| CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:57:54 GMT
content-type: application/rfc+xml; charset=utf-8
content-length: 20393
cf-ray: 95f1e0040f9c8087-BLR
last-modified: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 18:20:44 GMT
etag: "11e9a-5e2ae53f1e7e8-gzip"
accept-ranges: bytes
vary: Accept-Encoding
content-encoding: gzip
strict-transport-security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains
x-frame-options: SAMEORIGIN
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
x-content-type-options: nosniff
cf-cache-status: DYNAMIC
server: cloudflare
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
]>
RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
stpeter@stpeter.im
This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. The model
defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. First, policy
definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group
(RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC Series Approval
Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second, policy
implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production
Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF Administration
Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC). In addition, various
responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are now performed alone
or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting Editor
(RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document establishes the Editorial
Stream for publication of future policy definition documents produced
through the processes defined herein.
This document obsoletes RFC 8728. This document updates RFCs 7841,
8729, and 8730.
Introduction
The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series
dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications,
including general contributions from the Internet research and
engineering community as well as standards documents. RFCs are
available free of charge to anyone via the Internet. As described
in
RFCs are generated and approved by multiple document streams.
Whereas the stream approving body
The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor
function is described in
This document obsoletes
Overview of the Model
This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series
into two high-level tasks:
As described more fully in the remainder of this document, the core
activities and responsibilities are as follows:
This model is designed to ensure public processes and policy documents,
clear lines of responsibility and authority, transparent mechanisms for updates and changes to policies
governing the RFC Series as a whole, and effective operational implementation of the
RFC Series, thus meeting the requirements specified in
The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.
Policy Definition
Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through the
following high-level process:
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.
Structure and Roles
RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
Purpose
The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which
members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that
govern the RFC Series.
Participation
All interested individuals are welcome to participate in the RSWG;
participants are subject to anti-harassment policies as described in
Chairs
The RSWG shall have two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the
other appointed by the IAB. When the RSWG is formed, the chair
appointed by the IESG shall serve for a term of one (1) year and
the chair appointed by the IAB shall serve for a term of two (2)
years; thereafter, chairs shall serve for a term of two (2)
years, with no term limits on renewal. The IESG and IAB shall
determine their own processes for making these appointments, making
sure to take account of any potential conflicts of interest.
Community members who have concerns about the performance of an
RSWG Chair should direct their feedback to the appropriate appointing
body via mechanisms such bodies shall specify at the time that the
RSWG is formed. The IESG and IAB shall have the power to remove their
appointed chairs at their discretion at any time and to name a
replacement who shall serve the remainder of the original chair's
term.
It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus
within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision making,
for instance, regarding acceptance of new proposals and advancement of
proposals to the RSAB.
Mode of Operation
The intent is that the RSWG shall operate in a way similar to that of working
groups in the IETF. Therefore, 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
When the RSWG is formed, all discussions 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,
which should be announced with sufficient notice to enable broad
participation; the IESG Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim
Meetings
provides a reasonable baseline. In-person meetings should include
provision for effective online participation for those unable to
attend in person.
The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation
informally described in
The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling
(e.g., GitHub as specified in
Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the operation
of the RSWG, the general guidance provided in
The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support
RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies.
The IAB is requested to convene the RSWG when it is first formed in
order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC Editor
Model.
RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
Purpose
The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which includes representatives
of all of the streams, shall act as the approving body for proposals
generated within the RSWG, thus providing an appropriate set of checks
and balances on the output of the RSWG. The only policy-making role
of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by the RSWG; it shall
have no independent authority to formulate policy on its own. It is
expected that the RSAB will respect the rough consensus of the
RSWG wherever possible, without ceding its responsibility to
review RSWG proposals, as further described in
Members
The RSAB consists primarily of the following voting members:
If and when a new stream is created, the document that
creates the stream shall specify if a voting member representing
that stream shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules
and processes related to that representative (e.g., whether the
representative is a member of the body responsible for the stream
or an appointed delegate thereof).
The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a voting member of the
RSAB but does not act as a representative of the Editorial Stream.
To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
include the following non-voting, ex officio members:
In addition, the RSAB may include
other non-voting members at its discretion; these non-voting members may be ex officio members or liaisons from
groups or organizations with which the RSAB deems it necessary to
formally collaborate or coordinate.
Appointment and Removal of Voting Members
The appointing bodies (i.e., IESG, IAB,
IRTF Chair, and ISE) shall determine their own processes for
appointing RSAB members (note that processes related to the RSCE
are described in
In the case that the IRTF Chair or ISE is incapacitated or otherwise
unable to appoint another person to serve as a delegate,
the IAB (as the appointing body for the IRTF Chair and ISE)
shall act as the temporary appointing body for those
streams and shall appoint a temporary member of the RSAB until the
IAB has appointed an IRTF Chair or ISE, who can then act as an
RSAB member or appoint a delegate through normal processes.
Vacancies
In the case of vacancies by voting members, the RSAB shall operate
as follows:
Chair
The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members 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.
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,
although topics that require confidentiality (e.g., personnel
matters) may be omitted from such archives or discussed in private.
Similarly, meeting minutes may exclude detailed information about
topics discussed under executive session but should note that such
topics were discussed.
The RSAB shall announce plans and agendas for their meetings on the
RFC Editor website and by email to the RSWG at least a week before
such meetings. The 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, but 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 is requested to convene the RSAB when it is first formed in
order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC Editor
Model.
Process
This section specifies the RFC Series Policy Definition Process, which shall be followed in producing all Editorial Stream RFCs.
Intent
The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to the
RFC Series are defined and evolved. The general expectation is that all
interested parties will participate in the RSWG and that only under
extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold CONCERN
positions (as described in
Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWG
participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work together
in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to achieve rough
consensus (see
This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation. RSAB
members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,
authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an ongoing
basis, so that when the time comes to consider the approval of a proposal, there should
be no surprises. Appointing bodies are expected to establish whatever
processes they deem appropriate to facilitate this goal.
Workflow
The following process shall be used to formulate or modify policies
related to the RFC Series:
Community Calls for Comment
The RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community calls
for comments on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG.
The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input. The RSAB seeks
such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the rfc&nbhy;interest@rfc&nbhy;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
(e.g., the IETF and IRTF). Notices are also to be made available and
archived on the RFC Editor website. In addition, other communication
channels can be established for notices (e.g., via an RSS feed or by
posting to social media venues).
In cases where a proposal has the potential to significantly modify
long-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFC
Series as described in
The RSAB should maintain a public list of communities that are
contacted during calls for comments.
A notice of a community call for comments contains the following:
A comment period will last not less than two weeks and should be
longer if wide outreach is required. Comments will be publicly
archived on the RFC Editor website.
The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during
a community call for comments. If RSAB members conclude that such
comments raise important issues that need to be addressed, they
should do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if
the issues meet the criteria specified in Step 9 of
Appeals
Appeals of RSWG Chair decisions shall be made to the RSAB. Decisions of the
RSWG Chairs can be appealed only on grounds of failure to follow the correct
process. Appeals should be made within thirty (30) days of any action or, in
the case of failure to act, of notice having been given to the RSWG Chairs.
The RSAB will then decide if the process was followed and will direct
the RSWG Chairs as to what procedural actions are required.
Decisions of the RSAB can be appealed on grounds of failure to follow
the correct process. In addition, if the RSAB makes a decision in order to resolve
a disagreement between authors and the RPC (as described in
Anti-Harassment Policy
The IETF anti-harassment policy also applies to the RSWG and RSAB,
which strive to create and maintain an environment in which people
of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency,
and respect. Participants are expected to behave according to
professional standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace
behavior. For further information about these policies, see
RFC Boilerplates
RFC boilerplates (see
Policy Implementation
Roles and Processes
Publication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC).
A few general considerations apply:
All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance
targets are between the RPC and IETF LLC.
The RPC shall regularly provide reports to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG,
and broader community regarding its activities and any key risks or
issues affecting it.
In the event that the RPC is required to make a decision without
consultation that would normally deserve consultation, or makes a
decision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify the
RSAB.
This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
IETF LLC and the RPC; for example, the work of the RPC could be
performed by a separate corporate entity under contract to the
IETF LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or
the IETF LLC could engage with independent contractors for some or
all aspects of such work. The exact relationship is a matter for
the IETF LLC to determine.
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method and management of the
engagement of the RPC. Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority over
negotiating performance targets for the RPC and also has
responsibility for ensuring that those targets are met. Such
performance targets are set based on the RPC's publication load and
additional efforts required to implement policies specified in
Editorial Stream RFCs, in existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and have
not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and in the requisite
contracts. The IETF LLC may consult with the community regarding
these targets. The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a manager or to
convene a committee to complete these activities.
If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the
performance of the RPC, they can request that the matter be investigated
by the IETF LLC Board, the IETF Executive Director, or a point of
contact designated by the IETF LLC Board. Even if the IETF LLC opts to
delegate this activity, concerns should be raised with the IETF LLC.
The IETF LLC is ultimately answerable to the community via the mechanisms
outlined in
Working Practices
In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in the
interest of specifying the detail of its implementation of such policies, the RPC can
document working practices regarding the editorial preparation,
final publication, and dissemination of RFCs. Examples include:
RPC Responsibilities
The core responsibility of the RPC is the implementation of RFC Series
policies through publication of RFCs (including the dimensions of document
quality, timeliness of publication, and accessibility of results), while
taking into account issues raised by the community through the RSWG and
by the stream approving bodies. More specifically, the RPC's responsibilities
at the time of writing include the following:
Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC
During the process of editorial preparation and publication, disagreements
can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the RPC. Where an existing
policy clearly applies, typically such disagreements are handled in a
straightforward manner through direct consultation between the authors and
the RPC, sometimes in collaboration with stream-specific contacts.
However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies or if it is
unclear how to interpret an existing policy, the parties may need to
consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB, IESG, IRSG, or
stream approving bodies) to help achieve a resolution. The following points are
intended to provide more specific guidance.
Point of Contact
From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF and
the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC Series.
Such inquiries should be directed to the
rfc&nbhy;editor@rfc&nbhy;editor.org email
alias or to its successor or future equivalent and then handled by the
appropriate bodies (e.g., RSAB and RPC) or individuals (e.g., RSWG Chairs and RSCE).
Administrative Implementation
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. This
section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such
activities.
Vendor Selection for the RPC
Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and
under the final authority of the IETF LLC.
The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work)
for the RPC and manages the vendor-selection process. The work
definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into
account the RPC responsibilities (as described in
The process to select and contract for the RPC
and other RFC-related services is as follows:
Budget
Most expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They
have been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.
The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding
to support the RSCE, the RFC Production Center, and the Independent
Stream.
The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor
budget (and the authority to deny it). All relevant parties must work
within the IETF LLC budgetary process.
RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)
The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a senior technical
publishing professional who will apply their deep knowledge of
technical publishing processes to the RFC Series.
The primary responsibilities of the RSCE are as follows:
Matters on which the RSCE might provide guidance could include the
following (see also
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams are
outside the scope of this document.
Procedures Request of the IETF Trust
The IAB requests that the IETF Trust and its Trustees assist in
meeting the goals and procedures set forth in this document.
The Trustees are requested to publicly confirm their willingness and
ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) for the Editorial Stream.
Specifically, the Trustees are asked to develop the necessary
boilerplate to enable the suitable marking of documents so that the
IETF Trust receives the rights as specified in
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
Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as
specified in IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism for this purpose. The IAB would prefer 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.
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
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
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
Historical Properties of the RFC Series
This section lists some of the properties that have been
historically 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
Availability
Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades,
with no restrictions on access or distribution.
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.
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.
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.
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
Stability
Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.
Longevity
RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be
comprehensible to humans for decades or longer.
Updates to This Document
Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced
using the process documented herein but 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.
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,
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.
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.
This document is the result of discussion within the Program and
describes version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining
consistent with
The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in
more detail.
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
(
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.
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.
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
(
RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and responsibility
between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy and somewhat opaque.
To overcome some of these issues, this document dispenses with the RSOC.
References to the RSOC in documents such as
RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model
Editorial Stream
This document creates the Editorial Stream in addition to the streams
already described in
Security Considerations
The same security considerations as those in
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.
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.
References
Normative References
Informative References
IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor Model
The University of Auckland
Style Guide
RFC Editor
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
approved for publication were:
This document is the product of the IAB's RFC Editor Future Development
Program. The RFC Editor Future Development Program allowed for open
participation and used a rough consensus model for decision making.
Acknowledgments
Portions of this document were borrowed from
- 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 such proposals for publication
in the Editorial Stream. The RSAB includes representatives of the
streams
as well as an expert in technical publishing, the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE). - Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the
streams that form the RFC Series. This is primarily the responsibility
of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the
IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC)
.
- 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.
- Proposals must be submitted to, adopted by, and discussed within the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG).
- Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working group and
a community call for comments (see
). - Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).
- 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)
or someone appointed by the ISE - The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)
- 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)
- 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. Note that this method of handling vacancies does not apply to a vacancy
of the RSCE role; it only applies to vacancies of the stream representatives
enumerated in
.
- An individual or set of individuals generates a proposal in the form
of an Internet-Draft (which must be submitted in full conformance
with the provisions of
and ) and asks the RSWG to adopt the proposal as a working group item. - 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 the proposal; this
is similar to the way a working group of the IETF would operate
(see
). - The RSWG shall then further discuss and develop the proposal. All
participants, but especially RSAB members, should pay special
attention to any aspects of the proposal that have the potential
to significantly modify long-standing policies or historical
characteristics of the RFC Series as described in
. Members of the RSAB are expected to participate as individuals in all discussions relating to RSWG proposals. This should help to ensure that they are fully aware of proposals early in the RFC Series Policy Definition Process. It should also help to ensure that RSAB members will raise any issues or concerns during the development of the proposal and not wait until the RSAB review period. The RSWG Chairs are also expected to participate as individuals. - At some point, if the RSWG Chairs believe there may be rough consensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a Last Call for comments within the working group.
- After a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG Chairs will determine whether rough consensus for the proposal exists (taking their own feedback as individuals into account along with feedback from other participants). If comments have been received and substantial changes have been made, additional Last Calls may be necessary. Once the chairs determine that consensus has been reached, they shall announce their determination on the RSWG email discussion list and forward the document to the RSAB.
- Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue a
community call for comments as further described in
. If substantial comments are received in response to the community call for comments, the RSAB may return the proposal to the RSWG to consider those comments and make revisions to address the feedback received. In parallel with the community call for comments, the RSAB itself shall also consider the proposal. - If the scope of the revisions made in the previous step is substantial, an additional community call for comments should be issued by the RSAB, and the feedback received should be considered by the RSWG.
- Once the RSWG Chairs confirm that concerns received during the community call(s) for comments have been addressed, they shall inform the RSAB that the document is ready for balloting by the RSAB.
-
Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will poll its members for their positions on the proposal. 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. Nevertheless, the RSWG might not be able to come to consensus on modifications that will address the RSAB member's concern. There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a position of CONCERN: - The RSAB member believes that the proposal represents a serious problem for one or more of the individual streams.
- The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause serious harm to the overall RFC Series, including harm to the long-term health and viability of the Series.
- The RSAB member believes, based on the results of the community
call(s) for comments (
), that rough consensus to advance the proposal is lacking.
Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the discussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues during those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come as a surprise to the RSWG. Notwithstanding, late CONCERN positions are always possible if issues are identified during RSAB review or the community call(s) for comments. - If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG. Again, all RSAB members are expected to participate. If substantial changes are made in order to address CONCERN positions, an additional community call for comments might be needed.
- A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.
- If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions remain, a vote of the RSAB is taken. If at least three voting members vote YES, the proposal is approved.
- If the proposal is not approved, it is returned to the RSWG. The RSWG can then consider making further changes.
- 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.
- Policies may take effect immediately upon approval by the RSAB and before publication of the relevant RFC, unless they are delayed while the IETF LLC resolves pending resource or contract issues.
- 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 their usual decision-making procedures)
- Clear instructions on how to provide public comments
- A deadline for comments
- The applicable stream, which approves that the boilerplate meets its needs
- The RSAB, which approves that the boilerplate is not in 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
- The general roles and responsibilities of the RPC are defined by RFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by the RSWG, RSAB, or RSCE), by existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and by the requisite contracts.
- The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and it has a duty to
consult with them under specific circumstances, such as those
relating to disagreements between authors and the RPC as
described in
. - The RPC is overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that it performs in accordance with contracts in place.
- Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards for
RFCs; specifically, the RFC Style Guide consists of
and the other documents and resources listed at . - Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as input to the editing and publication process.
- Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published documents.
In the context of the XML vocabulary
, such guidelines could include clarifications regarding the preferred XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic content of RFCs.
- Editing documents originating from all RFC streams to ensure that they are consistent with the editorial standards specified in the RFC Style Guide.
- Creating and preserving records of edits performed on documents.
- Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact and seeking necessary clarification.
- Establishing the publication readiness of each document through communication with the authors, IANA, or stream-specific contacts, supplemented if needed by the RSAB and RSCE.
- Creating and preserving records of dialogue with document authors.
- Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
- Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
- Participating within the RSWG in the creation of new Editorial Stream RFCs that impact the RPC, specifically with respect to any challenges the RPC might foresee with regard to implementation of proposed policies.
- Identifying topics and issues while processing documents or carrying out other responsibilities on this list for which they lack sufficient expertise, and identifying and conferring with relevant experts as needed.
- Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans.
- Consulting with the community on its plans.
- Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC.
- Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC performance by the IETF LLC.
- Coordinating with IANA to ensure that RFCs accurately document registration processes and assigned values for IANA registries.
- Assigning RFC numbers.
- Liaising with stream approving bodies and other representatives of the streams as needed.
-
Publishing RFCs, which includes: - posting copies to the RFC Editor site both individually and in collections
- depositing copies with external archives
- creating catalogs and catalog entries
- announcing the publication to interested parties
- Providing online access to RFCs.
- Providing an online system to facilitate the submission, management, and display of errata to RFCs.
- Maintaining the RFC Editor website.
- Providing for the backup of RFCs.
- Ensuring the storage and preservation of records.
- Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.
- If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, to help achieve a resolution, the RPC should consult with the relevant stream approving body (such as the IESG or IRSG) and other representatives of the relevant stream as appropriate.
- If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should consult with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.
- The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by an existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies, as described above. In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a) resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary so that the relevant stream document(s) can be published before a new policy is defined and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so that a new policy can be defined.
- The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps necessary to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) when necessary, the timing, and the contracting procedures.
- The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will consist of the IETF Executive Director and other members selected by the IETF LLC in consultation with the stream approving bodies. The committee shall select a chair from among its members.
- The selection committee selects the vendor, subject to the successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC. In the event that a contract cannot be signed, the matter shall be referred to the selection committee for further action.
- 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
- 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