rfc9920.original.md   rfc9920.md 
--- ---
title: RFC Editor Model (Version 3) title: RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
abbrev: RFC 9280 updates abbrev: RFC Editor Model
docname: draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates-04 docname: draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates-04
number: 9920
stand_alone: true stand_alone: true
v: 3 v: 3
updates: 7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, 8729 updates: 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, 8729, 9720
obsoletes: 9280 obsoletes: 9280
lang: en
pi: [toc, symrefs, sortrefs]
ipr: trust200902 ipr: trust200902
kw: Internet-Draft
cat: info cat: info
submissionType: editorial submissionType: editorial
date: 2025-12
author: author:
- -
ins: P. Hoffman ins: P. Hoffman
name: Paul Hoffman name: Paul Hoffman
org: ICANN org: ICANN
email: paul.hoffman@icann.org email: paul.hoffman@icann.org
- -
ins: A. Rossi ins: A. Rossi
fullname: Alexis Rossi name: Alexis Rossi
organization: RFC Series Consulting Editor org: RFC Series Consulting Editor
email: rsce@rfc-editor.org email: rsce@rfc-editor.org
normative: normative:
BCP78: BCP78:
BCP79: BCP79:
BCP9: BCP9:
RFC2418: RFC2418:
RFC7154: RFC7154:
RFC7322: RFC7322:
RFC7776: RFC7776:
RFC7841: RFC7841:
RFC7990:
RFC7991: RFC7991:
RFC7992: RFC7992:
RFC7993: RFC7993:
RFC7994: RFC7994:
RFC7995: RFC7995:
RFC7996: RFC7996:
RFC7997: RFC7997:
RFC8711: RFC8711:
RFC8716: RFC8716:
RFC8729: RFC8729:
skipping to change at line 70 skipping to change at line 70
RFC9283: RFC9283:
STYLEGUIDE: STYLEGUIDE:
title: Style Guide title: Style Guide
target: https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/ target: https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/
date: false date: false
author: author:
org: RFC Editor org: RFC Editor
--- abstract --- abstract
<!--[rfced] FYI: We updated the abbreviated title as follows to align with
the title of the document. Note that the abbreviated title only appears in the
PDF output (in the header at the top of each page). It does not appear in the
TXT or HTML outputs.
Original:
RFC 9280 updates
Updated:
RFC Editor Model
-->
<!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->
<!-- [rfced] Because this document updates RFCs 7991, 7996, and 7997, please
review the errata reported for these RFCs and let us know if you confirm our
opinion that none of them are relevant to the content of this document.
Links to errata:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7991
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7996
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7997
-->
<!-- [rfced] FYI: We have removed the following text from the Abstract
as this document is no longer a draft.
Original:
This draft is part of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG);
see <https://datatracker.ietf.org/edwg/rswg/documents/>.
There is a repository for this draft at
<https://github.com/paulehoffman/9280-updates>.
-->
<!--[rfced] We note that this document says it "establishes",
"specifies", and "creates" the Editorial Stream. Should any of
these instances be updated for consistency (perhaps use "specifies")?
Current:
(Abstract):
Finally, this document establishes the Editorial Stream for
publication of future policy definition documents produced through
the processes defined herein.
(Introduction):
This document specifies a fifth stream, the Editorial Stream, for
publication of policies governing the RFC Series as a whole.
(Section 6):
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.
(Section 9.7)
This document specifies the Editorial Stream in addition to the
streams already described in [RFC8729].
-->
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 establishes 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 implementing this model. Since the publication of RFC 9280, lessons have been learned about implementing this model.
This document lists some of those lessons learned and updates RFC 9280 based on that experience. This document lists some of those lessons learned and updates RFC 9280 based on that experience.
This document obsoletes RFC 9280. This document obsoletes RFC 9280.
This document updates RFCs 7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, and 8729. This document updates RFCs 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, 8729, and 9720.
This draft is part of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG); see <https://datatracker.i
etf.org/edwg/rswg/documents/>.
There is a repository for this draft at <https://github.com/paulehoffman/9280-updates
>.
--- middle --- middle
# Introduction # Introduction {#intro}
The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series
dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, including dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, including
general contributions from the Internet research and engineering general contributions from the Internet research and engineering
community as well as standards documents. RFCs are available free of community as well as standards documents. RFCs are available free of
charge to anyone via the Internet. As described in {{RFC8700}}, RFCs charge to anyone via the Internet. As described in {{RFC8700}}, RFCs
have been published continually since 1969. have been published continually since 1969.
RFCs are generated and approved by multiple document streams. RFCs are generated and approved by multiple document streams.
Whereas the stream approving body {{RFC8729}} for each stream is Whereas the stream approving body {{RFC8729}} for each stream is
skipping to change at line 125 skipping to change at line 183
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}}.
<!--[rfced] Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section 1 both state that this
document "defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model". Should this
sentence in paragraph 4 be removed to avoid repetition?
3rd paragraph (for reference):
The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor
function is described in [RFC8729] and is updated by this
document, which defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model.
Under this version ...
Original (4th paragraph):
This document defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. This
document updates [RFC7841] by defining boilerplate text for the
Editorial Stream...
Perhaps (4th paragraph):
This document updates [RFC7841] by defining boilerplate text for
the Editorial Stream...
-->
<!--[rfced] We note that both the header and the Abstract list the RFCs that
this document updates (i.e., RFCs 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997,
8729, and 9720). However, the last paragraph of the Introduction says that
this document updates RFCs 7841, 8729, and 8730. Note that RFCs 7841 and 8730
are not included in the header's update list and the other documents in the
header's update list are not mentioned in this paragraph. (RFCs 7841, 8729,
and 8730 were updated by RFC 9280.)
Please review and let us know if any changes are needed.
Current:
This document updates [RFC7841] by defining boilerplate text for the
Editorial Stream. This document updates [RFC8729] by replacing the
RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and RSCE. This document updates
[RFC8730] by removing the dependency on certain policies specified by
the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE).
-->
This document defines version 3 of the RFC This document defines version 3 of the RFC
Editor Model. This document updates {{RFC7841}} by defining Editor Model. This document updates {{RFC7841}} by defining
boilerplate text for the Editorial Stream. This document updates boilerplate text for the Editorial Stream. This document updates
{{RFC8729}} by replacing the RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and {{RFC8729}} by replacing the RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and
RSCE. This document updates {{RFC8730}} by removing the dependency on RSCE. This document updates {{RFC8730}} by removing the dependency on
certain policies specified by the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE). certain policies specified by the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE).
More detailed information about changes from version 2 of the RFC More detailed information about changes from version 2 of the RFC
Editor Model can be found in {{changes}}. Editor Model can be found in {{changes}}.
{::boilerplate bcp14-tagged}
<!-- [rfced] This document contains key words, so we included the 2119/8174
boilerplate at the end of Section 1 (immediately before Section 1.1) and added
RFCs 2119 and 8174 as normative references. Please let us know if you prefer
that this boilerplate be placed in a different location in the document (e.g.,
as Section 1.1).
-->
<!-- [rfced] FYI - We added quote tagging in the .md file in a few places
(notably in Sections 1.2-1.4). This produces <blockquote> in the XML file,
which is used for direct quotes as well as OLD/NEW text.
-->
<!-- [rfced] Sections 1.2.3 and 1.3.2 are both about entire new sections that
have been added in this document. Instead of repeating the entire section in
two places in the document, would you like to include a summary in these
sections with pointers to the body of the document?
Perhaps:
1.2.3. RFC Consumers
Section 3.3 was added to define the term "consumers of RFCs" and set relevant
policy in respect to consumers of RFCs.
Perhaps:
1.3.2. Consistency Policy
Section 7.8 was added to define the policy reissuing an RFC to maintain a
consistent presentation.
-->
## Changes to RFC 9280 {#changes-to-9280} ## Changes to RFC 9280 {#changes-to-9280}
This section details the changes made to RFC 9280 by the RSWG starting in 2022. This section details the changes made to {{RFC9280}} by the RSWG starting in 2022.
If you are reading this document and do not care about how it was changed, you can sk If you are not interested in how this document was changed, skip directly to {{overvi
ip directly to {{overview}}. ew}}.
<!--[rfced] Should "might" be updated to "can" in this sentence?
Original:
As these structures and processes have been exercised, the
community has found places where they might be improved.
Perhaps:
As these structures and processes have been exercised, the
community has found places where they can be improved.
-->
<!-- [rfced] The parentheticals below appear in the body of the
document. Because the new text is defined and explained earlier in the
document, may we remove these parentheticals? It improves readability.
Section 3:
(The text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.4.)
Section 3.3:
(The text in this section is added by Section 1.2.3.)
Section 4.3:
(The text in the next two paragraphs is added by Section 1.2.1.)
Section 4.4:
(The text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.2.2.)
Section 7.6:
(The text in this section is updated by Section 1.3.1.)
Section 7.8:
(The text in this section is added by Section 1.3.2.)
Note that if these parentheticals are removed, the following sentence in
Section 1.1 will need to be updated.
Original:
The rest of this introduction is a list of changes to RFC 9280.
Those changes are instantiated in the rest of the document, with
cross-references between the list of changes and the main body.
Perhaps:
The rest of this introduction is a list of changes to RFC 9280,
which are instantiated in the rest of the document.
-->
{{RFC9280}} contained significant changes to the publication model for RFCs. {{RFC9280}} contained significant changes to the publication model for RFCs.
Those changes created new structures and new processes for the publication of RFCs. Those changes created new structures and new processes for the publication of RFCs.
As these structures and processes have been exercised, the community has found places where they might be improved. As these structures and processes have been exercised, the community has found places where they might be improved.
In addition, gaps in some of the processes have been found. In addition, gaps in some of the processes have been found.
This document updates RFC 9280 based on these findings. This document updates {{RFC9280}} based on these findings.
The organization for this RFC is different from typical RFCs in order to keep the sec The organization of this RFC is different from typical RFCs in order to keep the sect
tion numbering the same as RFC 9280. ion numbering the same as {{RFC9280}}.
To keep the section numbering the same, the introduction section is much longer, with To keep the section numbering the same, the Introduction section is much longer, with
lots of sub-sections that refer to the main body. several subsections that refer to the main body.
The rest of this introduction is a list of changes to RFC 9280. The remainder of this introduction is a list of changes to {{RFC9280}}.
Those changes are instantiated in the rest of the document, with cross-references bet ween the list of changes and the main body. Those changes are instantiated in the rest of the document, with cross-references bet ween the list of changes and the main body.
## RPC Roles and Responsibilities ## RPC Roles and Responsibilities
RFC 9280 created a new structure for the RFC Editor function. It established the RFC {{RFC9280}} created a new structure for the RFC Editor function. It established the R
Series Working Group (RSWG) and the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), and gave new re FC Series Working Group (RSWG) and the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) and gave new
sponsibilities to the RFC Production Center (RPC). responsibilities to the RFC Production Center (RPC).
Broadly speaking, it says that RSWG writes policies for the editorial stream, RSAB ap Broadly speaking, it says that the RSWG writes policies for the Editorial Stream, the
proves those policies, and the RPC implements those policies. RSAB approves those policies, and the RPC implements those policies.
However RFC 9280 does not specify which group is responsible for defining or building However, {{RFC9280}} does not specify which group is responsible for defining or buil
the specific code and tools that implement the policies agreed upon in this process. ding the specific code and tools that implement the policies agreed upon in this proc
The rest of this section updates RFC 9280 to deal with this and other related matters ess.
. The rest of this section updates {{RFC9280}} to deal with this and other related matt
ers.
### Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs {#tooling-code} ### Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs {#tooling-code}
{{overview}} says: <!-- [rfced] FYI: In Section 1.2.1, we added "[RFC8711]" to the end of this
sentence to match the text in Section 2 of this document and RFC 9280.
> Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the streams that form t Current:
he RFC Series. This is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC Section 2 states:
) as contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IET
F LLC).
The same section also states | Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the
| streams that form the RFC Series. This is primarily the
| responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as contractually
| overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company
| (IETF LLC) [RFC8711].
-->
<!-- [rfced] References to Sections
a) In Section 1.2.1, per the context, we believe that Sections 3.1.1.2
and 3.2.1 are referring to RFC 9280, so we have updated the text as
shown below for clarity. If this is not correct, please let us know.
Original:
RFC 9280 mentions tool developers twice. In Section 3.1.1.2, it
encourages "developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and
Internet-Drafts" to participate in the RSWG. Section 3.2.1 says that
"RSAB members should consult with their constituent stakeholders
(e.g., authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an
ongoing basis".
Current:
[RFC9280] mentions tool developers twice. Section 3.1.1.2 of
[RFC9280] encourages "developers of tools used to author or
edit RFCs and Internet-Drafts" to participate in the RSWG. Section
3.2.1 of [RFC9280] says that "RSAB members should consult with
their constituent stakeholders (e.g., authors, editors, tool
developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an ongoing basis".
b) Please review the following section pointers in Sections 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and
1.4. Would updating to either "Section X of this document" or "Section X of
[RFC9280]" improve clarity and be more precise? Note that currently, these
section pointers link to the section in this document in the HTML and PDF
outputs.
Current:
Section 2 states:
...
Section 4.4 provides a pathway for resolution of conflicts between the
RPC and the author(s) of a specific document.
...
Section 3 says:
-->
{{overview}} states:
{:quote}
> Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the streams that form t
he RFC Series. This is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC
) as contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IET
F LLC) {{RFC8711}}.
The same section also states:
{:quote}
> The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in its day-to-day e diting and publication of RFCs from all of the streams. > The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in its day-to-day e diting and publication of RFCs from all of the streams.
RFC 9280 does not define any other group that is responsible for implementing policie s. {{RFC9280}} does not define any other group that is responsible for implementing poli cies.
Throughout RFC 9280, the RSWG is consistently assigned responsibility for writing pol icies (not deciding on implementations). Throughout {{RFC9280}}, the RSWG is consistently assigned responsibility for writing policies (not deciding on implementations).
The RPC is consistently assigned responsibility for implementing policy decisions, bu t examples given generally describe decisions made at the single document level. The RPC is consistently assigned responsibility for implementing policy decisions, bu t examples given generally describe decisions made at the single document level.
RFC 9280 does not cover any specific responsibilities for designing and building the tools and code used to publish documents. {{RFC9280}} does not cover any specific responsibilities for designing and building t he tools and code used to publish documents.
RFC 9280 mentions tool developers twice. {{RFC9280}} mentions tool developers twice.
In {{rswg-participation}}, it encourages "developers of tools used to author or edit {{Section 3.1.1.2 of RFC9280}} encourages "developers of tools used to author or edit
RFCs and Internet-Drafts" to participate in the RSWG. RFCs and Internet-Drafts" to participate in the RSWG.
{{intent}} says that "RSAB members should consult with their constituent stakeholders {{Section 3.2.1 of RFC9280}} says that "RSAB members should consult with their consti
(e.g., authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an ongoing basis tuent stakeholders (e.g., authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) o
". n an ongoing basis".
{{working-practices}} in RFC 9280 mentions a specific implementation when discussing the working practices of the RPC. {{Section 4.2 of RFC9280}} mentions a specific implementation when discussing the wor king practices of the RPC:
{:quote}
> In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in the interest of sp ecifying the detail of its implementation of such policies, the RPC can document ... Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published documents. In the co ntext of the XML vocabulary [RFC7991], such guidelines could include clarifications r egarding the preferred XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic conte nt of RFCs. > In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in the interest of sp ecifying the detail of its implementation of such policies, the RPC can document ... Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published documents. In the co ntext of the XML vocabulary [RFC7991], such guidelines could include clarifications r egarding the preferred XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic conte nt of RFCs.
{{RFC7991}} is the only editorial implementation-related RFC mentioned in 9280. {{RFC7991}} is the only editorial implementation-related RFC mentioned in {{RFC9280}} .
The following is added to {{rpc-responsibilites}} in this document. The following is added to {{rpc-responsibilities}} of this document:
The RPC is responsible for the development of tools and processes used to implement e <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand what "text and graphical formats" means
ditorial stream policies, in the absence of an RFC with specific requirements. here? Does "graphical formats" refer to the HTML and PDF outputs or to
The RPC is responsible for detailed technical specifications, for example specific de something else? Also, we suggest using "and" rather than "or" in this
tails of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. sentence.
Original:
The RPC is responsible for detailed technical specifications, for example
specific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar.
Perhaps:
The RPC is responsible for detailed technical specifications, for example,
specific details of the publication formats and XML grammar.
-->
{:quote}
> The RPC is responsible for the development of tools and processes used to implement
Editorial Stream policies, in the absence of an RFC with specific requirements.
The RPC is responsible for detailed technical specifications, for example, specific d
etails of text or graphical formats or XML grammar.
The RPC may designate a team of volunteers and/or employees who implement these opera tional decisions. The RPC may designate a team of volunteers and/or employees who implement these opera tional decisions.
The RPC is expected to solicit input from experts and community members when making i mplementation decisions. The RPC is expected to solicit input from experts and community members when making i mplementation decisions.
The RPC is required to document implementation decisions in a publicly available plac e, preferably with rationale. The RPC is required to document implementation decisions in a publicly available plac e, preferably with rationale.
>
If the RPC has questions about how to interpret policy in Editorial stream documents > If the RPC has questions about how to interpret policy in Editorial Stream documen
, they should ask RSAB for guidance in interpreting that policy per the process descr ts, they should ask the RSAB for guidance in interpreting that policy per the process
ibed in {{resolution}}. described in {{resolution}}.
### Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions {#conflict-resolution} ### Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions {#conflict-resolution}
{{resolution}} provides a pathway for resolution of conflicts between the RPC and the author(s) of a specific document. {{resolution}} provides a pathway for resolution of conflicts between the RPC and the author(s) of a specific document.
No appeal pathway is given for resolution of issues that may occur when a conflict ar ises with an implementation decision that applies to the entire editorial process (no t just one document). No appeal pathway is given for resolution of issues that may occur when a conflict ar ises with an implementation decision that applies to the entire editorial process (no t just one document).
If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both the document and The paragraph below is reflected in {{resolution}} of this document:
editorial process tooling level, conflicts on either level will involve interpretatio
n of written policy (or the acknowledgement that policy does not exist to cover a giv
en situation).
In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the same path of appeal: to the RSA
B.
The paragraph above is now reflected in {{resolution}} in this document. {:quote}
> If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both the document an
d editorial process tooling level, conflicts on either level will involve interpretat
ion of written policy (or the acknowledgment that policy does not exist to cover a gi
ven situation).
In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the same path of appeal: to the RSA
B.
### RFC Consumers {#rfc-consumers} ### RFC Consumers {#rfc-consumers}
The IETF mission statement {{RFC3935}} is clear that the documents it produces are in This text is reflected in {{rfc-consumers-definition}} of this document:
tended to be consumed by anyone who wishes to implement an IETF protocol or operation
al recommendation:
> to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influenc
e the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the In
ternet work better.
{{intent}} introduces the term "consumers of RFCs", referring to them as "constituent
stakeholders" who should be considered by RSAB when approving Editorial Stream polic
y documents.
"Consumers of RFCs" is now defined to mean those people who read RFCs to understand, {:quote}
implement, critique, and research the protocols, operational practices and other cont > The IETF mission statement {{RFC3935}} is clear that the documents it produces are
ent, as found in RFCs. intended to be consumed by anyone who wishes to implement an IETF protocol or operati
onal recommendation:
>
>> to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influen
ce the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the I
nternet work better.
>
> {{intent}} introduces the term "consumers of RFCs", referring to them as "constitue
nt stakeholders" who should be considered by the RSAB when approving Editorial Stream
policy documents.
>
> "Consumers of RFCs" is now defined to mean those people who read RFCs to understand
, implement, critique, and research the protocols, operational practices, and other c
ontent as found in RFCs.
>
> The policy to be followed by the RFC publication streams and RFC Editor in respect
to consumers of RFCs is as follows:
>
> - Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as separate constituent stakeholders from IE
TF/IRTF participants.
While IETF/IRTF participants and others involved in the development and production of
RFCs may be consumers of RFCs, the two are distinct, overlapping sets.
>
> - The [RFC Editor website](https://www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be primarily focused on
consumers of RFCs.
>
> - Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/IRTF participan
ts unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an RFC.
The policy to be followed by the RFC publication streams and RFC Editor in respect of consumers of RFCs is as follows: ## Updates to RFC 9720
- Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as a separate constituent stakeholder from IET <!--[rfced] This document updates RFC 9720. Will this sentence be clear to
F/IRTF participants. readers as is, or should the "updates" text be restated here for clarity?
While IETF/IRTF participants and others involved in the development and production of Also, we updated the section title as shown below (i.e., we used "to" rather
RFCs may be consumers of RFCs, the two are distinct, overlapping sets. than "from" and the RFC number rather than title) to align with other section
titles in the document. Let us know any concerns.
- The [RFC Editor website](https://www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be primarily focused on c Current:
onsumers of RFCs. 1.3. Updates from "RFC Formats and Versions"
- Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an RFC. [RFC9720], "RFC Formats and Versions", updated [RFC9280].
This text is now reflected in {{rfc-consumers-definition}}. Perhaps:
1.3. Updates to RFC 9720
## Updates from "RFC Formats and Versions" [RFC9720], "RFC Formats and Versions", updates [RFC9280].
This document updates [RFC9720].
-->
{{RFC9720}}, "RFC Formats and Versions", updated RFC 9280. {{RFC9720}}, "RFC Formats and Versions", updated {{RFC9280}}.
### RFCs May Be Reissued {#reissued} ### RFCs May Be Reissued {#reissued}
{{stability}} in RFC 9280 says: {{Section 7.6 of RFC9280}} says:
{:quote}
> Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed. > Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.
That sentence is replaced in this document with: That sentence is replaced in {{stability}} of this document with:
> Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of publication versi {:quote}
ons shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. > Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of publication versi
ons shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, as described in {{Section 2.2
of RFC9720}}.
### Consistency Policy {#consistency-policy} ### Consistency Policy {#consistency-policy}
A new policy in {{historical}} of this document was added: A new policy is added to {{historical}} of this document:
{:quote}
> 7.8. Consistency > 7.8. Consistency
> >
> RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. They may be reissued to mainta in a consistent presentation. > RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. They may be reissued to mainta in a consistent presentation.
## Purview of the RSWG and RSAB {#purview} ## Purview of the RSWG and RSAB {#purview}
{{policy-definiion}} says: {{policy-definition}} says:
{:quote}
> 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 overal l management of the RFC Series. > 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 overal l management of the RFC Series.
The following is added in this document immediately following that sentence: The following is added to {{policy-definition}} of this document immediately followin g that sentence:
> Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for example speci {:quote}
fic details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. Such matters will be decided > Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for example, spec
and documented by the RPC along with its other working practices, as discussed in {{ ific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. Such matters will be decide
working-practices}}, with community consultation as for other tools and services supp d and documented by the RPC along with its other working practices, as discussed in {
orted by IETF LLC {{RFC8711}}." {working-practices}}, with community consultation as for other tools and services sup
ported by the IETF LLC {{RFC8711}}.
## Updates to RFCs 7990 through 7997 <!-- [rfced] FYI: Since RFC 7990 has been removed from this document,
we have updated the title of Section 1.5 accordingly.
All instances of "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series Editor" in {{RFC7990}}, {{RFC7991}}, {{R Original:
FC7992}}, {{RFC7993}}, {{RFC7994}}, {{RFC7995}}, {{RFC7996}}, and {{RFC7997}} are rep 1.5 Updates to RFCs 7990 through 7997
laced by "RFC Production Center (RPC)".
Current:
1.5 Updates to RFCs 7991 through 7997
-->
## Updates to RFCs 7991 through 7997
All instances of "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series Editor" in {{RFC7991}}, {{RFC7992}}, {{R
FC7993}}, {{RFC7994}}, {{RFC7995}}, {{RFC7996}}, and {{RFC7997}} are replaced by "RFC
Production Center (RPC)".
## Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280 ## Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280
Many parts of {{RFC9280}} talked about changes to be made. Many parts of {{RFC9280}} talked about changes to be made.
Because this document obsoletes {{RFC9280}}, these parts were updated to indicate tha t the changes were made. Because this document obsoletes {{RFC9280}}, these parts were updated to indicate tha t the changes were made.
# Overview of the Model {#overview} # Overview of the Model {#overview}
This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
two high-level tasks: two high-level tasks:
skipping to change at line 319 skipping to change at line 596
* If issues arise with the implementation of particular policies, * If issues arise with the implementation of particular policies,
the RPC brings those issues to the RSAB, which interprets the the RPC brings those issues to the RSAB, which interprets the
policies and provides interim guidance to the RPC, informing the policies and provides interim guidance to the RPC, informing the
RSWG of those interpretations. RSWG of those interpretations.
This model is designed to ensure public processes and policy This model is designed to ensure public processes and policy
documents, clear lines of responsibility and authority, transparent documents, clear lines of responsibility and authority, transparent
mechanisms for updates and changes to policies governing the RFC mechanisms for updates and changes to policies governing the RFC
Series as a whole, and effective operational implementation of the Series as a whole, and effective operational implementation of the
RFC Series, thus meeting the requirements specified in Section 4 of RFC Series, thus meeting the requirements specified in {{Section 4 of
{{RFC8729}}. RFC8729}}.
The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail. The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.
# Policy Definition {#policy-definiion} # Policy Definition {#policy-definition}
Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through the Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through the
following high-level process: following high-level process:
1. Proposals must be submitted to, adopted by, and discussed within 1. Proposals must be submitted to, adopted by, and discussed within
the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG). the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG).
1. Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working group 1. Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working group
and a community call for comments (see {{calls}}). and a community call for comments (see {{calls}}).
1. Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board 1. Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board
(RSAB). (RSAB).
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 and are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication and
dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series. dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series.
(The text in the next paragraph is added by {{purview}}) (The text in the next paragraph is added by {{purview}}.)
Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for example specifi Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for example, specif
c details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. ic details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar.
Such matters will be decided and documented by the RPC along with its other working p Such matters will be decided and documented by the RPC along with its other working p
ractices, as discussed in {{working-practices}}, with community consultation as for o ractices, as discussed in {{working-practices}}, with community consultation as for o
ther tools and services supported by IETF LLC {{RFC8711}}. ther tools and services supported by the IETF LLC {{RFC8711}}.
## Structure and Roles ## Structure and Roles
### RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) ### RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
#### Purpose #### Purpose
The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which
members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that
govern the RFC Series. govern the RFC Series.
skipping to change at line 377 skipping to change at line 654
organizations other than the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC Board organizations other than the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC Board
members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFC members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFC
Production Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited to Production Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited to
participate as community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted participate as community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted
by any relevant IETF LLC policies. Members of the RSAB are also by any relevant IETF LLC policies. Members of the RSAB are also
expected to participate actively. expected to participate actively.
#### Chairs #### Chairs
The RSWG has two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the The RSWG has two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the
other appointed by the IAB. The IESG and IAB determines their own other appointed by the IAB. The IESG and IAB determine their own
processes for making these appointments, making sure to take account processes for making these appointments, making sure to take account
of any potential conflicts of interest. Community members who have of any potential conflicts of interest. Community members who have
concerns about the performance of an RSWG Chair should direct their concerns about the performance of an RSWG Chair should direct their
feedback to the appropriate appointing body. The IESG feedback to the appropriate appointing body. The IESG
and IAB may remove their appointed chairs at and IAB may remove their appointed chairs at
their discretion at any time and to name a replacement who shall their discretion at any time and name a replacement who shall
serve the remainder of the original chair's term. serve the remainder of the original chair's term.
It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus
within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision
making, for instance, regarding acceptance of new proposals and making, for instance, regarding acceptance of new proposals and
advancement of proposals to the RSAB. advancement of proposals to the RSAB.
#### Mode of Operation #### Mode of Operation
The intent is that the RSWG shall operate in a way similar to that of 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 working groups in the IETF. Therefore, all RSWG meetings and
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 All discussions in the RSWG shall take place on an open
email discussion list, which shall be publicly archived. email discussion list, which shall be publicly archived.
The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person, online-only, or hybrid <!-- [rfced] The URL in this paragraph redirects to this URL:
meetings, which should be announced with sufficient notice to enable https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/statements/. Is this the
broad participation; the IESG Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual intended page this URL is meant to point to or is an update needed?
Interim Meetings (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/
interim-meetings-guidance-2016-01-16/) provides a reasonable Note that there are four links titled "Guidance on Face-to-Face and
Virtual Interim Meetings" at the redirected URL, but they have all
been superseded.
Current:
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
(https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-guidance-2016-0
1-16/)
provides a reasonable baseline. In-person meetings should include provision for
effective online participation for those unable to attend in person.
-->
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 G
uidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual
Interim Meetings](https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-
guidance-2016-01-16/) provides a reasonable
baseline. In-person meetings should include provision for effective baseline. In-person meetings should include provision for effective
online participation for those unable to attend in person. 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
the RSWG, the general guidance provided in Section 6 of {{RFC2418}} the RSWG, the general guidance provided in {{Section 6 of RFC2418}}
should be considered appropriate. should be considered appropriate.
The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support
RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies. RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies.
### RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) ### RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
#### Purpose {#rsab-purpose} #### Purpose {#rsab-purpose}
The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which includes representatives The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which includes representatives
of all of the streams, shall act as the approving body for proposals of all of the streams, shall act as the approving body for proposals
generated within the RSWG, thus providing an appropriate set of generated within the RSWG, thus providing an appropriate set of
checks and balances on the output of the RSWG. The only policy- checks and balances on the output of the RSWG. The only policy-making
making role of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by role of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by
the RSWG; it shall have no independent authority to formulate policy the RSWG; it shall have no independent authority to formulate policy
on its own. It is expected that the RSAB will respect the rough on its own. It is expected that the RSAB will respect the rough
consensus of the RSWG wherever possible, without ceding its consensus of the RSWG wherever possible, without ceding its
responsibility to review RSWG proposals, as further described in responsibility to review RSWG proposals, as further described in
{{workflow}}. {{workflow}}.
#### Members {#rsab-members} #### Members {#rsab-members}
The RSAB consists primarily of the following voting members: The RSAB consists primarily of the following voting members:
skipping to change at line 530 skipping to change at line 822
representatives enumerated in {{rsab-members}}. representatives enumerated in {{rsab-members}}.
#### Chair #### Chair
The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using a 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 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. chair's term, the RSAB chooses a new chair from among its members.
#### Mode of Operation #### Mode of Operation
The RSAB is expected to operate via an email discussion list, in- The RSAB is expected to operate via an email discussion list, in-person
person meetings, teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling meetings, teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling
it deems necessary. it deems necessary.
The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including
minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions. The primary minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions. The primary
email discussion list used by the RSAB shall be publicly archived, email discussion list used by the RSAB shall be publicly archived,
although topics that require confidentiality (e.g., personnel although topics that require confidentiality (e.g., personnel
matters) may be omitted from such archives or discussed in private. matters) may be omitted from such archives or discussed in private.
Similarly, meeting minutes may exclude detailed information about Similarly, meeting minutes may exclude detailed information about
topics discussed under executive session but should note that such topics discussed under executive session but should note that such
topics were discussed. topics were discussed.
skipping to change at line 721 skipping to change at line 1013
and before publication of the relevant RFC, unless they are and before publication of the relevant RFC, unless they are
delayed while the IETF LLC resolves pending resource or contract delayed while the IETF LLC resolves pending resource or contract
issues. issues.
### Community Calls for Comment {#calls} ### Community Calls for Comment {#calls}
The RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community calls The RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community calls
for comments on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG. for comments on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG.
The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input. The RSAB seeks The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input. The RSAB seeks
such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org (mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org) [rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org](mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org)
email discussion list or to its successor or future equivalent. RSAB email discussion list or to its successor or future equivalent. RSAB
members should also send a notice to the communities they directly members should also send a notice to the communities they directly
represent (e.g., the IETF and IRTF). Notices are also to be made represent (e.g., the IETF and IRTF). Notices are also to be made
available and archived on the RFC Editor website. In addition, other available and archived on the RFC Editor website. In addition, other
communication channels can be established for notices (e.g., via an communication channels can be established for notices (e.g., via an
RSS feed or by posting to social media venues). RSS feed or by posting to social media venues).
In cases where a proposal has the potential to significantly modify In cases where a proposal has the potential to significantly modify
long-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFC long-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFC
Series as described in {{historical}}, the RSAB should take extra care to Series as described in {{historical}}, the RSAB should take extra care to
skipping to change at line 791 skipping to change at line 1083
RSAB misinterpreted an approved policy. Aside from these two cases, RSAB misinterpreted an approved policy. Aside from these two cases,
disagreements about the conduct of the RSAB are not subject to disagreements about the conduct of the RSAB are not subject to
appeal. Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB and appeal. Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB and
should be made within thirty (30) days of public notice of the should be made within thirty (30) days of public notice of the
relevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are posted). The IAB relevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are posted). The IAB
shall decide whether a process failure occurred and what (if any) shall decide whether a process failure occurred and what (if any)
corrective action should take place. corrective action should take place.
### Anti-Harassment Policy {#anti-h} ### Anti-Harassment Policy {#anti-h}
The IETF anti-harassment policy The [IETF anti-harassment policy](https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/a
(https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-harassment- nti-harassment-policy/)
policy/) also applies to the RSWG and RSAB, which strive to create also applies to the RSWG and RSAB, which strive to create and maintain an
and maintain an environment in which people of many different environment in which people of many different backgrounds are treated with
backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect. dignity, decency, and respect. Participants are expected to behave according to
Participants are expected to behave according to professional professional standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior. For
standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior. For further information about these policies, see {{RFC7154}}, {{RFC7776}}, and
further information about these policies, see {{RFC7154}}, {{RFC7776}}, {{RFC8716}}.
and {{RFC8716}}.
### RFC Boilerplates ### RFC Boilerplates
RFC boilerplates (see {{RFC7841}}) are part of the RFC Style Guide, as RFC boilerplates (see {{RFC7841}}) are part of the RFC Style Guide, as
defined in {{working-practices}}. New or modified boilerplates considered defined in {{working-practices}}. New or modified boilerplates considered
under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model must be approved by the under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model must be approved by the
following parties, each of which has a separate area of following parties, each of which has a separate area of
responsibility with respect to boilerplates: responsibility with respect to boilerplates:
* The applicable stream, which approves that the boilerplate meets * The applicable stream, which approves that the boilerplate meets
skipping to change at line 823 skipping to change at line 1113
with the boilerplate used in the other streams with the boilerplate used in the other streams
* The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate is * The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate is
consistent with the RFC Style Guide consistent with the RFC Style Guide
* The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly * The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly
states the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership states the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership
## RFC Consumers {#rfc-consumers-definition} ## RFC Consumers {#rfc-consumers-definition}
(The text in this section is added by {{rfc-consumers}}) (The text in this section is added by {{rfc-consumers}}.)
The IETF mission statement {{RFC3935}} is clear that the documents it produces are in tended to be consumed by anyone who wishes to implement an IETF protocol or operation al recommendation: The IETF mission statement {{RFC3935}} is clear that the documents it produces are in tended to be consumed by anyone who wishes to implement an IETF protocol or operation al recommendation:
{:quote}
> to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influenc e the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the In ternet work better. > to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influenc e the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the In ternet work better.
{{intent}} introduces the term "consumers of RFCs", referring to them as "constituent stakeholders" who should be considered by RSAB when approving Editorial Stream polic y documents. {{intent}} introduces the term "consumers of RFCs", referring to them as "constituent stakeholders" who should be considered by the RSAB when approving Editorial Stream p olicy documents.
"Consumers of RFCs" is now defined to mean those people who read RFCs to understand, implement, critique, and research the protocols, operational practices and other cont ent, as found in RFCs. "Consumers of RFCs" is now defined to mean those people who read RFCs to understand, implement, critique, and research the protocols, operational practices, and other con tent as found in RFCs.
The policy to be followed by the RFC publication streams and RFC Editor in respect of <!-- [rfced] Is "RFC Editor" correct here, or should it be updated to "RFC
consumers of RFCs is as follows: Editor function" or something else?
- Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as a separate constituent stakeholder from IET Original:
F/IRTF participants. The policy to be followed by the RFC publication streams and RFC
Editor in respect of consumers of RFCs is as follows:
-->
The policy to be followed by the RFC publication streams and RFC Editor in respect to
consumers of RFCs is as follows:
- Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as separate constituent stakeholders from IETF
/IRTF participants.
While IETF/IRTF participants and others involved in the development and production of RFCs may be consumers of RFCs, the two are distinct, overlapping sets. While IETF/IRTF participants and others involved in the development and production of RFCs may be consumers of RFCs, the two are distinct, overlapping sets.
- The [RFC Editor website](https://www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be primarily focused on c onsumers of RFCs. - The [RFC Editor website](https://www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be primarily focused on c onsumers of RFCs.
- Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an RFC. - Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an RFC.
# Policy Implementation # Policy Implementation
## Roles and Processes ## Roles and Processes
skipping to change at line 925 skipping to change at line 1224
* Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as input * Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as input
to the editing and publication process. to the editing and publication process.
* Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published * Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published
documents. In the context of the XML vocabulary {{RFC7991}}, such documents. In the context of the XML vocabulary {{RFC7991}}, such
guidelines could include clarifications regarding the preferred guidelines could include clarifications regarding the preferred
XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic content XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic content
of RFCs. of RFCs.
## RPC Responsibilities {#rpc-responsibilites} ## RPC Responsibilities {#rpc-responsibilities}
The core responsibility of the RPC is the implementation of RFC The core responsibility of the RPC is the implementation of RFC
Series policies through publication of RFCs (including the dimensions Series policies through publication of RFCs (including the dimensions
of document quality, timeliness of publication, and accessibility of of document quality, timeliness of publication, and accessibility of
results), while taking into account issues raised by the community results), while taking into account issues raised by the community
through the RSWG and by the stream approving bodies. More through the RSWG and by the stream approving bodies. More
specifically, the RPC's responsibilities at the time of writing specifically, the RPC's responsibilities at the time of writing
include the following: include the following:
1. Editing documents originating from all RFC streams to ensure 1. Editing documents originating from all RFC streams to ensure
skipping to change at line 1006 skipping to change at line 1305
management, and display of errata to RFCs. management, and display of errata to RFCs.
1. Maintaining the RFC Editor website. 1. Maintaining the RFC Editor website.
1. Providing for the backup of RFCs. 1. Providing for the backup of RFCs.
1. Ensuring the storage and preservation of records. 1. Ensuring the storage and preservation of records.
1. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings. 1. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.
(The text in the next two paragraphs is added by {{tooling-code}}) (The text in the next two paragraphs is added by {{tooling-code}}.)
The RPC is responsible for the development of tools and processes used to implement e The RPC is responsible for the development of tools and processes used to implement E
ditorial stream policies, in the absence of an RFC with specific requirements. ditorial Stream policies, in the absence of an RFC with specific requirements.
The RPC is responsible for detailed technical specifications, for example specific de The RPC is responsible for detailed technical specifications, for example, specific d
tails of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. etails of text or graphical formats or XML grammar.
The RPC may designate a team of volunteers and/or employees who implement these opera tional decisions. The RPC may designate a team of volunteers and/or employees who implement these opera tional decisions.
The RPC is expected to solicit input from experts and community members when making i mplementation decisions. The RPC is expected to solicit input from experts and community members when making i mplementation decisions.
The RPC is required to document implementation decisions in a publicly available plac e, preferably with rationale. The RPC is required to document implementation decisions in a publicly available plac e, preferably with rationale.
If the RPC has questions about how to interpret policy in Editorial stream documents , they should ask RSAB for guidance in interpreting that policy per the process descr ibed in {{resolution}}. If the RPC has questions about how to interpret policy in Editorial Stream documents , they should ask the RSAB for guidance in interpreting that policy per the process d escribed in {{resolution}}.
## Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC {#resolution} ## Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC {#resolution}
During the process of editorial preparation and publication, During the process of editorial preparation and publication,
disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the
RPC. Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such RPC. Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such
disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct
consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in
collaboration with stream-specific contacts. collaboration with stream-specific contacts.
skipping to change at line 1048 skipping to change at line 1347
* The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by an * The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by an
existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation
between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies, as between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies, as
described above. In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a) described above. In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a)
resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary so that resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary so that
the relevant stream document(s) can be published before a new 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 policy is defined and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so that a
new policy can be defined. new policy can be defined.
(The text in the next paragraph is added by {{conflict-resolution}}) (The text in the next paragraph is added by {{conflict-resolution}}.)
If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both the document and editorial process tooling level, conflicts on either level will involve interpretatio n of written policy (or the acknowledgement that policy does not exist to cover a giv en situation). If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both the document and editorial process tooling level, conflicts on either level will involve interpretatio n of written policy (or the acknowledgment that policy does not exist to cover a give n situation).
In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the same path of appeal: to the RSA B. In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the same path of appeal: to the RSA B.
## Point of Contact ## Point of Contact
From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF
and the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC and the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC
Series. Such inquiries should be directed to the Series. Such inquiries should be directed to the
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org) email [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org](mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org) email
alias or to its successor or future equivalent and then handled by alias or to its successor or future equivalent and then handled by
the appropriate bodies (e.g., RSAB and RPC) or individuals (e.g., the appropriate bodies (e.g., RSAB and RPC) or individuals (e.g.,
RSWG Chairs and RSCE). RSWG Chairs and RSCE).
## Administrative Implementation ## Administrative Implementation
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. This activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. This
section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such
activities. activities.
### Vendor Selection for the RPC ### Vendor Selection for the RPC
Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under
the final authority of the IETF LLC. the final authority of the IETF LLC.
The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) for The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) for
the RPC and manages the vendor-selection process. The work the RPC and manages the vendor-selection process. The work
definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into
account the RPC responsibilities (as described in {{rpc-responsibilites}}), the account the RPC responsibilities (as described in {{rpc-responsibilities}}), the
needs of the streams, and community input. needs of the streams, and community input.
The process to select and contract for the RPC and other RFC-related The process to select and contract for the RPC and other RFC-related
services is as follows: services is as follows:
* The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps * The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps
necessary to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) when necessary, necessary to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) when necessary,
the timing, and the contracting procedures. the timing, and the contracting procedures.
* The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will consist * The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will consist
skipping to change at line 1129 skipping to change at line 1428
* Serve as a voting member on the RSAB * Serve as a voting member on the RSAB
* Identify problems with the RFC publication process and * Identify problems with the RFC publication process and
opportunities for improvement opportunities for improvement
* Provide expert advice within the RSWG regarding policy proposals * Provide expert advice within the RSWG regarding policy proposals
* Provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC * Provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC
Matters on which the RSCE might provide guidance could include the Matters on which the RSCE might provide guidance could include the
following (see also Section 4 of {{RFC8729}}): following (see also {{Section 4 of RFC8729}}):
* Editing, processing, and publication of RFCs * Editing, processing, and publication of RFCs
* Publication formats for the RFC Series * Publication formats for the RFC Series
* Changes to the RFC Style Guide * Changes to the RFC Style Guide
* Series-wide guidelines regarding document content and quality * Series-wide guidelines regarding document content and quality
* Web presence for the RFC Series * Web presence for the RFC Series
skipping to change at line 1246 skipping to change at line 1545
## Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream ## Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream
As specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial As specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial
Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying
therein with the rules specified in {{BCP9}}. This includes the therein with the rules specified in {{BCP9}}. This includes the
disclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can be disclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can be
reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor. reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor.
Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as
specified in {{BCP79}}. The Editorial Stream has chosen to use the specified in {{BCP79}}. The Editorial Stream has chosen to use the
IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism (https://www.ietf.org/ipr/) for this [IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism](https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/) for this
purpose. It is preferred that the most liberal terms possible purpose. It is preferred that the most liberal terms possible
be made available for Editorial Stream documents. Terms that do not be made available for Editorial Stream documents. Terms that do not
require fees or licensing are preferable. Non-discriminatory terms require fees or licensing are preferable. Non-discriminatory terms
are strongly preferred over those that discriminate among users. are strongly preferred over those that discriminate among users.
However, although disclosure is required and the RSWG and the RSAB However, although disclosure is required and the RSWG and the RSAB
may consider disclosures and terms in making a decision as to whether may consider disclosures and terms in making a decision as to whether
to submit a document for publication, there are no specific to submit a document for publication, there are no specific
requirements on the licensing terms for intellectual property related requirements on the licensing terms for intellectual property related
to Editorial Stream publication. to Editorial Stream publication.
## Editorial Stream Boilerplate ## Editorial Stream Boilerplate
This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This
Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes
to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy
Definition Process specified in {{policy-definiion}} of this document. Definition Process specified in {{policy-definition}} of this document.
Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the
first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
specified in Appendix A.2.1 of {{RFC7841}}. specified in {{Appendix A.2.1 of RFC7841}}.
The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
follows: follows:
>This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition {:quote}
Process. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working > This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
Group approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents > Process. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working
are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see > Group approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents
Section 2 of RFC 7841. > 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 The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
specified in Section 3.5 of {{RFC7841}}. specified in {{Section 3.5 of RFC7841}}.
# Historical Properties of the RFC Series {#historical} # Historical Properties of the RFC Series {#historical}
This section lists some of the properties that have been historically This section lists some of the properties that have been historically
regarded as important to the RFC Series. Proposals that affect these regarded as important to the RFC Series. Proposals that affect these
properties are possible within the processes defined in this properties are possible within the processes defined in this
document. As described in Sections {{workflow}} and {{calls}}, proposals that document. As described in Sections {{workflow}}{: format="counter"} and {{calls}}{: format="counter"}, proposals that
might have a detrimental effect on these properties should receive might have a detrimental effect on these properties should receive
heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB review. The heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB review. The
purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes are deliberate purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes are deliberate
and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as they can be and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as they can be
identified, have been carefully considered. identified, have been carefully considered.
## Availability ## Availability
Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades, Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades,
with no restrictions on access or distribution. with no restrictions on access or distribution.
skipping to change at line 1325 skipping to change at line 1625
humor, and even eulogies. humor, and even eulogies.
## Quality ## Quality
RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality
and edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documents and edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documents
are clear, consistent, and readable {{RFC7322}}. are clear, consistent, and readable {{RFC7322}}.
## Stability {#stability} ## Stability {#stability}
(The text in this section is updated by {{reissued}}) (The text in this section is updated by {{reissued}}.)
Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of publication version s shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of publication version s shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, as described in {{Section 2.2 o f RFC9720}}.
## Longevity ## Longevity
RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be
comprehensible to humans for decades or longer. comprehensible to humans for decades or longer.
## Consistency ## Consistency
(The text in this section is added by {{consistency-policy}}) (The text in this section is added by {{consistency-policy}}.)
RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published.
They may be reissued to maintain a consistent presentation. They may be reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.
# Updates to This Document # Updates to This Document
Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced using the proce ss documented herein but shall be published and operative only after (a) obtaining th e agreement of the IAB and the IESG and (b) ensuring that the IETF LLC has no objecti ons regarding its ability to implement any proposed changes. Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced using the proce ss documented herein but shall be published and operative only after (a) obtaining th e agreement of the IAB and the IESG and (b) ensuring that the IETF LLC has no objecti ons regarding its ability to implement any proposed changes.
# Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model {#changes} # Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model {#changes}
skipping to change at line 1378 skipping to change at line 1678
{{RFC9280}} was the result of discussion within the original Program and {{RFC9280}} was the result of discussion within the original Program and
described version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining described version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining
consistent with {{RFC8729}}. consistent with {{RFC8729}}.
As stated earlier, this document obsoletes {{RFC9280}}. As stated earlier, this document 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.
## RFC Editor Function ## RFC Editor Function
<!--[rfced] Although this sentence appeared in RFC 9280, perhaps the
readability could be improved by including parentheses as shown below. Let us
know your thoughts.
Original:
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).
Perhaps:
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).
-->
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
changes the dependency on the RFC Series Editor (RSE) included in changes the dependency on the RFC Series Editor (RSE) included in
Section 2.2 of {{RFC8730}} with regard to "coordinating work and {{Section 2.2 of RFC8730}} with regard to "coordinating work and
conforming to general RFC Series policies as specified by the IAB and conforming to general RFC Series policies as specified by the IAB and
RSE." In addition, various details regarding these responsibilities RSE." In addition, various details regarding these responsibilities
have been modified to accord with the framework defined in this have been modified to accord with the framework defined in this
document. document.
## RFC Series Editor ## RFC Series Editor
Implied by the changes outlined in the previous section, the Implied by the changes outlined in the previous section, the
responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or role responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or role
(contrasted with the overall RFC Editor function) are now split or (contrasted with the overall RFC Editor function) are now split or
skipping to change at line 1443 skipping to change at line 1758
## RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) {#rsoc} ## RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) {#rsoc}
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and
responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE proved unwieldy responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE proved unwieldy
and somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, {{RFC9280}} and somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, {{RFC9280}}
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.
## RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) ## RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
<!--[rfced] In the second sentence, it is correct that this document
"establishes" the RSAB, or should it be "describes" or "specifies"?
Original:
(The RSAG is not to be confused with the RFC Series
Approval Board (RSAB), which this document establishes.)
Perhaps:
(The RSAG is not to be confused with the RFC Series
Approval Board (RSAB), which this document specifies.)
-->
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 has been disbanded. (The doubt, {{RFC9280}} affirmed that the RSAG was disbanded. (The
RSAG is not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), RSAG is not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB),
which this document establishes.) which this document establishes.)
## Editorial Stream ## Editorial Stream
This document specifies the Editorial Stream in addition to the streams This document specifies the Editorial Stream in addition to the streams
already described in {{RFC8729}}. already described in {{RFC8729}}.
# Security Considerations # Security Considerations
skipping to change at line 1487 skipping to change at line 1814
for IANA registries. for IANA registries.
The IETF LLC facilitates management of the relationship between the The IETF LLC facilitates management of the relationship between the
RPC and IANA. RPC and IANA.
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any
values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required. values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.
--- back --- back
# Acknowledgements # Acknowledgments
{:numbered="false"}
This document is the product of the RFC Series Working Group. This document is the product of the RFC Series Working Group.
Many people in the RSWG participated in the active discussions that led to the change s listed in {{changes-to-9280}}. Many people in the RSWG participated in the active discussions that led to the change s listed in {{changes-to-9280}}.
The authors are indebted to them for their contributions. The authors are indebted to them for their contributions.
{{RFC9280}} was authored by Peter SaintA-ndre. {{RFC9280}} was authored by {{{Peter Saint-Andre}}}.
It had additional, extensive acknowledgements. It had additional, extensive acknowledgments.
<!--[rfced] We updated the following terms to the form on the right
for consistency with RFC 9280. Please let us know if that is not
desired.
Acknowledgement(s) -> Acknowledgment(s)
Editorial stream and editorial stream -> Editorial Stream
-->
<!--[rfced] Abbreviations
a) We note that "IAB", "IRTF", "IESG", and "IRSG" are the only
acronyms not expanded. We assume that this is intentional because they
are well known; however, since other well-known abbreviations have
been expanded, please confirm whether or not these should be expanded
on their first mention for consistency.
First mentions:
IAB (Section 1)
IRTF (Section 1.2.3)
IESG (Section 3.1.1.2)
IRSG (Section 4.4)
b) We note that "RPC", "RSWG", and "RSAB" appear both in the expanded form
with the abbreviation and as the abbreviation only, and there doesn't seem to
be a pattern. Is this intentional, or would you like to use the abbreviated
forms after the first expansion in the document?
-->
<!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
 End of changes. 99 change blocks. 
181 lines changed or deleted 515 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.