Skip to content
RFC Editor - Official home of RFCs

RFC 9920: RFC Editor Model (Version 3)

  • P. Hoffman,  
  • A. Rossi
Informational

Abstract

This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. The model defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. First, policy definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second, policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC). In addition, various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are now performed alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document specifies the Editorial Stream for publication of future policy definition documents produced through the processes defined herein.

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 obsoletes RFC 9280.

This document updates RFCs 7841, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, 8729, 8730, and 9720.

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 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.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at .

1. Introduction

The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, including general contributions from the Internet research and engineering community as well as standards documents. RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the Internet. As described in [], RFCs 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 specifies 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 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 Section 9.

1.1. Changes to RFC 9280

This section details the changes made to [] by the RSWG starting in 2022. If you are not interested in how this document was changed, skip directly to Section 2.

[] contained significant changes to the publication model for 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 can be improved. In addition, gaps in some of the processes have been found. This document updates [] based on these findings.

The organization of this RFC is different from typical RFCs in order to keep the section numbering the same as []. To keep the section numbering the same, the Introduction section is much longer, with several subsections that refer to the main body.

The remainder of this introduction is a list of changes to []. Those changes are instantiated in the rest of the document, with cross-references between the list of changes and the main body.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [] [] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

1.2. RPC Roles and Responsibilities

[] created a new structure for the RFC Editor function. It established the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) and the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) and gave new responsibilities to the RFC Production Center (RPC). Broadly speaking, it says that the RSWG writes policies for the Editorial Stream, the RSAB approves those policies, and the RPC implements those policies. However, [] does not specify which group is responsible for defining or building the specific code and tools that implement the policies agreed upon in this process. The rest of this section updates [] to deal with this and other related matters.

1.2.1. Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs

Section 2 of [] 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) [].

The same section also states:

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.

[] does not define any other group that is responsible for implementing policies.

Throughout [], the RSWG is consistently assigned responsibility for writing policies (not deciding on implementations). The RPC is consistently assigned responsibility for implementing policy decisions, but examples given generally describe decisions made at the single document level. [] does not cover any specific responsibilities for designing and building the tools and code used to publish documents.

[] mentions tool developers twice. Section 3.1.1.2 of [] encourages "developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and Internet-Drafts" to participate in the RSWG. Section 3.2.1 of [] says that "RSAB members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g., authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an ongoing basis".

Section 4.2 of [] mentions a specific implementation when discussing the working practices of the RPC:

In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in the interest of specifying the detail of its implementation of such policies, the RPC can document ... 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.

[] is the only editorial implementation-related RFC mentioned in [].

The following is added to Section 4.3 of this document:

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 details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. The RPC may designate a team of volunteers and/or employees who implement these operational decisions. The RPC is expected to solicit input from experts and community members when making implementation decisions. The RPC is required to document implementation decisions in a publicly available place, preferably with rationale.

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 described in Section 4.4.

1.2.2. Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions

Section 4.4 of [] 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 arises with an implementation decision that applies to the entire editorial process (not just one document).

The paragraph below is reflected in Section 4.4 of this document:

If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both the document and editorial process tooling level, conflicts on either level will involve interpretation of written policy (or the acknowledgment that policy does not exist to cover a given situation). In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the same path of appeal: to the RSAB.

1.2.3. RFC Consumers

This text is reflected in Section 3.3 of this document:

The IETF mission statement [] is clear that the documents it produces are intended to be consumed by anyone who wishes to implement an IETF protocol or operational recommendation:

  • to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better.

Section 3.2.1 introduces the term "consumers of RFCs", referring to them as "constituent 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 content 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 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.

  • The RFC Editor website MUST be primarily focused on consumers 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.

1.3. Updates to RFC 9720

[], "RFC Formats and Versions", updates []. This document updates [].

1.3.1. RFCs May Be Reissued

Section 7.6 of [] says:

Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.

That sentence is replaced in Section 7.6 of this document with:

Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, as described in Section 2.2 of [].

1.3.2. Consistency Policy

A new policy is added to Section 7 of this document:

7.8. Consistency

RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. They may be reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.

1.4. Purview of the RSWG and RSAB

Section 3 of [] says:

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.

The following is added to Section 3 of this document immediately following that sentence:

Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for example, specific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. Such matters will be decided and documented by the RPC along with its other working practices, as discussed in Section 4.2, with community consultation as for other tools and services supported by the IETF LLC [].

1.5. Updates to RFCs 7991 through 7997

All instances of "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series Editor" in [], [], [], [], [], [] (obsoleted by []), and [] are replaced by "RFC Production Center (RPC)".

1.6. Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280

Many parts of [] talked about changes to be made. Because this document obsoletes [], these parts were updated to indicate that the changes were made.

2. Overview of the Model

This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into two high-level tasks:

  1. 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).

  2. 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 Section 4 of [].

The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.

3. Policy Definition

Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through the following high-level process:

  1. Proposals must be submitted to, adopted by, and discussed within the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG).

  2. Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working group and a community call for comments (see Section 3.2.3).

  3. 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.

(The text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.4.)

Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for example, specific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. Such matters will be decided and documented by the RPC along with its other working practices, as discussed in Section 4.2, with community consultation as for other tools and services supported by the IETF LLC [].

3.1. Structure and Roles

3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)

3.1.1.1. Purpose

The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that govern the RFC Series.

3.1.1.2. Participation

All interested individuals are welcome to participate in the RSWG; participants are subject to anti-harassment policies as described in Section 3.2.5. 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.

3.1.1.3. Chairs

The RSWG has two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the other appointed by the IAB. The IESG and IAB 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. The IESG and IAB may remove their appointed chairs at their discretion at any time and 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.

3.1.1.4. Mode of Operation

The intent is that the RSWG shall operate in a way similar to that of working groups in the IETF. Therefore, all RSWG meetings and discussion venues shall be open to all interested individuals, and all RSWG contributions shall be subject to intellectual property policies, which must be consistent with those of the IETF as specified in [BCP78] and [BCP79].

All discussions in the RSWG 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 In-Person and Online 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 Section 6 of [] should be considered appropriate.

The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies.

3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)

3.1.2.1. Purpose

The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which includes representatives of all of the streams, shall act as the approving body for proposals generated within the RSWG, thus providing an appropriate set of checks and balances on the output of the RSWG. The only policy-making role of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by the RSWG; it shall have no independent authority to formulate policy on its own. It is expected that the RSAB will respect the rough consensus of the RSWG wherever possible, without ceding its responsibility to review RSWG proposals, as further described in Section 3.2.2.

3.1.2.2. Members

The 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.

3.1.2.3. Appointment and Removal of Voting Members

The appointing bodies (i.e., IESG, IAB, IRTF Chair, and ISE) shall determine their own processes for appointing RSAB members (note that processes related to the RSCE are described in Section 5). 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.

3.1.2.4. Vacancies

In 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 Section 3.1.2.2.

3.1.2.5. Chair

The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using a method of its choosing. If the chair position is vacated during the chair's term, the RSAB chooses a new chair from among its members.

3.1.2.6. Mode of Operation

The RSAB is expected to operate via an email discussion list, in-person meetings, teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling it deems necessary.

The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions. The primary email discussion list used by the RSAB shall be publicly archived, although topics that require confidentiality (e.g., personnel matters) may be omitted from such archives or discussed in private. Similarly, meeting minutes may exclude detailed information about topics discussed under executive session but should note that such topics were discussed.

The RSAB shall announce plans and agendas for their meetings on the RFC Editor website and by email to the RSWG at least a week before such meetings. The meetings shall be open for public attendance, and the RSAB may consider allowing open participation. If the RSAB needs to discuss a confidential matter in executive session, that part of the meeting shall be private to the RSAB, but it must be noted on the agenda and documented in the minutes with as much detail as confidentiality requirements permit.

The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling and staff to support RSAB communication, decision processes, and policies.

The IAB convened the RSAB in 2022 in order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC Editor Model.

3.2. Process

This section specifies the RFC Series Policy Definition Process, which shall be followed in producing all Editorial Stream RFCs.

3.2.1. Intent

The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to the RFC Series are defined and evolved. The general expectation is that all interested parties will participate in the RSWG and that only under extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold CONCERN positions (as described in Section 3.2.2).

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.

3.2.2. Workflow

The following process shall be used to formulate or modify policies related to the RFC Series:

  1. 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 [BCP78] and [BCP79]) and asks the RSWG to adopt the proposal as a working group item.

  2. 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 []).

  3. 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 Section 7. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue a community call for comments as further described in Section 3.2.3. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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 (Section 3.2.3), 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.

  10. 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.

  11. A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.

  12. 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.

  13. If the proposal is not approved, it is returned to the RSWG. The RSWG can then consider making further changes.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment

The RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community calls for comments on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG. The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input. The RSAB seeks such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the rfc-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 Section 7, the RSAB should take extra care to reach out to a very wide range of communities that make use of RFCs (as described in Section 3.1.1.2) 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 Section 3.2.2) lodging a position of CONCERN during RSAB balloting.

3.2.4. Appeals

Appeals of RSWG Chair decisions shall be made to the RSAB. Decisions of the RSWG Chairs can be appealed only on grounds of failure to follow the correct process. Appeals should be made within thirty (30) days of any action or, in the case of failure to act, of notice having been given to the RSWG Chairs. The RSAB will then decide if the process was followed and will direct the RSWG Chairs as to what procedural actions are required.

Decisions of the RSAB can be appealed on grounds of failure to follow the correct process. In addition, if the RSAB makes a decision in order to resolve a disagreement between authors and the RPC (as described in Section 4.4), 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.

3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy

The IETF anti-harassment policy also applies to the RSWG and RSAB, which strive to create and maintain an environment in which people of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect. Participants are expected to behave according to professional standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior. For further information about these policies, see [], [], and [].

3.2.6. RFC Boilerplates

RFC boilerplates (see []) are part of the RFC Style Guide, as defined in Section 4.2. 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

3.3. RFC Consumers

(The text in this section is added by Section 1.2.3.)

The IETF mission statement [] is clear that the documents it produces are intended to be consumed by anyone who wishes to implement an IETF protocol or operational recommendation:

to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better.

Section 3.2.1 introduces the term "consumers of RFCs", referring to them as "constituent 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 content 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 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.

  • The RFC Editor website MUST be primarily focused on consumers 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.

4. Policy Implementation

4.1. Roles and Processes

Publication 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 Section 4.4.

  • 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 [].

4.2. Working Practices

In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in the interest of specifying the detail of its implementation of such policies, the RPC can document working practices regarding the editorial preparation, final publication, and dissemination of RFCs. Examples include:

  • 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 [STYLEGUIDE].

  • 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.

4.3. RPC Responsibilities

The core responsibility of the RPC is the implementation of RFC Series policies through publication of RFCs (including the dimensions of document quality, timeliness of publication, and accessibility of results), while taking into account issues raised by the community through the RSWG and by the stream approving bodies. More specifically, the RPC's responsibilities at the time of writing include the following:

  1. Editing documents originating from all RFC streams to ensure that they are consistent with the editorial standards specified in the RFC Style Guide.

  2. Creating and preserving records of edits performed on documents.

  3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact and seeking necessary clarification.

  4. 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.

  5. Creating and preserving records of dialogue with document authors.

  6. Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed.

  7. Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans.

  11. Consulting with the community on its plans.

  12. Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC.

  13. Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC performance by the IETF LLC.

  14. Coordinating with IANA to ensure that RFCs accurately document registration processes and assigned values for IANA registries.

  15. Assigning RFC numbers.

  16. Liaising with stream approving bodies and other representatives of the streams as needed.

  17. 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

  18. Providing online access to RFCs.

  19. Providing an online system to facilitate the submission, management, and display of errata to RFCs.

  20. Maintaining the RFC Editor website.

  21. Providing for the backup of RFCs.

  22. Ensuring the storage and preservation of records.

  23. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.

(The text in the next two paragraphs is added by Section 1.2.1.)

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 details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. The RPC may designate a team of volunteers and/or employees who implement these operational decisions. The RPC is expected to solicit input from experts and community members when making implementation decisions. The RPC is required to document implementation decisions in a publicly available place, preferably with rationale.

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 described in Section 4.4.

4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC

During the process of editorial preparation and publication, disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the RPC. Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in collaboration with stream-specific contacts.

However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies or if it is unclear how to interpret an existing policy, the parties may need to consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB, IESG, IRSG, or stream approving bodies) to help achieve a resolution. The following points are intended to provide more specific guidance.

  • If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, to help achieve a resolution, the RPC should consult with the relevant stream approving body (such as the IESG or IRSG) and other representatives of the relevant stream as appropriate.

  • If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should consult with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.

  • The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by an existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies, as described above. In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a) resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary so that the relevant stream document(s) can be published before a new policy is defined and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so that a new policy can be defined.

(The text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.2.2.)

If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both the document and editorial process tooling level, conflicts on either level will involve interpretation of written policy (or the acknowledgment that policy does not exist to cover a given situation). In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the same path of appeal: to the RSAB.

4.5. Point of Contact

From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF and the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC Series. Such inquiries should be directed to the rfc-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).

4.6. Administrative Implementation

The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. This section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such activities.

4.6.1. Vendor Selection for the RPC

Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under the final authority of the IETF LLC.