doesn't say which group is responsible for defining or building the specific code and tools that carry out the agreed policies. The rest of this section updates [RFC9280] to deal with that and other related matters 🫶

1.2.1. Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs ✨

Okay bestie, this one is about who builds the tools that actually publish RFCs 🛠️. Section 2 of [RFC9280] says:

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].

The same section also says:

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.

[RFC9280] doesn't name any other group responsible for implementing policies 🙅‍♀️.

Across [RFC9280], the RSWG is consistently given the job of writing policies, not deciding how they get implemented 📝. The RPC is consistently given the job of implementing policy decisions 💅, but the examples mostly describe decisions made for one document at a time. And [RFC9280] doesn't cover who is responsible for designing and building the tools and code used to publish documents 🤷‍♀️.

[RFC9280] mentions tool developers twice 👀. Section 3.1.1.2 of [RFC9280] encourages "developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and Internet-Drafts" to take part in the RSWG. Section 3.2.1 of [RFC9280] says that "RSAB members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g., authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an ongoing basis".

Section 4.2 of [RFC9280] names one specific implementation when it talks about how the RPC works:

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 ... 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.

[RFC7991] is the only editorial implementation-related RFC mentioned in [RFC9280] 🧚.

This is the new text that gets added to Section 4.3 of this document 💖:

The RPC is responsible for the development of tools and processes used to implement Editorial Stream policies, in the absence of an RFC with specific requirements. The RPC is responsible for detailed technical specifications, for example, specific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. The RPC may designate a team of volunteers and/or employees who implement these operational decisions. The RPC is expected to solicit input from experts and community members when making implementation decisions. The RPC is required to document implementation decisions in a publicly available place, preferably with rationale. If the RPC has questions about how to interpret policy in Editorial Stream documents, they should ask the RSAB for guidance in interpreting that policy per the process described in Section 4.4.

1.2.2. Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions 🧩

Section 4.4 of [RFC9280] gives a path for resolving conflicts between the RPC and the author(s) of a specific document 📜. But there's no appeal path for when a conflict comes up over an implementation decision that applies to the whole editorial process (not just one document) 😬.

This paragraph is reflected in Section 4.4 of this document:

If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both the document and editorial process tooling level, conflicts on either level will involve interpretation of written policy (or the acknowledgment that policy does not exist to cover a given situation). In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the same path of appeal: to the RSAB.

1.2.3. RFC Consumers 📖

This text is reflected in Section 3.3 of this document. The IETF mission statement [RFC3935] makes it clear that the documents the IETF produces are meant for anyone who wants to implement an IETF protocol or operational recommendation 🌸:

to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better.

Section 3.2.1 introduces the term "consumers of RFCs" and calls them "constituent stakeholders" who should be considered by the RSAB when it approves Editorial Stream policy documents 👑.

"Consumers of RFCs" is now defined as the people who read RFCs to understand, implement, critique, and research the protocols, operational practices, and other content found in them 🦋.

Here's the policy the RFC publication streams and the RFC Editor follow for consumers of RFCs 🎀:

  • Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as separate constituent stakeholders from IETF/IRTF participants. While IETF/IRTF participants and others involved in the development and production of RFCs may be consumers of RFCs, the two are distinct, overlapping sets.
  • The RFC Editor website (https://www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be primarily focused on consumers of RFCs.
  • Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an RFC.

1.3. Updates to RFC 9720 🔄

[RFC9720], "RFC Formats and Versions", updates [RFC9280]. This document updates [RFC9720].

1.3.1. RFCs May Be Reissued 🌈

Section 7.6 of [RFC9280] says:

Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.

In Section 7.6 of this document, that sentence gets replaced with:

Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, as described in Section 2.2 of [RFC9720].

1.3.2. Consistency Policy ✨

A new policy gets added to Section 7 of this document:

7.8. Consistency RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. They may be reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.

1.4. Purview of the RSWG and RSAB 🔍

Section 3 of [RFC9280] says:

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.

Right after that sentence, Section 3 of this document adds the following 🫶:

Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for example, specific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. Such matters will be decided and documented by the RPC along with its other working practices, as discussed in Section 4.2, with community consultation as for other tools and services supported by the IETF LLC [RFC8711].

1.5. Updates to RFCs 7991 through 7997 💫

Every instance of "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series Editor" in [RFC7991], [RFC7992], [RFC7993], [RFC7994], [RFC7995], [RFC7996] (obsoleted by [RFC9896]), and [RFC7997] is replaced by "RFC Production Center (RPC)" 🙌.

1.6. Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280 🧹

Lots of parts of [RFC9280] talked about changes that were going to be made. Because this document obsoletes [RFC9280], those parts were reworded to say the changes have been made 💅.

2. Overview of the Model 🗺️

This document splits the responsibilities for the RFC Series into two high-level tasks:

  1. Policy definition governing the RFC Series as a whole. This is the 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).
  2. 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].

Here's the rest of the picture, bestie 🧚‍♀️. The core activities and responsibilities work 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 built 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 🌟. That meets the requirements specified in Section 4 of [RFC8729].

The rest of this document goes deeper into the model 🦋.

3. Policy Definition 📜

Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through this high-level process:

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

(The text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.4.)

Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for example, specific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. Such matters will be decided and documented by the RPC along with its other working practices, as discussed in Section 4.2, with community consultation as for other tools and services supported by the IETF LLC [RFC8711].

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 main place where community members work together on the policies that govern the RFC Series 💜.

3.1.1.2. Participation ✨

Okay bestie, literally anyone who's interested is welcome to join the RSWG 💖 Participants are subject to the anti-harassment policies 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 join 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 👑

The RSWG has two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the other appointed by the IAB. The IESG and IAB decide their own processes for making these appointments, and they need to take account of any potential conflicts of interest 🧐. If community members have concerns about how an RSWG Chair is doing, they should send their feedback to the appropriate appointing body 📨. The IESG and IAB may remove their appointed chairs at their discretion at any time and name a replacement, who shall serve the remainder of the original chair's term 🔄.

It's the chairs' job to encourage rough consensus within the RSWG and to follow that consensus when they make decisions, for instance about accepting new proposals and moving proposals forward to the RSAB 🫶✨.

3.1.1.4. Mode of Operation 🎀

The goal is that the RSWG shall operate in a way similar to IETF working groups 💜. So all RSWG meetings and discussion venues shall be open to all interested individuals, and all RSWG contributions shall be subject to intellectual property policies, which must be consistent with those of the IETF as specified in [BCP78] and [BCP79] 📜.

All discussions in the RSWG shall take place on an open email discussion list, which shall be publicly archived 📬.

The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person, online-only, or hybrid meetings 🦋. These should be announced with sufficient notice so that lots of people can join in. The IESG Guidance on In-Person and Online Interim Meetings, at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-guidance-on-in-person-and-online-interim-meetings-20230814/, gives a reasonable baseline 🌸. In-person meetings should include provision for effective online participation for anyone who can't attend in person 💻.

The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation informally described in [RFC2418] ✨.

The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling (e.g., GitHub as specified in [RFC8874]), forms of communication, and working methods (e.g., design teams), as long as they are consistent with this document and with [RFC2418] or its successors 🧚.

Where this document doesn't give specific guidance on how the RSWG operates, the general guidance in Section 6 of [RFC2418] should be considered appropriate 📖.

The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies 🛠️.

3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) 🦋

3.1.2.1. Purpose 💖

The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) includes representatives of all of the streams, and it's the approving body for proposals generated within the RSWG. That gives us a set of checks and balances on what the RSWG produces 🙌. The RSAB's only policy-making role is reviewing policy proposals generated by the RSWG, and it shall have no independent authority to formulate policy on its own 🚫. The RSAB is expected to respect the rough consensus of the RSWG wherever possible, without giving up its responsibility to review RSWG proposals, as further described in Section 3.2.2 🤝.

3.1.2.2. Members 🌸

The RSAB is made up primarily of the following 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 and when a new stream is created, the document that creates the stream shall specify whether a voting member representing that stream shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules and processes related to that representative. For example, it can say whether the representative is a member of the body responsible for the stream or an appointed delegate of that body 🧩.

The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a voting member of the RSAB, but doesn't act as a representative of the Editorial Stream 🙈.

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

  • The IETF Executive Director or their delegate (the rationale is that the IETF LLC is accountable for implementation of policies governing the RFC Series)
  • A representative of the RPC, named by the RPC (the rationale is that the RPC is responsible for implementation of policies governing the RFC Series)

On top of that, the RSAB may include other non-voting members at its discretion. These can be ex officio members or liaisons from groups or organizations the RSAB decides it needs to formally collaborate or coordinate with 🫶.

3.1.2.3. Appointment and Removal of Voting Members 💅

The appointing bodies (i.e., the IESG, IAB, IRTF Chair, and ISE) shall decide their own processes for appointing RSAB members. Note that processes related to the RSCE are described in Section 5 📋. Each appointing body shall have the power to remove its 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 necessary ⏩.

If the IRTF Chair or ISE is incapacitated, or otherwise unable to appoint another person to serve as a delegate, the IAB shall act as the temporary appointing body for those streams, since it's the appointing body for the IRTF Chair and ISE. The IAB shall appoint a temporary RSAB member until the IAB has appointed an IRTF Chair or ISE. That person 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 shall operate as follows:

  • Activities related to implementation of policies 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 have been filled, up to a maximum of three (3) months. If a further vacancy arises during this three-month period, the delay should be extended by up to another three months. After the delay period expires, the RSAB should continue to process documents as described below.

Heads up: this way of handling vacancies doesn't apply to a vacancy of the RSCE role 🙅‍♀️. It only applies to vacancies of the stream representatives 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 choosing. If the chair position is vacated during the chair's term, the RSAB chooses a new chair from among its members 🪄.

3.1.2.6. Mode of Operation 🎀

The RSAB is expected to operate via an email discussion list, in-person meetings, teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling it deems necessary 💻.

The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions 📚. The primary email discussion list used by the RSAB shall be publicly archived. Topics that need confidentiality (e.g., personnel matters) may be left out of those archives or discussed in private. Similarly, 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 plans and agendas for its meetings 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 🦋. If the RSAB needs to discuss a confidential matter in executive session, that part of the meeting shall be private to the RSAB. It must be noted on the agenda and documented in the minutes, with as much detail as confidentiality requirements permit 🔒.

The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling and staff to support RSAB communication, decision processes, and policies 🧰.

The IAB convened the RSAB in 2022 in order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC Editor Model 🗓️✨.

3.2. Process 💜

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

3.2.1. Intent 🌷

The goal is to provide an open forum where policies related to the RFC Series get defined and evolve 🌱. The general expectation is that all interested parties will take part in the RSWG, and that RSAB members should only need to hold CONCERN positions (as described in Section 3.2.2) under extreme circumstances 😤.

Policy issues can be difficult 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]) 🫶. RSWG members are encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously. RSAB members are encouraged to voice 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 (e.g., authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an ongoing basis, so that when it's time to consider approving a proposal, there are no surprises 🎁. Appointing bodies are expected to set up whatever processes they deem appropriate to make this happen 🧁.

3.2.2. Workflow ✨

okay so this is the process that shall be used to formulate or modify policies related to the RFC Series 💅

  1. bestie, an individual or a group of individuals makes a proposal as an Internet-Draft (which must be submitted in full conformance with the provisions of [BCP78] and [BCP79]) and asks the RSWG to adopt it as a working group item 🎀
  2. the RSWG may adopt the proposal as a working group item if the chairs determine (by following working group procedures for rough consensus) that there is sufficient interest in it. this is basically how a regular IETF working group operates, so see [RFC2418] 🌸
  3. the RSWG shall then keep discussing and developing the proposal 🧚 everyone is welcome, but RSAB members especially should pay special attention to anything that could significantly modify long-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFC Series, as described in Section 7. RSAB members are expected to take part as individuals in all discussions about RSWG proposals. this helps them know about proposals early in the RFC Series Policy Definition Process, and it helps them raise issues during development instead of waiting for the RSAB review period. the RSWG Chairs are also expected to participate as individuals 💜
  4. at some point, if the RSWG Chairs think there may be rough consensus for the proposal to move forward, they will issue a Last Call for comments within the working group 📢
  5. after a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG Chairs decide whether rough consensus exists. they take their own feedback as individuals into account along with feedback from other participants. if comments came in and substantial changes were made, more Last Calls might be needed. once the chairs decide consensus has been reached, they shall announce that on the RSWG email discussion list and forward the document to the RSAB 👑
  6. once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue a community call for comments, as further described in Section 3.2.3. if substantial comments come in, the RSAB may send the proposal back to the RSWG to consider them and make revisions. at the same time as the community call, the RSAB itself shall also consider the proposal 🦋
  7. if the scope of the revisions from the previous step is substantial, the RSAB should issue an additional community call for comments, and the RSWG should consider the feedback received 🌈
  8. once the RSWG Chairs confirm that the concerns raised during the community call(s) for comments have been addressed, they shall tell the RSAB that the document is ready for balloting ✨
  9. within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will poll its members for their positions on the proposal. the positions may be as follows:
    • 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 position must explain their concern to the community in detail. even so, the RSWG might not be able to reach consensus on changes that address that member's concern.

there are three reasons an RSAB member may file a CONCERN position:

  • the RSAB member believes the proposal is a serious problem for one or more of the individual streams
  • the RSAB member believes the proposal would cause serious harm to the overall RFC Series, including harm to its long-term health and viability
  • the RSAB member believes, based on the results of 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 and issues there, most CONCERN positions shouldn't be a shock to the RSWG. still, late CONCERN positions are always possible if issues come up during RSAB review or the community call(s) for comments 🫶

  1. if a CONCERN exists, discussion takes place within the RSWG. once again, all RSAB members are expected to participate. if substantial changes are made to address CONCERN positions, an additional community call for comments might be needed 🍓
  2. a proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved 🎉
  3. if any CONCERN positions remain after a suitable period of time, a vote of the RSAB is taken. if at least three voting members vote YES, the proposal is approved 🔥
  4. if the proposal is not approved, it goes back to the RSWG, which can then consider making further changes 🔁
  5. if the proposal is approved, a notification is sent to the community, and the document enters the queue for publication as an RFC within the Editorial Stream 💅✨
  6. policies may take effect immediately upon approval by the RSAB and before the relevant RFC is published, unless they are delayed while the IETF LLC resolves pending resource or contract issues 🌟

3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment 📣

the RSAB is responsible for starting and managing community calls for comments on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG. the RSAB should go out of its way to gather a wide range of input 🌸 it does this by, at a minimum, 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 to be 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 🦋

when a proposal has the potential to significantly modify long-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFC Series, as described in Section 7, the RSAB should take extra care to reach out to a very wide range of communities that use RFCs (as described in Section 3.1.1.2). those communities might not be actively involved in the RSWG directly, so this matters a lot 🌍 the RSAB should work with the stream approving bodies and the IETF LLC to identify and set up contacts in those communities, with the RSCE giving extra help 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 contains 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 deems necessary (using its usual decision-making procedures)
  • clear instructions on how to provide public comments
  • a deadline for comments

a comment period will last no less than two weeks, and it should be longer if wide outreach is required ⏳ comments will be publicly archived on the RFC Editor website 🗂️

the RSAB is responsible for considering the comments received during a community call for comments. if RSAB members conclude that the comments raise important issues that need addressing, they should discuss those issues within the RSWG or, if the issues meet the criteria in Step 9 of Section 3.2.2, lodge a CONCERN position during RSAB balloting 🫶

3.2.4. Appeals ⚖️

appeals of RSWG Chair decisions shall be made to the RSAB. RSWG Chair decisions can only be appealed on grounds of failure to follow the correct process. appeals should be made within thirty (30) days of any action or, if someone failed to act, of notice having been given to the RSWG Chairs. the RSAB will then decide whether the process was followed and will tell the RSWG Chairs which procedural actions are required 💅

RSAB decisions can be appealed on grounds of failure to follow the correct process. on top of that, 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 the RSAB's conduct are not subject to appeal 🙅‍♀️ appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB and should be made within thirty (30) days of public notice of the relevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are posted). the IAB shall decide whether a process failure occurred and what corrective action, if any, should take place 👑

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. they work hard to create and keep an environment 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, check out [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 each of the following parties, and each 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 does not 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 regarding rights and ownership ✨

3.3. RFC Consumers 🎀

okay so the IETF mission statement [RFC3935] is super clear that the docs it produces are meant to be consumed by literally anyone who wants to implement an IETF protocol or operational recommendation 🫶:

to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better.

Section 3.2.1 brings up the term "consumers of RFCs" and calls them "constituent stakeholders" who should be on the RSAB's radar when it approves Editorial Stream policy docs 👀.

"Consumers of RFCs" now officially means the people who read RFCs to understand, implement, critique, and research the protocols, operational practices, and other content in them 📚✨.

Here's the policy the RFC publication streams and the RFC Editor have to follow for consumers of RFCs 💅:

  • Consumers of RFCs MUST be treated as their own constituent stakeholders, separate from IETF/IRTF participants. Participants and other people involved in making and producing RFCs can be consumers too, but the two groups are distinct, overlapping sets 🦋.
  • The RFC Editor website (https://www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be mainly focused on consumers of RFCs 🌈.
  • Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/IRTF participants, unless they want to extend, update, or modify an RFC 🙅‍♀️.

4. Policy Implementation 🛠️

4.1. Roles and Processes

okay so publication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC) 🏭.

A few general things to know 💖:

  • The RPC's general roles and responsibilities are defined by RFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by the RSWG, RSAB, or RSCE). They're also defined by existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and haven't been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs yet, plus the requisite contracts 📜.
  • The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and it has a duty to consult with them in specific situations, like disagreements between authors and the RPC described in Section 4.4 🤝.
  • The RPC is overseen by the IETF LLC so it performs according to the contracts in place 👑.

All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance targets are handled between the RPC and the IETF LLC 💸.

The RPC shall regularly provide reports to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG, and the broader community about its activities and any key risks or issues affecting it 📊.

If the RPC has to make a decision without a consultation that would normally deserve one, or makes a decision against the RSAB's advice, the RPC must notify the RSAB 🚨.

This document doesn't spell out the exact relationship between the IETF LLC and the RPC 🤷‍♀️. For example, the RPC's work could be done by a separate corporate entity under contract to the IETF LLC. It could be done by IETF LLC employees, or the IETF LLC could bring in independent contractors for some or all of it. That relationship is up to the IETF LLC to decide 🧚.

The IETF LLC is responsible for how the RPC is engaged and managed. So the IETF LLC gets to negotiate the RPC's performance targets and is also responsible for making sure those targets are met 🎯. These targets are set based on the RPC's publication load and the extra work needed to carry out policies in Editorial Stream RFCs, in existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and haven't been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and in the requisite contracts 📝. The IETF LLC may consult the community about these targets, and it's empowered to appoint a manager or convene a committee to get these things done 💜.

If people or groups in the community have concerns about the RPC's performance, they can ask the IETF LLC Board, the IETF Executive Director, or a point of contact the IETF LLC Board designates to look into it 🔍. Even if the IETF LLC hands this off, concerns should still be raised with the IETF LLC 💌. Ultimately, the IETF LLC answers to the community through the mechanisms in [RFC8711] 🫡.

4.2. Working Practices

okay so if there isn't a high-level policy documented in an RFC, or if the RPC wants to spell out the details of how it carries out those policies, the RPC can document working practices for editing, final publication, and distribution of RFCs 🌸. Examples include:

  • Keeping a style guide with editorial standards for RFCs. Specifically, the RFC Style Guide is made up of [RFC7322] plus the other documents and resources listed at [STYLEGUIDE] 💅.
  • Instructions about which file formats are accepted as input to the editing and publication process 📁.
  • Guidelines on the final structure and layout of published documents. For the XML vocabulary [RFC7991], these guidelines could clarify the preferred XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic content of RFCs 🧩.

4.3. RPC Responsibilities

okay so the RPC's core job is carrying out RFC Series policies by publishing RFCs. That includes document quality, timeliness of publication, and accessibility of results 🏆. It also has to take into account issues the community raises through the RSWG and through the stream approving bodies 👂. More specifically, the RPC's responsibilities at the time of writing include the following 📋:

  1. Editing documents from all RFC streams so they're consistent with the editorial standards in the RFC Style Guide ✏️.
  2. Creating and preserving records of the edits made to documents 🗂️.
  3. Spotting where editorial changes might have a technical impact and seeking the clarification needed 🔎.
  4. Establishing the publication readiness of each document by communicating with the authors, IANA, or stream-specific contacts, supplemented if needed by the RSAB and RSCE 🚦.
  5. Creating and preserving records of dialogue with document authors 💬.
  6. Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed 🙋‍♀️.
  7. Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed 💡.
  8. Participating in the RSWG when creating new Editorial Stream RFCs that affect the RPC, especially regarding any challenges the RPC foresees in implementing the proposed policies 🤓.
  9. Identifying topics and issues it lacks enough expertise on while processing documents or handling the other responsibilities on this list, and identifying and conferring with relevant experts as needed 🧠.
  10. Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans 📣.
  11. Consulting the community on its plans 🗣️.
  12. Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC 🤝.
  13. Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC performance by the IETF LLC 🔬.
  14. Coordinating with IANA so RFCs accurately document registration processes and assigned values for IANA registries 🔢.
  15. Assigning RFC numbers 🔢✨.
  16. Liaising with stream approving bodies and other representatives of the streams as needed 📞.
  17. 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
  18. Providing online access to RFCs 🌐.
  19. Providing an online system to make it easy to submit, manage, and display errata to RFCs 🐞.
  20. Maintaining the RFC Editor website 🖥️.
  21. Providing for the backup of RFCs 💾.
  22. Ensuring the storage and preservation of records 🗄️.
  23. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings ⚖️.

(The text in the next two paragraphs is added by Section 1.2.1.)

okay so the RPC is responsible for developing the tools and processes used to implement Editorial Stream policies, when there's no RFC with specific requirements 🛠️. It's also responsible for detailed technical specifications, like the specifics of text or graphical formats or the XML grammar 📐. The RPC may designate a team of volunteers and/or employees to carry out these operational decisions 👯‍♀️. The RPC is expected to solicit input from experts and community members when making implementation decisions 🫶. The RPC is required to document implementation decisions in a publicly available place, preferably with rationale 🌟.

If the RPC has questions about how to interpret policy in Editorial Stream documents, it should ask the RSAB for guidance on interpreting that policy, following the process in Section 4.4 🙏.

4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC

okay so during editorial preparation and publication, authors of an RFC-to-be and the RPC can disagree 😤. When an existing policy clearly applies, these disagreements are usually handled pretty straightforwardly, through direct consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes working with stream-specific contacts 🤍.

But if it's unclear whether an existing policy applies, or how to interpret one, the parties may need to consult additional people or bodies (e.g., RSAB, IESG, IRSG, or stream approving bodies) to reach a resolution 🧭. The following points give more specific guidance 💜:

  • If there's a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, the RPC should consult the relevant stream approving body (such as the IESG or IRSG) and other representatives of that stream as appropriate 🌷.
  • If there's a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should consult the RSAB to reach a resolution 🌈.
  • The disagreement might raise a new issue that isn't covered by an existing policy, or that can't be resolved through consultation between the RPC and the other relevant people and bodies described above. In that case, the RSAB is responsible for (a) resolving the disagreement in a timely manner, if necessary, so the relevant stream documents can be published before a new policy is defined, and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so a new policy can be defined 🦋✨.

(The text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.2.2.)

okay so if the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both the document level and the editorial process tooling level, conflicts at either level will involve interpreting written policy (or acknowledging that no policy exists to cover a given situation) 🧐. Either way, conflict resolution now follows the same path of appeal: to the RSAB 👑.

4.5. Point of Contact 💌

Every now and then, people from outside the IETF and the wider RFC Series community have questions about the RFC Series, bestie 🦋. Those questions should go to the rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org) email alias, or to whatever its successor or future equivalent is. From there, they get handled by the right bodies (e.g., RSAB and RPC) or the right individuals (e.g., RSWG Chairs and RSCE) ✨.

4.6. Administrative Implementation 🧾

The exact way the administrative and contractual activities described here get carried out is the responsibility of the IETF LLC 👑. This section just gives some general guidance on several parts of that work, so you know the lay of the land.

4.6.1. Vendor Selection for the RPC 🛍️

Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams, under the final authority of the IETF LLC. It's giving teamwork 🫶.

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 goes like this:

  • 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. If 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, so nothing here is coming out of nowhere.

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. No one gets to skip the line, periodt 💅.

5. RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) 🎓

The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a senior technical publishing professional, and they bring their deep knowledge of technical publishing processes to the RFC Series. Honestly, the main character of publishing 👑.

The primary responsibilities of the RSCE are as follows:

  • Serve as a voting member on the RSAB
  • Identify problems with the RFC publication process and opportunities for improvement
  • Provide expert advice within the RSWG regarding policy proposals
  • Provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC

Matters on which the RSCE might provide guidance could include the following (see also Section 4 of [RFC8729]) 📋:

  • Editing, processing, and publication of RFCs
  • Publication formats for the RFC Series
  • Changes to the RFC Style Guide
  • Series-wide guidelines regarding 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 is responsible for the method and management of the engagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and the timely filling of any vacancy. Therefore, whether the RSCE role is structured as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC to determine 🫠.

5.1. RSCE Selection 🔍

Responsibility for making a recommendation to the IETF LLC regarding the RSCE role will lie with a selection committee. The IETF LLC should propose an initial slate of members for this committee, making sure to include community members with diverse perspectives, and consult with the stream representatives regarding the final membership of the committee. In making its recommendation for the role of RSCE, the selection committee will take into account the definition of the role as well as any other information that the committee deems necessary or helpful in making its decision. The IETF LLC is responsible for contracting or employment of the RSCE 🎀.

5.2. RSCE Performance Evaluation 📝

Periodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the RSCE, including a call for confidential input from the community. The IETF LLC will produce a draft evaluation of the RSCE's performance for review by RSAB members (other than the RSCE), who will provide feedback to the IETF LLC. Review season, bestie 🧐.

5.3. Temporary RSCE Appointment 🌼

In the case that the currently appointed RSCE is expected to be unavailable for an extended period, the IETF LLC may appoint a Temporary RSCE through whatever recruitment process it considers appropriate. A Temporary RSCE acts as the RSCE in all aspects during their term of appointment. Fill-in energy, but make it iconic ✨.

5.4. Conflict of Interest ⚖️

The RSCE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest or judgment in performing their role. To ensure this, the RSCE will be subject to a conflict-of-interest policy established by the IETF LLC. Clean hands only, no cap 🙈.

The RPC service provider may contract services from the RSCE service provider, and vice versa, including services provided to the IETF LLC. All contracts between the two must be disclosed to the IETF LLC. Where those services are related to services provided to the IETF LLC, IETF LLC policies shall apply, including publication of relevant parts of the contract 🔥.

6. Editorial Stream 📚

This document creates the Editorial Stream as a separate space for publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related information regarding the RFC Series as a whole. It's the rulebook's own lane 🧚.

The Editorial Stream shall 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. 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 shall be published as RFCs in the Editorial Stream with a status of Informational. (Note that the Editorial Stream is not authorized to publish RFCs that are Standards Track or Best Current Practice, since such RFCs are reserved for the IETF Stream [RFC8729].) Notwithstanding the status of Informational, it should be understood that documents published in the Editorial Stream define policies for the RFC Series as a whole. Informational on paper, iconic in practice 👑.

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 🤝

In [RFC9280], the IAB requested that the IETF Trust and its Trustees assist in meeting the goals and procedures set forth in this document.

The Trustees were requested to publicly confirm their willingness and ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for the Editorial Stream.

Specifically, the Trustees were asked to develop the necessary boilerplate to enable the suitable marking of documents so that the IETF Trust receives the rights as specified in [BCP78]. These procedures needed to also allow authors to indicate either no rights to make derivative works or, preferentially, the right to make unlimited derivative works from the documents. It is left to the Trust to specify exactly how this shall be clearly indicated in each document 🎨.

6.2. Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream ⚖️

As specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying therein with the rules specified in [BCP9]. This includes the disclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can be reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor 📣.

Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as specified in [BCP79]. The Editorial Stream has chosen to use the IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/) for this purpose. It is preferred that the most liberal terms possible be made available for Editorial Stream documents. Terms that do not require fees or licensing are preferable. Non-discriminatory terms are strongly preferred over those that discriminate among users. However, although disclosure is required and the RSWG and the RSAB may consider disclosures and terms in making a decision as to whether to submit a document for publication, there are no specific requirements on the licensing terms for intellectual property related to Editorial Stream publication. So: disclose everything, and keep it generous 💖.

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 shall be as specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].

The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall 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 shall 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 regarded 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 purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes are deliberate and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as they can be identified, have been carefully considered. Vintage legacy, protected with care 🌸.

7.1. Availability 🌍

Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades, with no restrictions on access or distribution. Free to read, free to share, iconic 🦋.

7.2. Accessibility ♿

RFC Series documents have been published in a format that was intended to be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities, e.g., people with impaired sight. Everyone gets a seat at the table 🫶.

7.3. Language 🗣️

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

7.4. Diversity 🎭

The RFC Series has included many types of documents including standards for the Internet, procedural and informational documents, thought experiments, speculative ideas, research papers, histories, humor, and even eulogies. Every vibe is welcome here 🍓.

7.5. Quality 💎

RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality and edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documents are clear, consistent, and readable [RFC7322]. Polished and pretty, no notes 💅.

7.6. Stability

(The text in this section is updated by Section 1.3.1.)

Once something is published, RFCs can get reissued 🔄, but the semantic content of publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, as described in Section 2.2 of [RFC9720]. Stability is the whole vibe, bestie 💜✨

7.7. Longevity

RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be comprehensible to humans for decades or longer. Like, decades 🕰️🌸 That's a whole lifetime of readers, and it's giving timeless 💅

7.8. Consistency

(The text in this section is added by Section 1.3.2.)

RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published 📝🎀 They may be reissued to maintain a consistent presentation. Neat and tidy, always. 🫶

8. Updates to This Document

Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced using the process documented herein 🦋 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. Okay so there are two gatekeepers here and they both have to say yes 🙈👑

9. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model

The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs have changed significantly 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 experienced 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 address these problems, in 2020, the IAB formed the RFC Editor Future Development Program to conduct a community discussion and consensus process for the further evolution of the RFC Editor Model. Under the auspices of this Program, the community considered changes that would increase transparency and community input regarding the definition of policies for the RFC Series as a whole, while at the same time ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, maintaining the quality and timely publication of RFCs, ensuring document accessibility, and clarifying lines of authority and responsibility. The glow-up energy is real ✨

[RFC9280] was the result of discussion within the original Program and described version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining consistent with [RFC8729]. As stated earlier, this document obsoletes [RFC9280].

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

9.1. RFC Editor Function

Several responsibilities previously assigned to the RFC Editor (or more precisely, the RFC Editor function) are now performed by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). 🧚 These include various aspects of 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]), and 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) included in Section 2.2 of [RFC8730] with regard to "coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies as specified by the IAB and RSE." In addition, various details regarding these responsibilities have been modified to accord with the framework defined in this document. Lots of reshuffling, but it's all very intentional 💖

9.2. RFC Series Editor

Implied by the changes outlined in the previous section, the responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or role (contrasted with the overall RFC Editor function) are now split or shared among the RSWG, RSAB, RSCE, RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). 🫶 More specifically, the responsibilities of the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model differ in many ways from the responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor under version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. In general, references in existing documents to the RSE can be taken as referring to the RFC Editor function as described herein but should not be taken as referring to the RSCE. So don't mix up the RSE and the RSCE, they are NOT the same person 🙅‍♀️

9.3. RFC Publisher

In practice, the RFC Production Center (RPC) and RFC Publisher roles have been performed by the same entity, and this practice is expected to continue; therefore, this document dispenses with the distinction between these roles and refers only to the RPC. Two hats, one head 🎩💅

9.4. IAB

Under earlier versions of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB was responsible for oversight of the RFC Series and acted as a body for final conflict resolution regarding the RFC Series. The IAB's authority in these matters is described in the IAB Charter ([RFC2850], as updated by [RFC9283]). Under version 2 of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB delegated some of its authority to the RFC Series Oversight Committee (see Section 9.5). Under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model, authority for policy definition resides with the RSWG as an independent venue for work by members of the community (with approval of policy proposals being the responsibility of the RSAB, which represents the streams and includes the RSCE), whereas authority for policy implementation resides with the IETF LLC. The IAB is the final boss of conflict resolution, periodt 👑🌸

9.5. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)

In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE proved unwieldy and somewhat opaque. 🌀 To overcome some of these issues, [RFC9280] dispensed with the RSOC. References to the RSOC in documents such as [RFC8730] are obsolete. RIP RSOC 🕊️💀

9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)

Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC5620] specified the existence of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer specified in version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. For the avoidance of doubt, [RFC9280] affirmed that the RSAG was disbanded. (The RSAG is not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which this document specifies.) Don't mix up the RSAG and the RSAB either, they're totally different acronyms with totally different vibes 🙈

9.7. Editorial Stream

This document specifies the Editorial Stream in addition to the streams already described in [RFC8729]. New stream unlocked 🔓🦋

10. Security Considerations

The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply. The processes for the publication of documents must prevent the introduction of unapproved changes. Because multiple entities described in this document (most especially the RPC) participate in maintenance of 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 data storage failure. 🚨🔐 This section is serious, bestie, so no skipping it!

Security here is non-negotiable. Unapproved changes and external tampering are the big scary villains, and data storage failure can wipe out the archive too 😱

The IETF LLC (along with any other contracting or contracted entities) should take these security considerations into account during the implementation and enforcement of any relevant contracts. 📜💜

11. IANA Considerations

The RPC is responsible for coordinating with the IANA to ensure that RFCs accurately document registration processes and assigned values for IANA registries. 🗂️✨

The IETF LLC facilitates management of the relationship between the RPC and IANA. 🤝

This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required. Nothing new in the registries this time, so IANA can take a little nap 😴🌙

12. References

12.1. Normative References

okay so this is the reference list for the normative stuff 💅 these are the docs you need to actually read to get the full picture. the BCPs are "best current practice" docs, and at the time of writing a few of them are bundles of multiple RFCs, so i kept every single one listed 🫶

[BCP78] 🧚

At the time of writing, this BCP is made up of the following:

[BCP78]    Best Current Practice 78,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>.
           At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

           Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
           Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.

[BCP79] 🦋

Same deal here, this one is a bundle too 🌸

[BCP79]    Best Current Practice 79,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>.
           At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

           Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
           Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.

[BCP9] 👑

okay this one is the big bundle with like six entries inside, so buckle up 😭 it's literally the Internet Standards Process family tree

[BCP9]     Best Current Practice 9,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>.
           At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

           Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
           3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.

           Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
           and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
           Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, DOI 10.17487/RFC5657,
           September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5657>.

           Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
           Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410>.

           Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official
           Protocol Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC7100, December 2013,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7100>.

           Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
           of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC7127, January 2014,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7127>.

           Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in
           an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, DOI 10.17487/RFC7475,
           March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7475>.

           Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream
           Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC8789, June 2020,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8789>.

           Rosen, B., "Responsibility Change for the RFC Series",
           BCP 9, RFC 9282, DOI 10.17487/RFC9282, June 2022,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9282>.

The rest of the normative crew ✨

this is the rest of the normative squad: the key words doc, the working group and conduct stuff, the style guide, and the whole format family (xml2rfc, HTML, CSS, plain text, PDF, SVG, non-ASCII) 🌈

[RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[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>.

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

[RFC7992]  Hildebrand, J., Ed. and P. Hoffman, "HTML Format for
           RFCs", RFC 7992, DOI 10.17487/RFC7992, December 2016,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7992>.

[RFC7993]  Flanagan, H., "Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Requirements
           for RFCs", RFC 7993, DOI 10.17487/RFC7993, December 2016,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7993>.

[RFC7994]  Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs",
           RFC 7994, DOI 10.17487/RFC7994, December 2016,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7994>.

[RFC7995]  Hansen, T., Ed., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF Format
           for RFCs", RFC 7995, DOI 10.17487/RFC7995, December 2016,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7995>.

[RFC7996]  Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC",
           RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7996>.

[RFC7997]  Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in
           RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7997>.

[RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
           2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
           May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

[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>.

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

[RFC9280]  Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)",
           RFC 9280, DOI 10.17487/RFC9280, June 2022,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9280>.

[RFC9720]  Hoffman, P. and H. Flanagan, "RFC Formats and Versions",
           RFC 9720, DOI 10.17487/RFC9720, January 2025,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9720>.

12.2. Informative References

these ones are the extra reading 🍓 helpful background, not the core rules. same deal, every entry is kept exactly as written

[RFC2850]  IAB 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>.

[RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
           BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.

[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>.

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

[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>.

[RFC9896]  Rossi, A., Brownlee, N., Mahoney, J., and M. Thomson, "SVG
           in RFCs", RFC 9896, DOI 10.17487/RFC9896, January 2026,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9896>.

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

Acknowledgments ✨

this is where the thank-yous live 🫶 this doc is the product of the RFC Series Working Group. loads of people in the RSWG jumped into the active discussions that led to the changes listed in Section 1.1, and the authors are super grateful to every single one of them 💖

[RFC9280] was authored by Peter Saint-Andre, and it had extra, extensive acknowledgments too 🌸

Authors' Addresses 🎀

the people who wrote this one, and how to reach them 💜

Paul Hoffman
ICANN
Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org


Alexis Rossi
RFC Series Consulting Editor
Email: rsce@rfc-editor.org
📦 where this page comes from