Network Working Group L. Daigle, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4845
Category: Informational Internet Architecture Board
(IAB)
July 2007
Process for Publication of IAB RFCs
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
From time to time, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) publishes
documents as Requests for Comments (RFCs). This document defines the
process by which those documents are produced, reviewed, and
published in the RFC Series.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Review and Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. IAB RFC Publication Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IAB Members at the Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Daigle & IAB Informational [Page 1]
RFC 4845 IAB RFC Publication Process July 2007
1. Introduction
From time to time, the IAB has cause to publish documents as Requests
for Comments (RFCs). These occasions include the following:
o documents that arise from consideration of an issue by the IAB and
are authored by the IAB through a nominated editor.
o documents that report on IAB activities, such as workshop reports,
and are authored by a nominated editor, generally from among the
activity participants.
o documents that are not the outcome of an Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) Working Group effort but that the IAB has determined
would be of benefit to the IETF community to publish. Such
documents need not necessarily be authored or revised by the IAB.
The majority of documents published by the IAB will be classified as
Informational RFCs (see [RFC2026]). Generally speaking, the IAB does
not publish Standards-Track or Experimental RFCs. If the IAB has
cause to publish a document as a Best Current Practice (BCP), it
would fall under the approval process of the IETF standards stream of
RFCs (see [RFC4844]).
2. Review and Approval
In many cases, the IAB publishes documents to provide a permanent
record of an IAB statement or position. In such cases, the IAB uses
its internal discussion processes to refine the expression and
technical content of the document, and the document is approved for
publication if, and only if, the IAB is in agreement on its
substantive content.
For certain documents, it may not be appropriate for the IAB to take
responsibility for technical correctness. For example, where the IAB
has sponsored a workshop in which not all the participants were
members of the IAB and/or not all the members of the IAB were
present, approval by the IAB of a report of the workshop is used only
to assert that the report is a faithful report of the proceedings of
the workshop and that the matter is of interest to the community.
Documents for which the IAB takes responsibility for technical
correctness (the most usual case) will be indicated by noting the IAB
as an author of the document, with individuals noted as editors or
text authors. Other documents, such as workshop reports, will not
specify the IAB as an author (although this does not preclude
individual IAB members from being authors or editors).
Daigle & IAB Informational [Page 2]
RFC 4845 IAB RFC Publication Process July 2007
In general, the document (introductory) text should make plain the
role of the IAB in publishing and supporting the text. Should the
IAB have significant issues with any individual item in the document,
a note may be included in the document explaining the issue.
3. IAB RFC Publication Process
The following is a description of the process used by the IAB to
publish IAB documents as RFCs.
1. The document is determined to be an IAB document by the IAB, as
described in Section 1.
2. The IAB publishes an IAB draft (draft-iab-*). Comments on the
draft are reviewed and may be integrated into successive
iterations of the draft. In addition to considering comments
received on the draft, the IAB may elect to refer the document to
individuals or groups and explicitly solicit comments as
appropriate.
3. For documents intended to be published as BCPs, the document is
passed to the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) with a
sponsoring Area Director (AD), and follows the process outlined
in [SPONSOR].
4. For documents intended to be Informational RFCs, the remainder of
this process is followed.
5. The chair of the IAB issues an IETF-wide Call for Comment on the
IETF Announce mailing list. The comment period is normally no
shorter than four weeks.
6. Comments received are considered for integration into the
document. The IAB shall determine whether the document is ready
for publication based on the comments received, or whether
another round of document editing and, optionally, a further call
for input is required.
7. The document is passed to the RFC Editor for publication as an
IAB document Informational RFC.
4. Security Considerations
This document does not discuss matters with any particular security
implications.
Daigle & IAB Informational [Page 3]
RFC 4845 IAB RFC Publication Process July 2007
5. IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Bernard Aboba
Loa Andersson
Brian Carpenter
Leslie Daigle
Elwyn Davies
Kevin Fall
Olaf Kolkman
Kurtis Lindqvist
David Meyer
David Oran
Eric Rescorla
Dave Thaler
Lixia Zhang
6. References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", RFC 2026, BCP 9, October 1996.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed., "The RFC Series and RFC Editor",
RFC 4844, July 2007.
[] Arkko, J., Ed., "Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of
Documents", ION, May 2007.
Authors' Addresses
Leslie L. Daigle (editor)
EMail: ledaigle@cisco.com, leslie@thinkingcat.com
(IAB)
EMail: iab@iab.org
URI: http://www.iab.org/
Daigle & IAB Informational [Page 4]
RFC 4845 IAB RFC Publication Process July 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Daigle & IAB Informational [Page 5]