RFC Editor Model (Version 3)stpeter@stpeter.imThis document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. The model
defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. First, policy
definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group
(RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC Series Approval
Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second, policy
implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production
Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF Administration
Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC). In addition, various
responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are now performed alone
or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting Editor
(RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document establishes the Editorial
Stream for publication of future policy definition documents produced
through the processes defined herein.This document obsoletes RFC 8728. This document updates RFCs 7841,
8729, and 8730.Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB) and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable
to provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for publication
by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see
Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
() in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document.
Table of Contents
. Introduction
. Overview of the Model
. Policy Definition
. Structure and Roles
. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
. Process
. Intent
. Workflow
. Community Calls for Comment
. Appeals
. Anti-Harassment Policy
. RFC Boilerplates
. Policy Implementation
. Roles and Processes
. Working Practices
. RPC Responsibilities
. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC
. Point of Contact
. Administrative Implementation
. Vendor Selection for the RPC
. Budget
. RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)
. RSCE Selection
. RSCE Performance Evaluation
. Temporary RSCE Appointment
. Conflict of Interest
. Editorial Stream
. Procedures Request of the IETF Trust
. Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream
. Editorial Stream Boilerplate
. Historical Properties of the RFC Series
. Availability
. Accessibility
. Language
. Diversity
. Quality
. Stability
. Longevity
. Updates to This Document
. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model
. RFC Editor Function
. RFC Series Editor
. RFC Publisher
. IAB
. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
. Editorial Stream
. Security Considerations
. IANA Considerations
. References
. Normative References
. Informative References
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Acknowledgments
Author's Address
IntroductionThe Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series
dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications,
including general contributions from the Internet research and
engineering community as well as standards documents. RFCs are
available free of charge to anyone via the Internet. As described
in , RFCs have been published continually since 1969.RFCs are generated and approved by multiple document streams.
Whereas the stream approving body for each stream is
responsible for the content of that stream, the RFC Editor function
is responsible for the production and distribution of all RFCs.
The four existing streams are described in . This
document adds a fifth stream, the Editorial Stream, for publication
of policies governing the RFC Series as a whole.The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor
function is described in and is updated by this
document, which defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model.
Under this version, various responsibilities of the RFC Editor
function are performed alone or in combination by the RFC Series
Working Group (RSWG), RFC Series Advisory Board (RSAB), RFC
Production Center (RPC), RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE), and
IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC) ,
which collectively comprise the RFC Editor function. The intent
is to ensure sustainable maintenance and support of the RFC Series
based on the principles of expert implementation, clear management
and direction, and appropriate community input .This document obsoletes by defining version 3
of the RFC Editor Model. This document updates
by defining boilerplate text for the Editorial Stream. This
document updates by replacing the RFC Editor role
with the RSWG, RSAB, and RSCE. This document updates
by removing the dependency on certain policies specified by the
IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE). More detailed information about changes from
version 2 of the RFC Editor Model can be found in .Overview of the ModelThis document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series
into two high-level tasks:
Policy definition governing the RFC Series as a whole. This is
the joint responsibility of two entities. First, the RFC Series Working
Group (RSWG) is an open working group independent of the IETF that
generates policy proposals. Second, the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
is an appointed body that approves such proposals for publication
in the Editorial Stream. The RSAB includes representatives of the
streams as well as an expert in technical publishing,
the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE).
Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the
streams that form the RFC Series. This is primarily the responsibility
of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the
IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC) .
As described more fully in the remainder of this document, the core
activities and responsibilities are as follows:
The RSWG proposes policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole, with
input from the community, the RSAB, and the RSCE.
The RSAB considers those proposals and either approves them or returns
them to the RSWG, which may make further changes or remove them from
further consideration.
If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the Editorial
Stream and thus define the policies to be followed by the RSWG, RSAB,
RSCE, and RPC.
The RSCE provides expert advice to the RPC and RSAB on how to implement
established policies on an ongoing and operational basis, which can include
raising issues or initiating proposed policy changes within the RSWG.
The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in its
day-to-day editing and publication of RFCs from all of the streams.
If issues arise with the implementation of particular policies, the RPC
brings those issues to the RSAB, which interprets the policies and provides
interim guidance to the RPC, informing the RSWG of those interpretations.
This model is designed to ensure public processes and policy documents,
clear lines of responsibility and authority, transparent mechanisms for updates and changes to policies
governing the RFC Series as a whole, and effective operational implementation of the
RFC Series, thus meeting the requirements specified in .The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.Policy DefinitionPolicies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through the
following high-level process:
Proposals must be submitted to, adopted by, and discussed within the RFC
Series Working Group (RSWG).
Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working group and
a community call for comments (see ).
Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but are
not limited to, document formats, processes for publication and
dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series.Structure and RolesRFC Series Working Group (RSWG)PurposeThe RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which
members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that
govern the RFC Series.ParticipationAll interested individuals are welcome to participate in the RSWG;
participants are subject to anti-harassment policies as described in . This includes but is not limited to participants in the IETF
and IRTF, members of the IAB and IESG, developers of software or hardware
systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and Internet-Drafts, developers
of tools used to author or edit RFCs and Internet-Drafts, individuals who use
RFCs in procurement decisions, scholarly researchers, and representatives of
standards development organizations other than the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC
Board members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFC
Production Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited to participate
as community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted by any relevant IETF
LLC policies. Members of the RSAB are also expected to participate
actively.ChairsThe RSWG shall have two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the
other appointed by the IAB. When the RSWG is formed, the chair
appointed by the IESG shall serve for a term of one (1) year and
the chair appointed by the IAB shall serve for a term of two (2)
years; thereafter, chairs shall serve for a term of two (2)
years, with no term limits on renewal. The IESG and IAB shall
determine their own processes for making these appointments, making
sure to take account of any potential conflicts of interest.
Community members who have concerns about the performance of an
RSWG Chair should direct their feedback to the appropriate appointing
body via mechanisms such bodies shall specify at the time that the
RSWG is formed. The IESG and IAB shall have the power to remove their
appointed chairs at their discretion at any time and to name a
replacement who shall serve the remainder of the original chair's
term.It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus
within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision making,
for instance, regarding acceptance of new proposals and advancement of
proposals to the RSAB.Mode of OperationThe intent is that the RSWG shall operate in a way similar to that of working
groups in the IETF. Therefore, all
RSWG meetings and discussion venues shall be open to all interested
individuals, and all RSWG contributions shall be subject to intellectual
property policies, which must be consistent with those of the IETF as
specified in and .When the RSWG is formed, all discussions shall take place on an
open email discussion list, which shall be publicly archived.The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person, online-only, or hybrid meetings,
which should be announced with sufficient notice to enable broad
participation; the IESG Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim
Meetings
provides a reasonable baseline. In-person meetings should include
provision for effective online participation for those unable to
attend in person.The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation
informally described in .The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling
(e.g., GitHub as specified in ), forms of communication,
and working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent
with this document and with or its successors.Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the operation
of the RSWG, the general guidance provided in
should be considered appropriate.The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support
RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies.The IAB is requested to convene the RSWG when it is first formed in
order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC Editor
Model.RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)PurposeThe RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which includes representatives
of all of the streams, shall act as the approving body for proposals
generated within the RSWG, thus providing an appropriate set of checks
and balances on the output of the RSWG. The only policy-making role
of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by the RSWG; it shall
have no independent authority to formulate policy on its own. It is
expected that the RSAB will respect the rough consensus of the
RSWG wherever possible, without ceding its responsibility to
review RSWG proposals, as further described in .MembersThe RSAB consists primarily of the following voting members:
A stream representative for the IETF Stream: either an IESG member
or someone appointed by the IESG
A stream representative for the IAB Stream: either an IAB member
or someone appointed by the IAB
A stream representative for the IRTF Stream: either the IRTF Chair
or someone appointed by the IRTF Chair
A stream representative for the Independent Stream: either the
Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) or someone
appointed by the ISE
The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)
If and when a new stream is created, the document that
creates the stream shall specify if a voting member representing
that stream shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules
and processes related to that representative (e.g., whether the
representative is a member of the body responsible for the stream
or an appointed delegate thereof).The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a voting member of the
RSAB but does not act as a representative of the Editorial Stream.To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
include the following non-voting, ex officio members:
The IETF Executive Director or their delegate (the rationale is
that the IETF LLC is accountable for implementation of policies
governing the RFC Series)
A representative of the RPC, named by the RPC (the rationale
is that the RPC is responsible for implementation of policies
governing the RFC Series)
In addition, the RSAB may include
other non-voting members at its discretion; these non-voting members may be ex officio members or liaisons from
groups or organizations with which the RSAB deems it necessary to
formally collaborate or coordinate.Appointment and Removal of Voting MembersThe appointing bodies (i.e., IESG, IAB,
IRTF Chair, and ISE) shall determine their own processes for
appointing RSAB members (note that processes related to the RSCE
are described in ). Each appointing body shall have the power
to remove its appointed RSAB member at its discretion at any time.
Appointing bodies should ensure that voting members are seated at
all times and should fill any vacancies with all due speed, if
necessary on a temporary basis.In the case that the IRTF Chair or ISE is incapacitated or otherwise
unable to appoint another person to serve as a delegate,
the IAB (as the appointing body for the IRTF Chair and ISE)
shall act as the temporary appointing body for those
streams and shall appoint a temporary member of the RSAB until the
IAB has appointed an IRTF Chair or ISE, who can then act as an
RSAB member or appoint a delegate through normal processes.VacanciesIn the case of vacancies by voting members, the RSAB shall operate
as follows:
Activities related to implementation of policies already in force
shall continue as normal.
Voting on approval of policy documents produced by the RSWG shall be
delayed until the vacancy or vacancies have been filled, up to a maximum of
three (3) months. If a further vacancy arises during this three-month period, the
delay should be extended by up to another three months. After the delay
period expires, the RSAB should continue to process documents as described
below. Note that this method of handling vacancies does not apply to a vacancy
of the RSCE role; it only applies to vacancies of the stream representatives
enumerated in .
ChairThe RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using
a method of its choosing. If the chair position is
vacated during the chair's term, the RSAB chooses a new chair
from among its members.Mode of OperationThe RSAB is expected to operate via an email discussion list,
in-person meetings, teleconferencing systems, and any additional
tooling it deems necessary.The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including
minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions. The primary
email discussion list used by the RSAB shall be publicly archived,
although topics that require confidentiality (e.g., personnel
matters) may be omitted from such archives or discussed in private.
Similarly, meeting minutes may exclude detailed information about
topics discussed under executive session but should note that such
topics were discussed.The RSAB shall announce plans and agendas for their meetings on the
RFC Editor website and by email to the RSWG at least a week before
such meetings. The meetings shall be open for public attendance, and
the RSAB may consider allowing open participation. If the RSAB needs
to discuss a confidential matter in executive session, that part of
the meeting shall be private to the RSAB, but it must be noted on the
agenda and documented in the minutes with as much detail as
confidentiality requirements permit.The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling and staff to support
RSAB communication, decision processes, and policies.The IAB is requested to convene the RSAB when it is first formed in
order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC Editor
Model.Process This section specifies the RFC Series Policy Definition Process, which shall be followed in producing all Editorial Stream RFCs.IntentThe intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to the
RFC Series are defined and evolved. The general expectation is that all
interested parties will participate in the RSWG and that only under
extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold CONCERN
positions (as described in ).Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWG
participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work together
in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to achieve rough
consensus (see ). In particular, RSWG members are
encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously, and RSAB members are
encouraged to clearly express their concerns early in the process and
to be responsive to the community. All parties are encouraged to respect
the value of each stream and the long-term health and viability of
the RFC Series.This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation. RSAB
members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,
authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an ongoing
basis, so that when the time comes to consider the approval of a proposal, there should
be no surprises. Appointing bodies are expected to establish whatever
processes they deem appropriate to facilitate this goal.WorkflowThe following process shall be used to formulate or modify policies
related to the RFC Series:
An individual or set of individuals generates a proposal in the form
of an Internet-Draft (which must be submitted in full conformance
with the provisions of and )
and asks the RSWG to adopt the proposal as a working group item.
The RSWG may adopt the proposal as a working group item if
the chairs determine (by following working group procedures for rough
consensus) that there is sufficient interest in the proposal; this
is similar to the way a working group of the IETF would operate
(see ).
The RSWG shall then further discuss and develop the proposal. All
participants, but especially RSAB members, should pay special
attention to any aspects of the proposal that have the potential
to significantly modify long-standing policies or historical
characteristics of the RFC Series as described in .
Members of the RSAB are expected to participate as individuals in
all discussions relating to RSWG proposals. This should help to
ensure that they are fully aware of proposals early in the
RFC Series Policy Definition Process. It should also help to ensure that RSAB members
will raise any issues or concerns during the development of the
proposal and not wait until the RSAB review period. The RSWG Chairs
are also expected to participate as individuals.
At some point, if the RSWG Chairs believe there may be rough
consensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a Last Call
for comments within the working group.
After a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG Chairs will
determine whether rough consensus for the proposal exists (taking
their own feedback as individuals into account along with feedback
from other participants). If comments have been received and
substantial changes have been made, additional Last Calls may be
necessary. Once the chairs determine that consensus has been
reached, they shall announce their determination on the RSWG
email discussion list and forward the document to the RSAB.
Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue a
community call for comments as further described in . If
substantial comments are received in response to the community
call for comments, the RSAB may return the proposal to the RSWG to
consider those comments and make revisions to address the feedback
received. In parallel with the community call for comments, the RSAB
itself shall also consider the proposal.
If the scope of the revisions made in the previous step is substantial, an
additional community call for comments should be issued by the RSAB,
and the feedback received should be considered by the RSWG.
Once the RSWG Chairs confirm that concerns received during the
community call(s) for comments have been addressed, they shall
inform the RSAB that the document is ready for balloting by the
RSAB.
Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will poll its members
for their positions on the proposal. Positions may be as follows:
YES: the proposal should be approved
CONCERN: the proposal raises substantial concerns that must be
addressed
RECUSE: the person holding the position has a conflict of
interest
Any RSAB member holding a CONCERN position must explain their concern
to the community in detail. Nevertheless, the RSWG might not be able to
come to consensus on modifications that will address the RSAB member's
concern.
There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a position of CONCERN:
The RSAB member believes that the proposal represents a serious
problem for one or more of the individual streams.
The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause serious harm
to the overall RFC Series, including harm to the long-term health and
viability of the Series.
The RSAB member believes, based on the results of the community
call(s) for comments (), that rough consensus to advance
the proposal is lacking.
Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the discussions
within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues during those
discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come as a surprise to
the RSWG. Notwithstanding, late CONCERN positions are always possible
if issues are identified during RSAB review or the community call(s) for comments.
If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
Again, all RSAB members are expected to participate. If substantial
changes are made in order to address CONCERN positions, an additional
community call for comments might be needed.
A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.
If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions remain,
a vote of the RSAB is taken. If at least three voting members vote
YES, the proposal is approved.
If the proposal is not approved, it is returned to the RSWG. The RSWG
can then consider making further changes.
If the proposal is approved, a notification is sent to the community,
and the document enters the queue for publication as an RFC within
the Editorial Stream.
Policies may take effect immediately upon approval by the RSAB and
before publication of the relevant RFC, unless they are delayed
while the IETF LLC resolves pending resource or contract issues.
Community Calls for CommentThe RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community calls
for comments on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG.
The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input. The RSAB seeks
such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the rfc‑interest@rfc‑editor.org
email discussion list or to its successor or future equivalent. RSAB members
should also send a notice to the communities they directly represent
(e.g., the IETF and IRTF). Notices are also to be made available and
archived on the RFC Editor website. In addition, other communication
channels can be established for notices (e.g., via an RSS feed or by
posting to social media venues).In cases where a proposal has the potential to significantly modify
long-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFC
Series as described in , the RSAB should take extra
care to reach out to a very wide range of communities that make use of
RFCs (as described in ) since such communities
might not be actively engaged in the RSWG directly. The RSAB should
work with the stream approving bodies and the IETF LLC to identify and
establish contacts in such communities, assisted by the
RSCE in particular.The RSAB should maintain a public list of communities that are
contacted during calls for comments.A notice of a community call for comments contains the following:
A subject line beginning with 'Call for Comments:'
A clear, concise summary of the proposal
A URL pointing to the Internet-Draft that defines the proposal
Any explanations or questions for the community that the RSAB deems
necessary (using their usual decision-making procedures)
Clear instructions on how to provide public comments
A deadline for comments
A comment period will last not less than two weeks and should be
longer if wide outreach is required. Comments will be publicly
archived on the RFC Editor website.The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during
a community call for comments. If RSAB members conclude that such
comments raise important issues that need to be addressed, they
should do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if
the issues meet the criteria specified in Step 9 of )
lodging a position of CONCERN during RSAB balloting.AppealsAppeals of RSWG Chair decisions shall be made to the RSAB. Decisions of the
RSWG Chairs can be appealed only on grounds of failure to follow the correct
process. Appeals should be made within thirty (30) days of any action or, in
the case of failure to act, of notice having been given to the RSWG Chairs.
The RSAB will then decide if the process was followed and will direct
the RSWG Chairs as to what procedural actions are required.Decisions of the RSAB can be appealed on grounds of failure to follow
the correct process. In addition, if the RSAB makes a decision in order to resolve
a disagreement between authors and the RPC (as described in ), appeals can
be filed on the basis that the RSAB misinterpreted an approved policy.
Aside from these two cases, disagreements about the conduct of the RSAB are not
subject to appeal. Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB
and should be made within thirty (30) days of public notice of the
relevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are posted). The IAB
shall decide whether a process failure occurred and what (if any)
corrective action should take place.Anti-Harassment PolicyThe IETF anti-harassment policy also applies to the RSWG and RSAB,
which strive to create and maintain an environment in which people
of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency,
and respect. Participants are expected to behave according to
professional standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace
behavior. For further information about these policies, see
, , and .RFC BoilerplatesRFC boilerplates (see ) are part of the RFC Style Guide,
as defined in . New or modified boilerplates
considered under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model must be approved
by the following parties, each of which has a separate area of
responsibility with respect to boilerplates:
The applicable stream, which approves that the boilerplate meets its
needs
The RSAB, which approves that the boilerplate is not in conflict with
the boilerplate used in the other streams
The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate is consistent
with the RFC Style Guide
The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly states
the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership
Policy ImplementationRoles and ProcessesPublication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC).A few general considerations apply:
The general roles and responsibilities of the RPC are defined by
RFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by the
RSWG, RSAB, or RSCE), by existing RFCs that apply to the
RPC and have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream
RFCs, and by the requisite contracts.
The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and it has a duty to
consult with them under specific circumstances, such as those
relating to disagreements between authors and the RPC as
described in .
The RPC is overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that
it performs in accordance with contracts in place.
All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance
targets are between the RPC and IETF LLC.The RPC shall regularly provide reports to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG,
and broader community regarding its activities and any key risks or
issues affecting it.In the event that the RPC is required to make a decision without
consultation that would normally deserve consultation, or makes a
decision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify the
RSAB.This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
IETF LLC and the RPC; for example, the work of the RPC could be
performed by a separate corporate entity under contract to the
IETF LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or
the IETF LLC could engage with independent contractors for some or
all aspects of such work. The exact relationship is a matter for
the IETF LLC to determine.The IETF LLC is responsible for the method and management of the
engagement of the RPC. Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority over
negotiating performance targets for the RPC and also has
responsibility for ensuring that those targets are met. Such
performance targets are set based on the RPC's publication load and
additional efforts required to implement policies specified in
Editorial Stream RFCs, in existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and have
not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and in the requisite
contracts. The IETF LLC may consult with the community regarding
these targets. The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a manager or to
convene a committee to complete these activities.If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the
performance of the RPC, they can request that the matter be investigated
by the IETF LLC Board, the IETF Executive Director, or a point of
contact designated by the IETF LLC Board. Even if the IETF LLC opts to
delegate this activity, concerns should be raised with the IETF LLC.
The IETF LLC is ultimately answerable to the community via the mechanisms
outlined in .Working PracticesIn the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in the
interest of specifying the detail of its implementation of such policies, the RPC can
document working practices regarding the editorial preparation,
final publication, and dissemination of RFCs. Examples include:
Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards for
RFCs; specifically, the RFC Style Guide consists of and
the other documents and resources listed at .
Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as input to the
editing and publication process.
Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published documents.
In the context of the XML vocabulary , such guidelines could
include clarifications regarding the preferred XML elements and attributes used to
capture the semantic content of RFCs.
RPC ResponsibilitiesThe core responsibility of the RPC is the implementation of RFC Series
policies through publication of RFCs (including the dimensions of document
quality, timeliness of publication, and accessibility of results), while
taking into account issues raised by the community through the RSWG and
by the stream approving bodies. More specifically, the RPC's responsibilities
at the time of writing include the following:
Editing documents originating from all RFC streams to ensure that
they are consistent with the editorial standards specified in the
RFC Style Guide.
Creating and preserving records of edits performed on documents.
Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact
and seeking necessary clarification.
Establishing the publication readiness of each document through
communication with the authors, IANA, or stream-specific contacts,
supplemented if needed by the RSAB and RSCE.
Creating and preserving records of dialogue with document authors.
Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
Participating within the RSWG in the creation of new Editorial
Stream RFCs that impact the RPC, specifically with respect to any
challenges the RPC might foresee with regard to implementation of
proposed policies.
Identifying topics and issues while processing
documents or carrying out other responsibilities on this list for
which they lack sufficient expertise, and identifying and conferring
with relevant experts as needed.
Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans.
Consulting with the community on its plans.
Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC.
Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC
performance by the IETF LLC.
Coordinating with IANA to ensure that RFCs accurately document
registration processes and assigned values for IANA registries.
Assigning RFC numbers.
Liaising with stream approving bodies and other representatives of the
streams as needed.
Publishing RFCs, which includes:
posting copies to the RFC Editor site both individually and in collections
depositing copies with external archives
creating catalogs and catalog entries
announcing the publication to interested parties
Providing online access to RFCs.
Providing an online system to facilitate the submission, management,
and display of errata to RFCs.
Maintaining the RFC Editor website.
Providing for the backup of RFCs.
Ensuring the storage and preservation of records.
Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.
Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPCDuring the process of editorial preparation and publication, disagreements
can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the RPC. Where an existing
policy clearly applies, typically such disagreements are handled in a
straightforward manner through direct consultation between the authors and
the RPC, sometimes in collaboration with stream-specific contacts.However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies or if it is
unclear how to interpret an existing policy, the parties may need to
consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB, IESG, IRSG, or
stream approving bodies) to help achieve a resolution. The following points are
intended to provide more specific guidance.
If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, to help
achieve a resolution, the RPC should consult with the relevant stream
approving body (such as the IESG or IRSG) and other representatives of
the relevant stream as appropriate.
If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should consult
with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.
The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by an existing
policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation between the RPC and
other relevant individuals and bodies, as described above. In this case,
the RSAB is responsible for (a) resolving the disagreement in a timely manner
if necessary so that the relevant stream document(s) can be published before a
new policy is defined and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so that a new policy
can be defined.
Point of ContactFrom time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF and
the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC Series.
Such inquiries should be directed to the
rfc‑editor@rfc‑editor.org email
alias or to its successor or future equivalent and then handled by the
appropriate bodies (e.g., RSAB and RPC) or individuals (e.g., RSWG Chairs and RSCE).Administrative ImplementationThe exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. This
section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such
activities.Vendor Selection for the RPCVendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and
under the final authority of the IETF LLC.The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work)
for the RPC and manages the vendor-selection process. The work
definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into
account the RPC responsibilities (as described in ),
the needs of the streams, and community input.The process to select and contract for the RPC
and other RFC-related services is as follows:
The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps
necessary to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) when necessary, the timing, and the
contracting procedures.
The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will
consist of the IETF Executive Director and other
members selected by the IETF LLC in consultation with the
stream approving bodies. The committee shall select a chair from
among its members.
The selection committee selects the vendor, subject to the
successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC. In
the event that a contract cannot be signed, the matter shall be
referred to the selection committee for further action.
BudgetMost expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They
have been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding
to support the RSCE, the RFC Production Center, and the Independent
Stream.The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor
budget (and the authority to deny it). All relevant parties must work
within the IETF LLC budgetary process.RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a senior technical
publishing professional who will apply their deep knowledge of
technical publishing processes to the RFC Series.The primary responsibilities of the RSCE are as follows:
Serve as a voting member on the RSAB
Identify problems with the RFC publication process and
opportunities for improvement
Provide expert advice within the RSWG regarding policy proposals
Provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC
Matters on which the RSCE might provide guidance could include the
following (see also ):
Editing, processing, and publication of RFCs
Publication formats for the RFC Series
Changes to the RFC Style Guide
Series-wide guidelines regarding document content and quality
Web presence for the RFC Series
Copyright matters related to the RFC Series
Archiving, indexing, and accessibility of RFCs
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method and management of the
engagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and the timely
filling of any vacancy. Therefore, whether the RSCE role is structured
as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC
to determine.RSCE SelectionResponsibility for making a recommendation to the IETF LLC regarding
the RSCE role will lie with a selection committee. The IETF LLC should
propose an initial slate of members for this committee, making sure
to include community members with diverse perspectives, and consult with the stream
representatives regarding the final membership of the committee. In
making its recommendation for the role of RSCE, the selection
committee will take into account the definition of the role as well
as any other information that the committee deems necessary or
helpful in making its decision. The IETF LLC is responsible for
contracting or employment of the RSCE.RSCE Performance EvaluationPeriodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the
RSCE, including a call for confidential input from the community.
The IETF LLC will produce a draft evaluation of the RSCE's
performance for review by RSAB members (other than the RSCE),
who will provide feedback to the IETF LLC.Temporary RSCE AppointmentIn the case that the currently appointed RSCE is expected to be
unavailable for an extended period, the IETF LLC may appoint a
Temporary RSCE through whatever recruitment process it considers
appropriate. A Temporary RSCE acts as the RSCE in all aspects
during their term of appointment.Conflict of InterestThe RSCE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of
interest or judgment in performing their role. To ensure this, the
RSCE will be subject to a conflict-of-interest policy established by
the IETF LLC.The RPC service provider may contract services from the RSCE service
provider, and vice versa, including services provided to the IETF
LLC. All contracts between the two must be disclosed to the IETF LLC.
Where those services are related to services provided to the IETF LLC,
IETF LLC policies shall apply, including publication of relevant parts
of the contract.Editorial StreamThis document creates the Editorial Stream as a separate space for
publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related
information regarding the RFC Series as a whole.The Editorial Stream shall be used only to specify and update policies,
procedures, guidelines, rules, and related information regarding the
RFC Series as a whole; no other use of the Editorial Stream is authorized
by this memo, and no other streams are so authorized. This policy may be
changed only by agreement of the IAB, IESG, and IETF LLC.All documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB shall be
published as RFCs in the Editorial Stream with a status of Informational.
(Note that the Editorial Stream is not authorized to publish RFCs that
are Standards Track or Best Current Practice, since such RFCs are
reserved for the IETF Stream .) Notwithstanding the status
of Informational, it should be understood that documents published
in the Editorial Stream define policies for the RFC Series as a whole.The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams are
outside the scope of this document.Procedures Request of the IETF TrustThe IAB requests that the IETF Trust and its Trustees assist in
meeting the goals and procedures set forth in this document.The Trustees are requested to publicly confirm their willingness and
ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) for the Editorial Stream.Specifically, the Trustees are asked to develop the necessary
boilerplate to enable the suitable marking of documents so that the
IETF Trust receives the rights as specified in . These
procedures need to also allow authors to indicate either no rights to
make derivative works or, preferentially, the right to make unlimited
derivative works from the documents. It is left to the Trust to
specify exactly how this shall be clearly indicated in each document.Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial StreamAs specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial Stream
are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying therein
with the rules specified in . This includes
the disclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can be
reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor.Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as
specified in . The Editorial
Stream has chosen to use the IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism for this purpose. The IAB would prefer that
the most liberal terms possible be made available for Editorial Stream
documents. Terms that do not require fees or licensing are preferable.
Non-discriminatory terms are strongly preferred over those that
discriminate among users. However, although disclosure is required
and the RSWG and the RSAB may consider disclosures and terms in making
a decision as to whether to submit a document for publication, there
are no specific requirements on the licensing terms for intellectual
property related to Editorial Stream publication.Editorial Stream BoilerplateThis document specifies the following text for the "Status of This Memo"
section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes to this
boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy Definition Process
specified in of this document.Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational,
the first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be
as specified in .The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be
as follows:This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition Process.
It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working Group approved by
the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents are not candidates for any
level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be
as specified in .Historical Properties of the RFC SeriesThis section lists some of the properties that have been
historically regarded as important to the RFC Series. Proposals
that affect these properties are possible within the processes
defined in this document. As described in Sections and ,
proposals that might have a detrimental effect on these properties
should receive heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB
review. The 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
identified, have been carefully considered.AvailabilityDocuments in the RFC Series have been available for many decades,
with no restrictions on access or distribution.AccessibilityRFC Series documents have been published in a format that was intended
to be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities, e.g.,
people with impaired sight.LanguageAll existing RFC Series documents have been published in English.
However, since the beginning of the RFC Series, documents have been
published under terms that explicitly allow translation into
languages other than English without asking for permission.DiversityThe RFC Series has included many types of documents including standards for
the Internet, procedural and informational documents, thought experiments,
speculative ideas, research papers, histories, humor, and even eulogies.QualityRFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality and
edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documents are clear,
consistent, and readable .StabilityOnce published, RFC Series documents are not changed.LongevityRFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be
comprehensible to humans for decades or longer.Updates to This DocumentUpdates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced
using the process documented herein but shall be published and operative only after
(a) obtaining the agreement of the IAB and the IESG and (b) ensuring
that the IETF LLC has no objections regarding its ability to implement
any proposed changes.Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor ModelThe processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs
have changed significantly over the years. Most recently, in 2009,
defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1), and in 2012,
defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), which was then
modified slightly in 2020 by .However, the community experienced several problems with versions 1
and 2, including a lack of transparency, a lack of avenues
for community input into policy definition, and unclear lines of
authority and responsibility.To address these problems, in 2020, the IAB formed the RFC Editor
Future Development Program to conduct a community discussion and
consensus process for the further evolution of the RFC Editor Model.
Under the auspices of this Program, the community considered changes
that would increase transparency and community input regarding the
definition of policies for the RFC Series as a whole, while at
the same time ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series,
maintaining the quality and timely publication of RFCs,
ensuring document accessibility, and clarifying lines of
authority and responsibility.This document is the result of discussion within the Program and
describes version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining
consistent with .The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in
more detail.RFC Editor FunctionSeveral responsibilities previously assigned to the RFC Editor
or, more precisely, the RFC Editor function, are now performed
by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination).
These include various aspects of strategic leadership
(), representation of the RFC Series
(), development of RFC production and
publication (), development of the
RFC Series (), operational oversight
(), policy oversight
(), the editing, processing, and publication of
documents (), and development and
maintenance of guidelines and rules that apply to the RFC Series
(). Among other things, this changes the dependency on
the RFC Series Editor (RSE) included in with regard to
"coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies
as specified by the IAB and RSE." In addition, various details
regarding these responsibilities have been modified to accord with
the framework defined in this document.RFC Series EditorImplied by the changes outlined in the previous section, the
responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or
role (contrasted with the overall RFC Editor function) are now
split or shared among the RSWG, RSAB, RSCE, RPC, and IETF LLC (alone
or in combination). More specifically, the responsibilities of
the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) under version 3 of the RFC
Editor Model differ in many ways from the responsibilities of the
RFC Series Editor under version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. In general,
references in existing documents to the RSE can be taken as
referring to the RFC Editor function as described herein but
should not be taken as referring to the RSCE.RFC PublisherIn practice, the RFC Production Center (RPC) and RFC Publisher roles
have been performed by the same entity, and this practice is expected
to continue; therefore, this document dispenses with the distinction
between these roles and refers only to the RPC.IABUnder earlier versions of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB was
responsible for oversight of the RFC Series and acted as a body
for final conflict resolution regarding the RFC Series. The IAB's
authority in these matters is described in the IAB Charter
(, as updated by ).
Under version 2 of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB delegated some
of its authority to the RFC Series Oversight Committee (see ).
Under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model, authority for policy definition
resides with the RSWG as an independent venue for work by members
of the community (with approval of policy proposals being the
responsibility of the RSAB, which represents the streams and includes
the RSCE), whereas authority for policy implementation resides with
the IETF LLC.RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and responsibility
between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy and somewhat opaque.
To overcome some of these issues, this document dispenses with the RSOC.
References to the RSOC in documents such as are obsolete
because this document disbands the RSOC.RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model specified the existence of
the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer specified in
version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. For the avoidance of doubt, this document affirms
that the RSAG has been disbanded. (The RSAG is not to be confused with the
RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which this document establishes.)Editorial StreamThis document creates the Editorial Stream in addition to the streams
already described in .Security ConsiderationsThe same security considerations as those in apply.
The processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
introduction of unapproved changes. Because multiple entities
described in this document (most especially the RPC) participate in
maintenance of the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to
prevent these published documents from being changed by external
parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed
to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents
(such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, originals
that are not machine-readable) need to be secured against
data storage failure.The IETF LLC (along with any other contracting or contracted entities)
should take these security considerations into account
during the implementation and enforcement of any relevant contracts.IANA ConsiderationsThe RPC is responsible for coordinating with the IANA to ensure that
RFCs accurately document registration processes and assigned values
for IANA registries.The IETF LLC facilitates management of the relationship between the RPC
and IANA.This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any
values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.ReferencesNormative ReferencesThe Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of documents used during this process. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Guidance on Interoperation and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft StandardAdvancing a protocol to Draft Standard requires documentation of the interoperation and implementation of the protocol. Historic reports have varied widely in form and level of content and there is little guidance available to new report preparers. This document updates the existing processes and provides more detail on what is appropriate in an interoperability and implementation report. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity LevelsThis document updates the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026. Primarily, it reduces the Standards Process from three Standards Track maturity levels to two. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Summary DocumentThis document updates RFC 2026 to no longer use STD 1 as a summary of "Internet Official Protocol Standards". It obsoletes RFC 5000 and requests the IESG to move RFC 5000 (and therefore STD 1) to Historic status.Characterization of Proposed StandardsRFC 2026 describes the review performed by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) on IETF Proposed Standard RFCs and characterizes the maturity level of those documents. This document updates RFC 2026 by providing a current and more accurate characterization of Proposed Standards.Increasing the Number of Area Directors in an IETF AreaThis document removes a limit on the number of Area Directors who manage an Area in the definition of "IETF Area". This document updates RFC 2026 (BCP 9) and RFC 2418 (BCP 25).IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough ConsensusThis document requires that the IETF never publish any IETF Stream RFCs without IETF rough consensus. This updates RFC 2026.Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF TrustThe IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are designed to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to retain as many rights as possible. This memo details the IETF policies on rights in Contributions to the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo obsoletes RFCs 3978 and 4748 and, with BCP 79 and RFC 5377, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Intellectual Property Rights in IETF TechnologyThe IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as early as possible in the development process. The policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR holders. This document sets out the IETF policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This document updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 5378, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This document also obsoletes RFCs 3979 and 4879.IETF Working Group Guidelines and ProceduresThis document describes the guidelines and procedures for formation and operation of IETF working groups. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.IETF Guidelines for ConductThis document provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction in the Internet Engineering Task Force. The guidelines recognize the diversity of IETF participants, emphasize the value of mutual respect, and stress the broad applicability of our work.This document is an updated version of the guidelines for conduct originally published in RFC 3184.RFC Style GuideThis document describes the fundamental and unique style conventions and editorial policies currently in use for the RFC Series. It captures the RFC Editor's basic requirements and offers guidance regarding the style and structure of an RFC. Additional guidance is captured on a website that reflects the experimental nature of that guidance and prepares it for future inclusion in the RFC Style Guide. This document obsoletes RFC 2223, "Instructions to RFC Authors".IETF Anti-Harassment ProceduresIETF Participants must not engage in harassment while at IETF meetings, virtual meetings, or social events or while participating in mailing lists. This document lays out procedures for managing and enforcing this policy.This document updates RFC 2418 by defining new working group guidelines and procedures. This document updates RFC 7437 by allowing the Ombudsteam to form a recall petition without further signatories.RFC Streams, Headers, and BoilerplatesRFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title page header, standard boilerplates, and copyright/IPR statements. This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source of RFC creation and review. This document obsoletes RFC 5741, moving detailed content to an IAB web page and preparing for more flexible output formats.Update to the IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF Administration LLCThe IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures are described in RFC 7776.The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has been replaced by the IETF Administration LLC, and the IETF Administrative Director has been replaced by the IETF LLC Executive Director. This document updates RFC 7776 to amend these terms.RFC 7776 contained updates to RFC 7437. RFC 8713 has incorporated those updates, so this document also updates RFC 7776 to remove those updates.The RFC Series and RFC EditorThis document describes the framework for an RFC Series and an RFC Editor function that incorporate the principles of organized community involvement and accountability that has become necessary as the Internet technical community has grown, thereby enabling the RFC Series to continue to fulfill its mandate. This document obsoletes RFC 4844.Independent Submission Editor ModelThis document describes the function and responsibilities of the RFC Independent Submission Editor (ISE). The Independent Submission stream is one of the stream producers that create draft RFCs, with the ISE as its stream approver. The ISE is overall responsible for activities within the Independent Submission stream, working with draft editors and reviewers, and interacts with the RFC Production Center and Publisher, and the RFC Series Editor (RSE). The ISE is appointed by the IAB, and also interacts with the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (LLC).This version obsoletes RFC 6548 to replace all references to the Internet Administrative Support Activity (IASA) and related structures with those defined by the IASA 2.0 structure.Informative ReferencesCharter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)Internet Architecture BoardThis memo documents the composition, selection, roles, and organization of the Internet Architecture Board. It replaces RFC 1601. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.RFC Editor Model (Version 1)IABThe RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out by various persons or entities. The RFC Editor model presented in this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into four functions: The RFC Series Editor, the Independent Submission Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. It also introduces the RFC Series Advisory Group and an (optional) Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board. The model outlined here is intended to increase flexibility and operational support options, provide for the orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of the RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality and timely processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost transparency. This memo provides information for the Internet community.RFC Editor Model (Version 2)IABThe RFC Editor model described in this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into three functions: the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight via the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship between the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC. This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", documented in RFC 5620, and obsoletes that document. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.The "xml2rfc" Version 3 VocabularyThis document defines the "xml2rfc" version 3 vocabulary: an XML-based language used for writing RFCs and Internet-Drafts. It is heavily derived from the version 2 vocabulary that is also under discussion. This document obsoletes the v2 grammar described in RFC 7749.Fifty Years of RFCsThis RFC marks the fiftieth anniversary for the RFC Series. It includes both retrospective material from individuals involved at key inflection points as well as a review of the current state of affairs. It concludes with thoughts on possibilities for the next fifty years for the Series. This document updates the perspectives offered in RFCs 2555 and 5540.Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) was originally established in 2005. In the years since then, the needs of the IETF evolved in ways that required changes to its administrative structure. The purpose of this RFC is to document and describe the IETF Administrative Support Activity, version 2.0 (IASA 2.0). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administration LLC Board (IETF LLC Board), the IETF Executive Director, and the Internet Society in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IETF LLC Board.This document obsoletes RFC 4071, RFC 4333, and RFC 7691.RFC Editor Model (Version 2)The RFC Editor model described in this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into three functions: the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight via the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship between the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company and the RSOC. This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", documented in RFC 5620; and obsoletes RFC 6635 to replace all references to the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) and related structures with those defined by the IASA 2.0 Model.Working Group GitHub Usage GuidanceThis document provides a set of guidelines for working groups that choose to use GitHub for their work.IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor ModelThe University of AucklandStyle GuideRFC EditorIAB Members at the Time of Approval
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
approved for publication were:
This document is the product of the IAB's RFC Editor Future Development
Program. The RFC Editor Future Development Program allowed for open
participation and used a rough consensus model for decision making.
AcknowledgmentsPortions of this document were borrowed from ,
, , , the Frequently Asked
Questions of the IETF Trust, and earlier proposals
submitted within the IAB's RFC Editor Future Development Program
by , , and . Thanks
to and in their role as chairs of the Program
for their leadership and assistance. Thanks also for feedback and
proposed text to
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and .Author's Addressstpeter@stpeter.im