RFC Editor Model (Version 2)olaf@nlnetlabs.nlEricssonjoel.halpern@ericsson.comiab@iab.orgRFC
The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be
carried out by various people or entities. The RFC Editor
model described in this document divides the responsibilities
for the RFC Series into three functions: The RFC Series Editor,
the RFC Production Center,
and the RFC Publisher. The Internet Architecture Board
(IAB) oversight by way of
delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described,
as is the relationship between the IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC.
This document reflects the experience gained with RFC Editor Model version 1,
documented in and obsoletes that document.
The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is
concerned with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series,
orderly RFC Editor succession, maintaining RFC quality, and
RFC document accessibility. The IAB is also sensitive to the
concerns of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)
about providing the necessary services in a cost effective and
efficient manner.
The RFC series is described in . Its
Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor":
RFC 4844 makes no attempt to explore the internal organization
of the RFC Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the
RFC Editor organizational structure. There have been several
iterations on efforts to improve and clarify this structure. These
have been led by the IAB, in consultation with the community and many
leadership bodies within the community. This first resulted in the
publication of , and then in further
discussions leading to this document. In undertaking this evolution,
the IAB considered changes that increase
flexibility and operational support options, provide for the
orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the
continuity of the RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality,
maintaining timely processing, ensuring document
accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost
transparency. The model set forth below describes the internal
organization of
the RFC Editor, while remaining consistent with RFC 4844.
Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC
Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which
this memo provides a model for internal organization. This
memo defines the term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series
Editor" for one of the organizational components.
The RFC Editor model was first approved in October 1, 2008 and
understanding thereof has
evolved since. During the implementation of version 1 of the model
it was quickly realized that
the role of the RSE and the
oversight responsibilities needed to be structured differently. In
order to gain experience with 'running code' a transitional RFC Series
Editor was hired who analyzed the managerial environment and provided
recommendations. This version of the model is based on his recommendations
and the subsequent extensive discussion in the IETF community, on
the rfc-interest list and within the IAB. A such, this document
obsoletes .
The document, and the resulting structures,
will be modified as needed through normal procedures. The RSE, and
the IAB, through the RFC oversight committee (see ), will
continue to monitor discussions
within the community about potential
adjustments to the RFC Editor model and recognizes that the process
described in this document may need to be adjusted to align with any
changes that result from such discussions, hence the version number
in the title.
The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered
responsibility as defined in and
.
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for
the RFC Series into the following components:
RFC Series Editor ("RSE").RFC Production Center.RFC Publisher.
The structure and relationship of the components of the
RFC Series Production and Process is
schematically represented by the figure below. The picture does not
depict oversight and escalation relations. It does include
the streams and their managers (which are not part of the RFC Series
Editor nor the production or publication facilities) in order to more
fully show the context in which the RFC Series Editor operates.
In this model documents are produced and approved through
multiple document streams. The stream manager for each stream
is responsible for the content of that stream.
The four streams that now exist are described in [RFC4844].
The RFC Editor function is responsible for the packaging and
distribution of the documents. As such, documents from these
streams are
edited and processed by the Production Center and published by
the Publisher. The RFC Series Editor will exercise
strategic leadership and management over the activities of the
RFC Publisher and the RFC Production Center (both of which can
be seen as back office functions) and will be the entity that:
Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function
within the IETF and externally.Leads the community in the design of improvements to
the RFC Series.Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution
of improvements in the RFC Editor Production and Access Processes. Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web
site, which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher.The RSE will develop consensus versions of vision and policy
documents. These documents will be reviewed by the
RFC Series Oversight Committee ( and
subject to its approval before final publication.
These responsibilities are defined below, although the
specific work items under them are a matter for the actual employment
contract and its Statement of Work.
The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered
responsibility as defined in and
. More details on the
oversight by the IAB via the RFC Series Oversight Committee
(RSOC) can be found in . For example,
the RSE does not have the direct authority to
hire or fire RFC Editor
contractors or personnel.
The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall
responsibility
for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series.
The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the
IAOC. The IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the
RSOC, which it appoints.The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IAOC and
the stream managers. With respect to the Publication and Production functions, the RSE
provides input to the IASA budget, statements of work, and manages
vendor selection processes. The RSE performs annual reviews of
the Production and Publication function which are then provided to
the RSOC the IASA, and the community. If the IAOC concludes
that it is necessary, private financial details may be elided from the
public version.The RSE is responsible for the performance of the Production
Center and Publisher. The RSE is responsible for issues that go
beyond the production or publication functions, such as cross-stream
coordination of priorities. Issues that require changes to the budget
or contracts shall be brought to the attention of the IAD by the RSE.The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and
structures that will allow for continuity of the RFC
Series' in the face of changes in contracts and
personnel. Vendor selection for the Production and Publisher functions
is done in cooperation
with the streams and under final authority of the IASA. Details on
this process can be found in .The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series.
This representation is important both internally, relative to the
IETF, and externally.The RSE is the primary point of contact to the IETF on
matters relating to the RFC series in general, or policy matters
relating to specific documents.
Issues of practical details in the processing of specific documents
are generally worked directly with the RFC Production Center
staff.This includes providing suitable reports to the community
at large; providing email contact for policy questions and inputs; and
enabling and participating in suitable on-line forums for discussion
of issues related to the RFC Series.Due to the history and nature of the interaction between
the RSE and the IETF, certain principles, described in the following
subsections, must be understood and
adhered to by the RSE in his or her interactions with the community. These
apply to the representation function, as well as to the leadership the
RSE provides for Production and Series Development.The vast majority of Internet technical community work
is led, initiated, and done by community volunteers, including
oversight, policy-making, and direct production of, for example, many
software tools. The Series Editor while not a volunteer is dependent
upon these volunteer participants. Also, the spirit of the community
is heavily focused on and draws from these volunteers. As such, the
Series Editor needs to support the vitality and effectiveness of
volunteer participation.All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the
broader Internet community. The RSE is responsible for identifying
materially concerned interest groups within the Internet community and
reach out to them. Those interest groups include at least the IETF
community, the IRTF community, the network research community, and the
network operations community. Other interest groups might also be
materially interested.The RSE must consult with the community on policy issues. The
RSE works with the community to achieve policy that meets the overall
quality, continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is charged with
meeting. As described below in the RSE reports the
results of such interactions, to the RSOC, including a description of
the outreach efforts and the specific recommendations on policy. This
enables the RSOC to provide the oversight the IAB is required to
apply, as well as to confirm that the Internet community has been
properly consulted and considered in making policy.From time to time, individuals or organizations external to
the IETF need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series. The
RSE or the RSE's designate serve this role.Over time, the RSE should determine what if any means
should be employed to increase end-user awareness of the series,
to reinforce the stature of the Series, and will provide the contact
point for outside parties seeking information on the Series or the
Editor.Closely related to providing strategic leadership and
management to the
RFC Production and Publication functions is the need to develop and
improve those functions. The RSE is responsible for ensuring that
such ongoing development takes place.This effort must include the dimensions of document
quality, timeliness of production, and accessibility of results. It
must also specifically take into account issues raised by the IETF
community, including all the RFC Streams.In order to develop the RFC Publication series the RSE
is expected to
develop a relationships with the Internet technical community. With
that community, the Editor is expected to engage in a process of
articulating and refining a vision for the Series and its continuous
evolution. The RSE is expected to also engage with other users of
the RFC series, in particular with the consumers of these documents
such as those people who use them to specify products, write code,
test behaviors, or other related activities.Concretely:
The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on
Series evolution among the Series' Stream participants and the
broader Internet technical community.In time the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision
for the RFC Series, including examining:
the technical specification series, as it continues to
evolve. The RSE is expected to take a broad view and be
looking for the best ways to evolve the series for the
benefit of the entire Internet Community. As such, the
RSE may even consider evolution
beyond the historical 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis;
andits publication-technical environment: looking
at whether it should be slowly changing in terms
of publication and archiving techniques; particularly
to better serve the communities that
produce and depend on the RFC Series. For example, all of
those communities
have been slowly changing to include significant multi-lingual
and non-native-English populations. Another example is that
some of these constituencies also have a
shifted to include significant groups of members whose primary
focus is on the constraints and consequences of network
engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering
issues themselves.For this type of responsibility the RSE cooperates closely with the
community and under oversight of the RSOC and thus ultimately under
oversight of the IAB.
The job is expected initially to take on average half of an FTE
(approx 20 hrs per week), with the workload per week
near full
time during IETF weeks, well over 20 hours per week in the first few
months of the engagement, and higher during special projects.
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional.
The following qualifications are desired:
Strategic leadership and management experience
fulfilling the requirements outlined in this document, the
many aspects of this role, and the coordination of the
overall RFC Editor process.Good understanding of the English language and technical
terminology related to the Internet.Good communication skills.Experience with editorial processes.Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and
RFC process.Independent worker.Willingness to, and availability for, Travel.The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and
matrixed environment with divided authority and responsibility similar
to that described in this document.Experience with and ability to participate in, and
manage activities by email and teleconferences, not just
face-to-face interactionsDemonstrated experience in strategic planning and the
management of entire operations is desired.Experience as an RFC author desired.The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of
conflict of interest or judgment in performing these roles.
As such, the RSE is barred from having any ownership, advisory, or
other relationship to the vendors executing the Publication or
Production functions except as specified elsewhere in this
document.
If necessary, an exception can be made after public disclosure of
those relationships and with the explicit permission of the IAB and
IAOC.
RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the
contractor responsibilities include:
Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the
RFC Style Manual, under the direction of the RSE;Creating records of edits performed on documents;Identifying where editorial changes might have technical
impact and seeking necessary clarification;Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds,
IANA, and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is
needed;
Creating records of dialog with document authors;Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as
needed;Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC
Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external
reviews of the RFC Editor initiated by the IAB or IAOC;Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter
registry actions;Assigning RFC numbers; Establishing publication readiness of each document
through communication with the authors, document shepherds,
IANA and/or stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with
the RFC Series Editor; Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC
Publisher;Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC
Publisher so these can be preserved;Liaising with the streams as needed.All these activities will be done under the general direction,
but not day to day management, of
the RSE and need some level of coordination with various
submission streams and the RSE.
The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through
an IASA RFP process as described in .
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:
Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata.Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.Providing backups.Providing storage and preservation of records.Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.All these activities will be done under the general direction,
but not day to day management, of
the RSE and need some level of coordination with various
submission streams and the RSE.
The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through
an IASA RFP process as described in .
The IAB is responsible for oversight over the RFC Series and
acts as a body for final conflict resolution, including the
process described in .In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the nomcom
appointment cycle and assure that oversight includes suitable
subject matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group that implements
oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC).The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: In general
it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision
documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the
community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due
diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be
allowed the latitude to do its job without undue interference
from the IAB. Therefore, it is expected that the IAB
will accord RSOC reports and recommendations the benefit of
the doubt.For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g. hiring and firing)
the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB but final decision is
the responsibility of the IAB. For instance the RSOC would:
perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of
these reviews to the IAB. manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate
appointment (in other words select the RSE subject to IAB
approval)RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of
interest and behave accordingly.For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, RSOC
will propose a budget for the search process, and work with
IASA to refine that budget and develop remuneration
criteria and an employment agreement or contracting plans,
as appropriate.
The RSOC will be responsible to ensure that the RFC Series is run in
a transparent and accountable manner.The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order.The initial RSOC is charged with designing and executing a
solicitation, search, and selection process for the first
actual (non-transition or "acting") RSE appointment. That
process will inevitably involve iteration on this and
related documents and evaluation of various strategies and
options. The RSOC is expected to describe the process it
ultimately selects to the community and to involve the
community in interim considerations when that is likely to
be of value. Upon completion of the selection process,
the RSOC will determine the best way to share information
learned and experience gained with the community and to
determine how to best preserve that information for future
use.
The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB
retaining final responsibility. The IAB will delegate authority and
responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE
relationships evolve. The RSOC will include people who are not
current IAB members. Currently, this is aligned with the IAB
Program structure. The IAB will designate the
membership of the RSOC with the goals of preserving effective
stability, keeping it small enough to be effective, but large enough
to provide general Internet Community expertise, specific IETF
expertise, Publication expertise, and stream expertise. Members
serve at the pleasure of the IAB and are expected to bring a balance
between short and long term perspective. Specific input about, and
recommendations of, members will be sought from the streams, the
IASA, and the RSE.The IAOC will appoint an individual to serve as its Liaison to
the RSOC. The RSE and this Liaison will serve as
non-voting ex-officio members of the RSOC. Either or both can be
excluded from its discussions if necessary.
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a
responsibility of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC,
) in cooperation with the RFC Series Editor.
The authority structure is described in Figure 2 below.
As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation
with the streams and under the final authority of the IAOC.The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and
participates in the IASA Vendor selection process.
The work definition is created within the IASA budget and
takes into account the stream managers and community input.The process to select and contract for an RFC Production
Center, RFC Publisher, and other RFC-related services, is as
follows: The IAOC establishes the contract process, including the
steps necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the
contracting procedures.
The IAOC establishes the Selection Committee, which will
consist of the RSE, the IAD, and other members selected by the RSOC
and the IAOC. The Committee shall be chaired by the RSE.The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to
the successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IAOC. In the
event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be referred
to the Selection Committee for further action.The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher
either through the IASA RFP process, or, at the Committee's option,
the Committee may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC Publisher
services, subject to negotiations in accordance with the IASA
procedures.
The expenses discussed in this document are not new
expenses. They have been and remain part of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA,
) budget.
The RFC Series portion of the IASA Budget shall include
entries for the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, and the RFC
Publisher. The IASA Budget shall also include entries for the
streams, including the independent stream.The IAOC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC
Editor budget (and the authority to deny it.) The RSE must work
within the IAOC budgetary process.The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor to
operate within those budgets. If product needs change, the RSE is
responsible for working with the Production Center, and where
appropriate, other RFC Editor component institutions, relevant
Streams, and/or the RSOC to determine what
the correct response should be. If they agree that a budgetary change
is needed, that needs to be taken to the IAD and the IAOC.The RFC Series Editor, and the RFC Production and Publication
facilities, work with the various streams to produce RFCs.
Disagreements may arise during the execution of the RFC Editor
operations. In particular, different streams may disagree with each
other, or disagree with the RFC Editor function. Potentially, even the
RSOC or the IAOC could find themselves in disagreement with some
aspect of the RFC Editor operations. Note that disagreements between
an author and the production facility are not cross-entity issues, and
are to be resolved by the RSE, in accordance with the rest of this
document.
If such cross-entity disagreements arise, the community would
generally hope that they can be resolved politely and directly.
However, this is not always possible. At that point, any relevant
party would first formally request a review and reconsideration of the
decision. If the party still disagrees after the reconsideration, that
party may ask the RSE to decide or, especially if the RSE is involved,
the party may ask the IAB Chair (for a technical or procedural matter)
to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in the discussions, although
he or she not is obligated to do so. All parties should work
informally and in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable
conclusion. As noted below, any such issues which involve contractual
matters must be brought to the addition of the IAOC. If the IAB Chair
is asked to assist in resolving the matter, the Chair may ask for
advice or seek assistance from anyone the Chair deems helpful. The
chair may also alert any appropriate individuals or organizations to
the existence of the issue.
If such a conclusion is not possible through those less formal
processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC
Series Oversight Committee. The RSOC may choose to offer advice
to the RSE or more general advice to the parties involved
and may ask the RSE to defer a decision until it formulates
its advice. However, if a timely decision cannot be reached
through discussion, mediation, and mutual agreement, the
Series Editor is expected to make whatever decisions are
needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC Editor
function; those decisions are final.
The RSE may make final decisions unilaterally only to assure
the functioning of
the process and evaluation of whether current policies are
appropriately implemented in the decision or need
adjustment. In particular, it should be noted that final
decisions about the technical content of individual
documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream
approvers for those documents, as shown in the illustration
in .
If informal agreements cannot be reached, then formal RSOC
review and decision making may be required. If so, the
the RSE must identify the issues involved to the community,
so that the community is aware of the situation. The RSE
will the report the issue to the RSOC for formal resolution
by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its oversight
capacity.
IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are
expected to inform future changes to Series policies
including possible updates to this document.
If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future
contractual consequences it falls under BCP 101 and IASA,
and thus the Series Editor must identify
the issue and provide his or her advice to the IAOC and,
if the RSOC has provided advice,
forward that advice as well. The IAOC must notify the RSOC
and IAB that this action is being taken and then proceed to have it
resolved according to its applicable procedures subject to any special
provisions in the relevant contracts.
This document defines several functions within the overall
RFC Editor structure, and it places the responsibility for
coordination of registry value assignments with the RFC
Production Center. The IAOC will facilitate the establishment
of the relationship between the RFC Production Center and IANA.
This document does not create a new registry nor does it
register any values in existing registries, and no IANA action
is required.
The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply. The
processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor
maintains the index of publications, sufficient security must be
in place to prevent these published documents from being changed
by external parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source
documents needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any
associated original documents (such as lists of errata, tools,
and, for some early items, originals that are not
machine-readable) need
to be secured against failure of the storage medium and other
similar disasters.
The IAOC should take these security considerations into
account during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC
Editor model contracts.
The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and
on mail lists. The first iteration of the text on which this
document is based was first drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ
Housley, and Ray Pelletier. In addition to the members of the
IAOC and IAB in conjunction with those roles, major and minor
contributions were made by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden,
Brian Carpenter, Sandy Ginoza, Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern,
Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim
Schaad.
The IAOC members at the time this RFC Editor model was approved
were (in alphabetical order):
Bernard Aboba,
Eric Burger,
Dave Crocker,
Marshall Eubanks,
Bob Hinden,
Russ Housley,
Ole Jacobsen,
Ray Pelletier (non-voting), and
Lynn St.Amour (ex officio).
The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved
were (in alphabetical order):
Loa Andersson,
Gonzalo Camarillo,
Stuart Cheshire,
Russ Housley,
Olaf Kolkman,
Gregory Lebovitz,
Barry Leiba,
Kurtis Lindqvist,
Andrew Malis,
Danny McPherson,
David Oran,
Dave Thaler, and
Lixia Zhang.
In addition, the IAB included two ex-officio members: Dow Street, who
was serving as the IAB Executive Director, and Aaron Falk, who was
serving as the IRTF Chair.
The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in alphabetical order):
Bernard Aboba,
Ross Callon,
Alissa Cooper,
Spencer Dawkins,
Joel Halpern,
Russ Housley,
David Kessens,
Olaf Kolkman,
Danny McPherson,
Jon Peterson,
Andrei Robachevsky,
Dave Thaler, and
Hannes Tschofenig.
In addition, the IAB included at the time of approval two
ex-officio members: Mary Barnes who was serving as the IAB Executive
Director, and Lars Eggert, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.