rfc9920v1.txt		rfc9920.txt
	Editorial Stream P. Hoffman		Editorial Stream P. Hoffman
	Request for Comments: 9920 ICANN		Request for Comments: 9920 ICANN
	Obsoletes: 9280 A. Rossi		Obsoletes: 9280 A. Rossi
	Updates: 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, RFC Series Consulting Editor		Updates: 7841, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, RFC Series Consulting Editor
	7996, 7997, 8729, 9720 December 2025		7995, 7996, 7997, 8729, 8730, February 2026
			9720
	Category: Informational		Category: Informational
	ISSN: 2070-1721		ISSN: 2070-1721
	RFC Editor Model (Version 3)		RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. The model		This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. The model
	defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. First,		defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. First,
	policy definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series		policy definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series
	Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC		Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC
	Series Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second,		Series Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second,
	policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC		policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC
	Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF		Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF
	Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC). In addition,		Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC). In addition,
	various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are now performed		various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are now performed
	alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting		alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting
	Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document establishes the		Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document specifies the
	Editorial Stream for publication of future policy definition		Editorial Stream for publication of future policy definition
	documents produced through the processes defined herein.		documents produced through the processes defined herein.
	Since the publication of RFC 9280, lessons have been learned about		Since the publication of RFC 9280, lessons have been learned about
	implementing this model. This document lists some of those lessons		implementing this model. This document lists some of those lessons
	learned and updates RFC 9280 based on that experience. This document		learned and updates RFC 9280 based on that experience. This document
	obsoletes RFC 9280.		obsoletes RFC 9280.
	This document updates RFCs 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997,		This document updates RFCs 7841, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996,
	8729, and 9720.		7997, 8729, 8730, and 9720.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is		This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
	published for informational purposes.		published for informational purposes.
	This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition		This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
	Process. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working Group		Process. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working Group
	approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents are not		approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents are not
	candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC		candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
	7841.		7841.
	Information about the current status of this document, any errata,		Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
	and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at		and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
	https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9920.		https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9920.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document.		to this document.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	skipping to change at line 164 ¶		skipping to change at line 165 ¶
	various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are performed		various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are performed
	alone or in combination by the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), RFC		alone or in combination by the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), RFC
	Series Advisory Board (RSAB), RFC Production Center (RPC), RFC Series		Series Advisory Board (RSAB), RFC Production Center (RPC), RFC Series
	Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF Administration Limited Liability		Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF Administration Limited Liability
	Company (IETF LLC) [RFC8711], which collectively comprise the RFC		Company (IETF LLC) [RFC8711], which collectively comprise the RFC
	Editor function. The intent is to ensure sustainable maintenance and		Editor function. The intent is to ensure sustainable maintenance and
	support of the RFC Series based on the principles of expert		support of the RFC Series based on the principles of expert
	implementation, clear management and direction, and appropriate		implementation, clear management and direction, and appropriate
	community input [RFC8729].		community input [RFC8729].
	This document defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. This		This document updates [RFC7841] by defining boilerplate text for the
	document updates [RFC7841] by defining boilerplate text for the
	Editorial Stream. This document updates [RFC8729] by replacing the		Editorial Stream. This document updates [RFC8729] by replacing the
	RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and RSCE. This document updates		RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and RSCE. This document updates
	[RFC8730] by removing the dependency on certain policies specified by		[RFC8730] by removing the dependency on certain policies specified by
	the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE). More detailed information about		the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE). More detailed information about
	changes from version 2 of the RFC Editor Model can be found in		changes from version 2 of the RFC Editor Model can be found in
	Section 9.		Section 9.
	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.
	1.1. Changes to RFC 9280		1.1. Changes to RFC 9280
	This section details the changes made to [RFC9280] by the RSWG		This section details the changes made to [RFC9280] by the RSWG
	starting in 2022. If you are not interested in how this document was		starting in 2022. If you are not interested in how this document was
	changed, skip directly to Section 2.		changed, skip directly to Section 2.
	[RFC9280] contained significant changes to the publication model for		[RFC9280] contained significant changes to the publication model for
	RFCs. Those changes created new structures and new processes for the		RFCs. Those changes created new structures and new processes for the
	publication of RFCs. As these structures and processes have been		publication of RFCs. As these structures and processes have been
	exercised, the community has found places where they might be		exercised, the community has found places where they can be improved.
	improved. In addition, gaps in some of the processes have been		In addition, gaps in some of the processes have been found. This
	found. This document updates [RFC9280] based on these findings.		document updates [RFC9280] based on these findings.
	The organization of this RFC is different from typical RFCs in order		The organization of this RFC is different from typical RFCs in order
	to keep the section numbering the same as [RFC9280]. To keep the		to keep the section numbering the same as [RFC9280]. To keep the
	section numbering the same, the Introduction section is much longer,		section numbering the same, the Introduction section is much longer,
	with several subsections that refer to the main body.		with several subsections that refer to the main body.
	The remainder of this introduction is a list of changes to [RFC9280].		The remainder of this introduction is a list of changes to [RFC9280].
	Those changes are instantiated in the rest of the document, with		Those changes are instantiated in the rest of the document, with
	cross-references between the list of changes and the main body.		cross-references between the list of changes 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.
	1.2. RPC Roles and Responsibilities		1.2. RPC Roles and Responsibilities
	[RFC9280] created a new structure for the RFC Editor function. It		[RFC9280] created a new structure for the RFC Editor function. It
	established the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) and the RFC Series		established the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) and the RFC Series
	Approval Board (RSAB) and gave new responsibilities to the RFC		Approval Board (RSAB) and gave new responsibilities to the RFC
	Production Center (RPC). Broadly speaking, it says that the RSWG		Production Center (RPC). Broadly speaking, it says that the RSWG
	writes policies for the Editorial Stream, the RSAB approves those		writes policies for the Editorial Stream, the RSAB approves those
	policies, and the RPC implements those policies. However, [RFC9280]		policies, and the RPC implements those policies. However, [RFC9280]
	does not specify which group is responsible for defining or building		does not specify which group is responsible for defining or building
	the specific code and tools that implement the policies agreed upon		the specific code and tools that implement the policies agreed upon
	in this process. The rest of this section updates [RFC9280] to deal		in this process. The rest of this section updates [RFC9280] to deal
	with this and other related matters.		with this and other related matters.
	1.2.1. Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs		1.2.1. Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs
	Section 2 states:		Section 2 of [RFC9280] states:
	| Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the		| Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the
	| streams that form the RFC Series. This is primarily the		| streams that form the RFC Series. This is primarily the
	| responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as contractually		| responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as contractually
	| overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company		| overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company
	| (IETF LLC) [RFC8711].		| (IETF LLC) [RFC8711].
	The same section also states:		The same section also states:
	| The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in		| The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in
	skipping to change at line 283 ¶		skipping to change at line 283 ¶
	| decisions in a publicly available place, preferably with		| decisions in a publicly available place, preferably with
	| rationale.		| rationale.
	|		|
	| If the RPC has questions about how to interpret policy in		| If the RPC has questions about how to interpret policy in
	| Editorial Stream documents, they should ask the RSAB for guidance		| Editorial Stream documents, they should ask the RSAB for guidance
	| in interpreting that policy per the process described in		| in interpreting that policy per the process described in
	| Section 4.4.		| Section 4.4.
	1.2.2. Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions		1.2.2. Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions
	Section 4.4 provides a pathway for resolution of conflicts between		Section 4.4 of [RFC9280] provides a pathway for resolution of
	the RPC and the author(s) of a specific document. No appeal pathway		conflicts between the RPC and the author(s) of a specific document.
	is given for resolution of issues that may occur when a conflict		No appeal pathway is given for resolution of issues that may occur
	arises with an implementation decision that applies to the entire		when a conflict arises with an implementation decision that applies
	editorial process (not just one document).		to the entire editorial process (not just one document).
	The paragraph below is reflected in Section 4.4 of this document:		The paragraph below is reflected in Section 4.4 of this document:
	| If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at		| If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at
	| both the document and editorial process tooling level, conflicts		| both the document and editorial process tooling level, conflicts
	| on either level will involve interpretation of written policy (or		| on either level will involve interpretation of written policy (or
	| the acknowledgment that policy does not exist to cover a given		| the acknowledgment that policy does not exist to cover a given
	| situation). In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the		| situation). In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the
	| same path of appeal: to the RSAB.		| same path of appeal: to the RSAB.
	skipping to change at line 337 ¶		skipping to change at line 337 ¶
	|		|
	| * The RFC Editor website (https://www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be		| * The RFC Editor website (https://www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be
	| primarily focused on consumers of RFCs.		| primarily focused on consumers of RFCs.
	|		|
	| * Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become		| * Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become
	| IETF/IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or		| IETF/IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or
	| modify an RFC.		| modify an RFC.
	1.3. Updates to RFC 9720		1.3. Updates to RFC 9720
	[RFC9720], "RFC Formats and Versions", updated [RFC9280].		[RFC9720], "RFC Formats and Versions", updates [RFC9280]. This
			document updates [RFC9720].
	1.3.1. RFCs May Be Reissued		1.3.1. RFCs May Be Reissued
	Section 7.6 of [RFC9280] says:		Section 7.6 of [RFC9280] says:
	| Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.		| Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.
	That sentence is replaced in Section 7.6 of this document with:		That sentence is replaced in Section 7.6 of this document with:
	| Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of		| Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of
	skipping to change at line 362 ¶		skipping to change at line 363 ¶
	A new policy is added to Section 7 of this document:		A new policy is added to Section 7 of this document:
	| 7.8. Consistency		| 7.8. Consistency
	|		|
	| RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. They may be		| RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. They may be
	| reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.		| reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.
	1.4. Purview of the RSWG and RSAB		1.4. Purview of the RSWG and RSAB
	Section 3 says:		Section 3 of [RFC9280] says:
	| Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but		| Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but
	| are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication		| are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication
	| and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC		| and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC
	| Series.		| Series.
	The following is added to Section 3 of this document immediately		The following is added to Section 3 of this document immediately
	following that sentence:		following that sentence:
	| Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications,		| Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications,
	skipping to change at line 534 ¶		skipping to change at line 535 ¶
	discussion venues shall be open to all interested individuals, and		discussion venues shall be open to all interested individuals, and
	all RSWG contributions shall be subject to intellectual property		all RSWG contributions shall be subject to intellectual property
	policies, which must be consistent with those of the IETF as		policies, which must be consistent with those of the IETF as
	specified in [BCP78] and [BCP79].		specified in [BCP78] and [BCP79].
	All discussions in the RSWG shall take place on an open email		All discussions in the RSWG shall take place on an open email
	discussion list, which shall be publicly archived.		discussion list, which shall be publicly archived.
	The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person, online-only, or hybrid		The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person, online-only, or hybrid
	meetings, which should be announced with sufficient notice to enable		meetings, which should be announced with sufficient notice to enable
	broad participation; the IESG Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual		broad participation; the IESG Guidance on In-Person and Online
	Interim Meetings (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/		Interim Meetings (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-
	interim-meetings-guidance-2016-01-16/) provides a reasonable		guidance-on-in-person-and-online-interim-meetings-20230814/) provides
	baseline. In-person meetings should include provision for effective		a reasonable baseline. In-person meetings should include provision
	online participation for those unable to attend in person.		for effective online participation for those unable to attend in
			person.
	The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation		The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation
	informally described in [RFC2418].		informally described in [RFC2418].
	The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling		The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling
	(e.g., GitHub as specified in [RFC8874]), forms of communication, and		(e.g., GitHub as specified in [RFC8874]), forms of communication, and
	working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent		working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent
	with this document and with [RFC2418] or its successors.		with this document and with [RFC2418] or its successors.
	Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the operation of		Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the operation of
	skipping to change at line 1540 ¶		skipping to change at line 1542 ¶
	[RFC9280] was the result of discussion within the original Program		[RFC9280] was the result of discussion within the original Program
	and described version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining		and described version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining
	consistent with [RFC8729]. As stated earlier, this document		consistent with [RFC8729]. As stated earlier, this document
	obsoletes [RFC9280].		obsoletes [RFC9280].
	The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in more		The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in more
	detail.		detail.
	9.1. RFC Editor Function		9.1. RFC Editor Function
	Several responsibilities previously assigned to the RFC Editor or,		Several responsibilities previously assigned to the RFC Editor (or
	more precisely, the RFC Editor function, are now performed by the		more precisely, the RFC Editor function) are now performed by the
	RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). These		RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). These
	include various aspects of strategic leadership (Section 2.1.1 of		include various aspects of strategic leadership (Section 2.1.1 of
	[RFC8728]), representation of the RFC Series (Section 2.1.2 of		[RFC8728]), representation of the RFC Series (Section 2.1.2 of
	[RFC8728]), development of RFC production and publication		[RFC8728]), development of RFC production and publication
	(Section 2.1.3 of [RFC8728]), development of the RFC Series		(Section 2.1.3 of [RFC8728]), development of the RFC Series
	(Section 2.1.4 of [RFC8728]), operational oversight (Section 3.3 of		(Section 2.1.4 of [RFC8728]), operational oversight (Section 3.3 of
	[RFC8729]), policy oversight (Section 3.4 of [RFC8729]), the editing,		[RFC8729]), policy oversight (Section 3.4 of [RFC8729]), the editing,
	processing, and publication of documents (Section 4.2 of [RFC8729]),		processing, and publication of documents (Section 4.2 of [RFC8729]),
	and development and maintenance of guidelines and rules that apply to		and development and maintenance of guidelines and rules that apply to
	the RFC Series (Section 4.4 of [RFC8729]). Among other things, this		the RFC Series (Section 4.4 of [RFC8729]). Among other things, this
	skipping to change at line 1610 ¶		skipping to change at line 1612 ¶
	dispensed with the RSOC. References to the RSOC in documents such as		dispensed with the RSOC. References to the RSOC in documents such as
	[RFC8730] are obsolete.		[RFC8730] are obsolete.
	9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)		9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
	Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC5620] specified the existence		Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC5620] specified the existence
	of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer		of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer
	specified in version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. For the avoidance of		specified in version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. For the avoidance of
	doubt, [RFC9280] affirmed that the RSAG was disbanded. (The RSAG is		doubt, [RFC9280] affirmed that the RSAG was disbanded. (The RSAG is
	not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which		not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which
	this document establishes.)		this document specifies.)
	9.7. Editorial Stream		9.7. Editorial Stream
	This document specifies the Editorial Stream in addition to the		This document specifies the Editorial Stream in addition to the
	streams already described in [RFC8729].		streams already described in [RFC8729].
	10. Security Considerations		10. Security Considerations
	The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply. The		The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply. The
	processes for the publication of documents must prevent the		processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
End of changes. 15 change blocks.
	33 lines changed or deleted		35 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.