| RFC 9920 | RFC Editor Model | February 2026 |
| Hoffman & Rossi | Informational | [Page] |
This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. The modeldefines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. First,policy definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC SeriesWorking Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFCSeries Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second,policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFCProduction Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETFAdministration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC). In addition,various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are now performedalone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series ConsultingEditor (RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document specifies theEditorial Stream for publication of future policy definitiondocuments 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.¶
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 athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9920.¶
Copyright (c) 2026 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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.¶
The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival seriesdedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, includinggeneral contributions from the Internet research and engineeringcommunity as well as standards documents. RFCs are available free ofcharge to anyone via the Internet. As described in[RFC8700], RFCshave been published continually since 1969.¶
RFCs are generated and approved by multiple document streams.Whereas the stream approving body[RFC8729] for each stream isresponsible for the content of that stream, the RFC Editor functionis responsible for the production and distribution of all RFCs. Thefour existing streams are described in[RFC8729]. This document specifiesa fifth stream, the Editorial Stream, for publication of policiesgoverning the RFC Series as a whole.¶
The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor functionis described in[RFC8729] and is updated by this document, whichdefines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. Under this version,various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are performedalone or in combination by the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), RFCSeries Advisory Board (RSAB), RFC Production Center (RPC), RFC SeriesConsulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF Administration Limited LiabilityCompany (IETF LLC)[RFC8711], which collectively comprise the RFCEditor function. The intent is to ensure sustainable maintenance andsupport of the RFC Series based on the principles of expertimplementation, clear management and direction, and appropriatecommunity input[RFC8729].¶
This document updates[RFC7841] by definingboilerplate text for the Editorial Stream. This document updates[RFC8729] by replacing the RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, andRSCE. This document updates[RFC8730] by removing the dependency oncertain policies specified by the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE).More detailed information about changes from version 2 of the RFCEditor Model can be found inSection 9.¶
This section details the changes made to[RFC9280] by the RSWG starting in 2022.If you are not interested in how this document was changed, skip directly toSection 2.¶
[RFC9280] 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[RFC9280] based on these findings.¶
The organization of this RFC is different from typical RFCs in order to keep the section numbering the same as[RFC9280].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[RFC9280].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 asdescribed in BCP 14[RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, theyappear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
[RFC9280] 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,[RFC9280] 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[RFC9280] to deal with this and other related matters.¶
Section 2 of [RFC9280] states:¶
Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the streams that form the RFC Series. This is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC)[RFC8711].¶
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.¶
[RFC9280] does not define any other group that is responsible for implementing policies.¶
Throughout[RFC9280], the RSWG is consistently assigned responsibility for writing policies (not deciding on implementations).The RPC is consistently assigned responsibility for implementing policy decisions, but examples given generally describe decisions made at the single document level.[RFC9280] does not cover any specific responsibilities for designing and building the tools and code used to publish documents.¶
[RFC9280] mentions tool developers twice.Section 3.1.1.2 of [RFC9280] encourages "developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and Internet-Drafts" to participate in the RSWG.Section 3.2.1 of [RFC9280] says that "RSAB members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g., authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an ongoing basis".¶
Section 4.2 of [RFC9280] 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[RFC7991], such guidelines could include clarifications regarding the preferred XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic content of RFCs.¶
[RFC7991] is the only editorial implementation-related RFC mentioned in[RFC9280].¶
The following is added toSection 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 inSection 4.4.¶
Section 4.4 of [RFC9280] 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 inSection 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.¶
This text is reflected inSection 3.3 of this document:¶
The IETF mission statement[RFC3935] 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 RFCsMUST 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.¶
TheRFC Editor websiteMUST be primarily focused on consumers of RFCs.¶
Consumers of RFCsMUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an RFC.¶
[RFC9720], "RFC Formats and Versions", updates[RFC9280].This document updates[RFC9720].¶
Section 7.6 of [RFC9280] says:¶
Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.¶
That sentence is replaced inSection 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 inSection 2.2 of [RFC9720].¶
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 toSection 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 inSection 4.2, with community consultation as for other tools and services supported by the IETF LLC[RFC8711].¶
All instances of "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series Editor" in[RFC7991],[RFC7992],[RFC7993],[RFC7994],[RFC7995],[RFC7996] (obsoleted by[RFC9896]), and[RFC7997] are replaced by "RFC Production Center (RPC)".¶
Many parts of[RFC9280] talked about changes to be made.Because this document obsoletes[RFC9280], these parts were updated to indicate that the changes were made.¶
This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series intotwo high-level tasks:¶
Policy definition governing the RFC Series as a whole. This isthe joint responsibility of two entities. First, the RFC SeriesWorking Group (RSWG) is an open working group independent of theIETF that generates policy proposals. Second, the RFC SeriesApproval Board (RSAB) is an appointed body that approves suchproposals for publication in the Editorial Stream. The RSABincludes representatives of the streams[RFC8729] as well as anexpert in technical publishing, the RFC Series Consulting Editor(RSCE).¶
Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of thestreams that form the RFC Series. This is primarily theresponsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) ascontractually overseen by the IETF Administration LimitedLiability Company (IETF LLC)[RFC8711].¶
As described more fully in the remainder of this document, the coreactivities 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 orreturns them to the RSWG, which may make further changes or removethem from further consideration.¶
If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the EditorialStream 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 toimplement established policies on an ongoing and operationalbasis, which can include raising issues or initiating proposedpolicy changes within the RSWG.¶
The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream inits day-to-day editing and publication of RFCs from all of thestreams.¶
If issues arise with the implementation of particular policies,the RPC brings those issues to the RSAB, which interprets thepolicies and provides interim guidance to the RPC, informing theRSWG of those interpretations.¶
This model is designed to ensure public processes and policydocuments, clear lines of responsibility and authority, transparentmechanisms for updates and changes to policies governing the RFCSeries as a whole, and effective operational implementation of theRFC Series, thus meeting the requirements specified inSection 4 of [RFC8729].¶
The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.¶
Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through thefollowing high-level process:¶
Proposals must be submitted to, adopted by, and discussed withinthe RFC Series Working Group (RSWG).¶
Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working groupand a community call for comments (seeSection 3.2.3).¶
Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board(RSAB).¶
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, butare not limited to, document formats, processes for publication anddissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series.¶
(The text in the next paragraph is added bySection 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 inSection 4.2, with community consultation as for other tools and services supported by the IETF LLC[RFC8711].¶
The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in whichmembers of the community collaborate regarding the policies thatgovern the RFC Series.¶
All interested individuals are welcome to participate in the RSWG;participants are subject to anti-harassment policies as described inSection 3.2.5. This includes but is not limited to participants inthe IETF and IRTF, members of the IAB and IESG, developers ofsoftware or hardware systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs andInternet-Drafts, developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs andInternet-Drafts, individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions,scholarly researchers, and representatives of standards developmentorganizations other than the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC Boardmembers, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFCProduction Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited toparticipate as community members in the RSWG to the extent permittedby any relevant IETF LLC policies. Members of the RSAB are alsoexpected to participate actively.¶
The RSWG has two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and theother appointed by the IAB. The IESG and IAB determine their ownprocesses for making these appointments, making sure to take accountof any potential conflicts of interest. Community members who haveconcerns about the performance of an RSWG Chair should direct theirfeedback to the appropriate appointing body. The IESGand IAB may remove their appointed chairs attheir discretion at any time and name a replacement who shallserve the remainder of the original chair's term.¶
It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensuswithin the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decisionmaking, for instance, regarding acceptance of new proposals andadvancement of proposals to the RSAB.¶
The intent is that the RSWG shall operate in a way similar to that ofworking groups in the IETF. Therefore, all RSWG meetings anddiscussion venues shall be open to all interested individuals, andall RSWG contributions shall be subject to intellectual propertypolicies, which must be consistent with those of the IETF asspecified in[BCP78] and[BCP79].¶
All discussions in the RSWG shall take place on an openemail discussion list, which shall be publicly archived.¶
The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person, online-only, or hybrid meetings, whichshould be announced with sufficient notice to enable broad participation; theIESG Guidance on In-Person and Online Interim Meetings provides a reasonablebaseline. In-person meetings should include provision for effectiveonline participation for those unable to attend in person.¶
The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operationinformally described in[RFC2418].¶
The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling(e.g., GitHub as specified in[RFC8874]), forms of communication, andworking methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistentwith this document and with[RFC2418] or its successors.¶
Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the operation ofthe RSWG, the general guidance provided inSection 6 of [RFC2418]should be considered appropriate.¶
The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to supportRSWG communication, decision processes, and policies.¶
The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which includes representativesof all of the streams, shall act as the approving body for proposalsgenerated within the RSWG, thus providing an appropriate set ofchecks and balances on the output of the RSWG. The only policy-makingrole of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated bythe RSWG; it shall have no independent authority to formulate policyon its own. It is expected that the RSAB will respect the roughconsensus of the RSWG wherever possible, without ceding itsresponsibility to review RSWG proposals, as further described inSection 3.2.2.¶
The RSAB consists primarily of the following voting members:¶
A stream representative for the IETF Stream: either an IESG memberor someone appointed by the IESG¶
A stream representative for the IAB Stream: either an IAB memberor someone appointed by the IAB¶
A stream representative for the IRTF Stream: either the IRTF Chairor someone appointed by the IRTF Chair¶
A stream representative for the Independent Stream: either theIndependent Submissions Editor (ISE)[RFC8730] or someoneappointed by the ISE¶
The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)¶
If and when a new stream is created, the document that creates thestream shall specify if a voting member representing that streamshall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules and processesrelated to that representative (e.g., whether the representative is amember of the body responsible for the stream or an appointeddelegate thereof).¶
The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a voting member of theRSAB but does not act as a representative of the Editorial Stream.¶
To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shallinclude the following non-voting, ex officio members:¶
The IETF Executive Director or their delegate (the rationale isthat the IETF LLC is accountable for implementation of policiesgoverning the RFC Series)¶
A representative of the RPC, named by the RPC (the rationale isthat the RPC is responsible for implementation of policiesgoverning the RFC Series)¶
In addition, the RSAB may include other non-voting members at itsdiscretion; these non-voting members may be ex officio members orliaisons from groups or organizations with which the RSAB deems itnecessary to formally collaborate or coordinate.¶
The appointing bodies (i.e., IESG, IAB, IRTF Chair, and ISE) shalldetermine their own processes for appointing RSAB members (note thatprocesses related to the RSCE are described inSection 5). Eachappointing body shall have the power to remove its appointed RSABmember at its discretion at any time. Appointing bodies shouldensure that voting members are seated at all times and should fillany vacancies with all due speed, if necessary on a temporary basis.¶
In the case that the IRTF Chair or ISE is incapacitated or otherwiseunable to appoint another person to serve as a delegate, the IAB (asthe appointing body for the IRTF Chair and ISE) shall act as thetemporary appointing body for those streams and shall appoint atemporary member of the RSAB until the IAB has appointed an IRTFChair or ISE, who can then act as an RSAB member or appoint adelegate through normal processes.¶
In the case of vacancies by voting members, the RSAB shall operate asfollows:¶
Activities related to implementation of policies already in forceshall continue as normal.¶
Voting on approval of policy documents produced by the RSWG shallbe delayed until the vacancy or vacancies have been filled, up toa maximum of three (3) months. If a further vacancy arises duringthis three-month period, the delay should be extended by up toanother three months. After the delay period expires, the RSABshould continue to process documents as described below. Notethat this method of handling vacancies does not apply to a vacancyof the RSCE role; it only applies to vacancies of the streamrepresentatives enumerated inSection 3.1.2.2.¶
The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using amethod of its choosing. If the chair position is vacated during thechair's term, the RSAB chooses a new chair from among its members.¶
The RSAB is expected to operate via an email discussion list, in-personmeetings, teleconferencing systems, and any additional toolingit deems necessary.¶
The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, includingminutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions. The primaryemail discussion list used by the RSAB shall be publicly archived,although topics that require confidentiality (e.g., personnelmatters) may be omitted from such archives or discussed in private.Similarly, meeting minutes may exclude detailed information abouttopics discussed under executive session but should note that suchtopics were discussed.¶
The RSAB shall announce plans and agendas for their meetings on theRFC Editor website and by email to the RSWG at least a week beforesuch meetings. The meetings shall be open for public attendance, andthe RSAB may consider allowing open participation. If the RSAB needsto discuss a confidential matter in executive session, that part ofthe meeting shall be private to the RSAB, but it must be noted on theagenda and documented in the minutes with as much detail asconfidentiality requirements permit.¶
The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling and staff tosupport RSAB communication, decision processes, and policies.¶
The IAB convened the RSAB in 2022 inorder to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFCEditor Model.¶
This section specifies the RFC Series Policy Definition Process,which shall be followed in producing all Editorial Stream RFCs.¶
The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related tothe RFC Series are defined and evolved. The general expectation isthat all interested parties will participate in the RSWG and thatonly under extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to holdCONCERN positions (as described inSection 3.2.2).¶
Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWGparticipants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to worktogether in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding toachieve rough consensus (see[RFC2418]). In particular, RSWG membersare encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously, and RSAB members areencouraged to clearly express their concerns early in the process andto be responsive to the community. All parties are encouraged torespect the value of each stream and the long-term health andviability of the RFC Series.¶
This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation. RSABmembers should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on anongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider the approvalof a proposal, there should be no surprises. Appointing bodies areexpected to establish whatever processes they deem appropriate tofacilitate this goal.¶
The following process shall be used to formulate or modify policiesrelated to the RFC Series:¶
An individual or set of individuals generates a proposal in theform of an Internet-Draft (which must be submitted in fullconformance with the provisions of[BCP78] and[BCP79]) and asksthe RSWG to adopt the proposal as a working group item.¶
The RSWG may adopt the proposal as a working group item if thechairs determine (by following working group procedures forrough consensus) that there is sufficient interest in theproposal; this is similar to the way a working group of the IETFwould operate (see[RFC2418]).¶
The RSWG shall then further discuss and develop the proposal.All participants, but especially RSAB members, should payspecial attention to any aspects of the proposal that have thepotential to significantly modify long-standing policies orhistorical characteristics of the RFC Series as described inSection 7. Members of the RSAB are expected to participate asindividuals in all discussions relating to RSWG proposals. Thisshould help to ensure that they are fully aware of proposalsearly in the RFC Series Policy Definition Process. It shouldalso help to ensure that RSAB members will raise any issues orconcerns during the development of the proposal and not waituntil the RSAB review period. The RSWG Chairs are also expectedto participate as individuals.¶
At some point, if the RSWG Chairs believe there may be roughconsensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a LastCall for comments within the working group.¶
After a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG Chairs willdetermine whether rough consensus for the proposal exists(taking their own feedback as individuals into account alongwith feedback from other participants). If comments have beenreceived and substantial changes have been made, additional LastCalls may be necessary. Once the chairs determine thatconsensus has been reached, they shall announce theirdetermination on the RSWG email discussion list and forward thedocument to the RSAB.¶
Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issuea community call for comments as further described inSection 3.2.3. If substantial comments are received in responseto the community call for comments, the RSAB may return theproposal to the RSWG to consider those comments and makerevisions to address the feedback received. In parallel withthe community call for comments, the RSAB itself shall alsoconsider the proposal.¶
If the scope of the revisions made in the previous step issubstantial, an additional community call for comments should beissued by the RSAB, and the feedback received should beconsidered by the RSWG.¶
Once the RSWG Chairs confirm that concerns received during thecommunity call(s) for comments have been addressed, they shallinform the RSAB that the document is ready for balloting by theRSAB.¶
Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will poll itsmembers for their positions on the proposal. Positions may beas follows:¶
YES: the proposal should be approved¶
CONCERN: the proposal raises substantial concerns that mustbe addressed¶
RECUSE: the person holding the position has a conflict ofinterest¶
Any RSAB member holding a CONCERN position must explain theirconcern to the community in detail. Nevertheless, the RSWGmight not be able to come to consensus on modifications thatwill address the RSAB member's concern.¶
There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a positionof CONCERN:¶
The RSAB member believes that the proposal represents aserious problem for one or more of the individual streams.¶
The RSAB member believes that the proposal would causeserious harm to the overall RFC Series, including harm to thelong-term health and viability of the Series.¶
The RSAB member believes, based on the results of thecommunity call(s) for comments (Section 3.2.3), that roughconsensus to advance the proposal is lacking.¶
Because RSAB members are expected to participate in thediscussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issuesduring those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not comeas a surprise to the RSWG. Notwithstanding, late CONCERNpositions are always possible if issues are identified duringRSAB 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. Ifsubstantial changes are made in order to address CONCERNpositions, an additional community call for comments might beneeded.¶
A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.¶
If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positionsremain, a vote of the RSAB is taken. If at least three votingmembers 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 thecommunity, and the document enters the queue for publication asan RFC within the Editorial Stream.¶
Policies may take effect immediately upon approval by the RSABand before publication of the relevant RFC, unless they aredelayed while the IETF LLC resolves pending resource or contractissues.¶
The RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community callsfor comments on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG.The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input. The RSAB seekssuch input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to therfc-interest@rfc-editor.orgemail discussion list or to its successor or future equivalent. RSABmembers should also send a notice to the communities they directlyrepresent (e.g., the IETF and IRTF). Notices are also to be madeavailable and archived on the RFC Editor website. In addition, othercommunication channels can be established for notices (e.g., via anRSS feed or by posting to social media venues).¶
In cases where a proposal has the potential to significantly modifylong-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFCSeries as described inSection 7, the RSAB should take extra care toreach out to a very wide range of communities that make use of RFCs(as described inSection 3.1.1.2) since such communities might not beactively engaged in the RSWG directly. The RSAB should work with thestream approving bodies and the IETF LLC to identify and establishcontacts in such communities, assisted by the RSCE in particular.¶
The RSAB should maintain a public list of communities that arecontacted 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 RSABdeems 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 belonger if wide outreach is required. Comments will be publiclyarchived on the RFC Editor website.¶
The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during acommunity call for comments. If RSAB members conclude that suchcomments raise important issues that need to be addressed, theyshould do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if theissues meet the criteria specified in Step 9 ofSection 3.2.2)lodging a position of CONCERN during RSAB balloting.¶
Appeals of RSWG Chair decisions shall be made to the RSAB. Decisionsof the RSWG Chairs can be appealed only on grounds of failure tofollow the correct process. Appeals should be made within thirty(30) days of any action or, in the case of failure to act, of noticehaving been given to the RSWG Chairs. The RSAB will then decide ifthe process was followed and will direct the RSWG Chairs as to whatprocedural actions are required.¶
Decisions of the RSAB can be appealed on grounds of failure to followthe correct process. In addition, if the RSAB makes a decision inorder to resolve a disagreement between authors and the RPC (asdescribed inSection 4.4), appeals can be filed on the basis that theRSAB misinterpreted an approved policy. Aside from these two cases,disagreements about the conduct of the RSAB are not subject toappeal. Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB andshould be made within thirty (30) days of public notice of therelevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are posted). The IABshall decide whether a process failure occurred and what (if any)corrective action should take place.¶
TheIETF anti-harassment policyalso applies to the RSWG and RSAB, which strive to create and maintain anenvironment in which people of many different backgrounds are treated withdignity, decency, and respect. Participants are expected to behave according toprofessional standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior. Forfurther information about these policies, see[RFC7154],[RFC7776], and[RFC8716].¶
RFC boilerplates (see[RFC7841]) are part of the RFC Style Guide, asdefined inSection 4.2. New or modified boilerplates consideredunder version 3 of the RFC Editor Model must be approved by thefollowing parties, each of which has a separate area ofresponsibility with respect to boilerplates:¶
The applicable stream, which approves that the boilerplate meetsits needs¶
The RSAB, which approves that the boilerplate is not in conflictwith the boilerplate used in the other streams¶
The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate isconsistent with the RFC Style Guide¶
The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctlystates the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership¶
(The text in this section is added bySection 1.2.3.)¶
The IETF mission statement[RFC3935] 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 RFCsMUST 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.¶
TheRFC Editor websiteMUST be primarily focused on consumers of RFCs.¶
Consumers of RFCsMUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an RFC.¶
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 byRFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by theRSWG, RSAB, or RSCE), by existing RFCs that apply to the RPC andhave not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and by therequisite contracts.¶
The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and it has a duty toconsult with them under specific circumstances, such as thoserelating to disagreements between authors and the RPC as describedinSection 4.4.¶
The RPC is overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that it performs inaccordance with contracts in place.¶
All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performancetargets 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 orissues affecting it.¶
In the event that the RPC is required to make a decision withoutconsultation that would normally deserve consultation, or makes adecision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify theRSAB.¶
This document does not specify the exact relationship between theIETF LLC and the RPC; for example, the work of the RPC could beperformed by a separate corporate entity under contract to the IETFLLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or the IETFLLC could engage with independent contractors for some or all aspectsof such work. The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC todetermine.¶
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method and management of theengagement of the RPC. Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority overnegotiating performance targets for the RPC and also hasresponsibility for ensuring that those targets are met. Suchperformance targets are set based on the RPC's publication load andadditional efforts required to implement policies specified inEditorial Stream RFCs, in existing RFCs that apply to the RPC andhave not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and in therequisite contracts. The IETF LLC may consult with the communityregarding these targets. The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint amanager or to convene a committee to complete these activities.¶
If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about theperformance of the RPC, they can request that the matter beinvestigated by the IETF LLC Board, the IETF Executive Director, or apoint of contact designated by the IETF LLC Board. Even if the IETFLLC opts to delegate this activity, concerns should be raised withthe IETF LLC. The IETF LLC is ultimately answerable to the communityvia the mechanisms outlined in[RFC8711].¶
In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in theinterest of specifying the detail of its implementation of suchpolicies, the RPC can document working practices regarding theeditorial preparation, final publication, and dissemination of RFCs.Examples include:¶
Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards forRFCs; specifically, the RFC Style Guide consists of[RFC7322] andthe other documents and resources listed at[STYLEGUIDE].¶
Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as inputto the editing and publication process.¶
Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of publisheddocuments. In the context of the XML vocabulary[RFC7991], suchguidelines could include clarifications regarding the preferredXML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic contentof RFCs.¶
The core responsibility of the RPC is the implementation of RFCSeries policies through publication of RFCs (including the dimensionsof document quality, timeliness of publication, and accessibility ofresults), while taking into account issues raised by the communitythrough the RSWG and by the stream approving bodies. Morespecifically, the RPC's responsibilities at the time of writinginclude the following:¶
Editing documents originating from all RFC streams to ensurethat they are consistent with the editorial standards specifiedin the RFC Style Guide.¶
Creating and preserving records of edits performed on documents.¶
Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impactand seeking necessary clarification.¶
Establishing the publication readiness of each document throughcommunication with the authors, IANA, or stream-specificcontacts, supplemented if needed by the RSAB and RSCE.¶
Creating and preserving records of dialogue with documentauthors.¶
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 EditorialStream RFCs that impact the RPC, specifically with respect toany challenges the RPC might foresee with regard toimplementation of proposed policies.¶
Identifying topics and issues while processing documents orcarrying out other responsibilities on this list for which theylack sufficient expertise, and identifying and conferring withrelevant 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 RPCperformance by the IETF LLC.¶
Coordinating with IANA to ensure that RFCs accurately documentregistration processes and assigned values for IANA registries.¶
Assigning RFC numbers.¶
Liaising with stream approving bodies and other representativesof the streams as needed.¶
Publishing RFCs, which includes:¶
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.¶
(The text in the next two paragraphs is added bySection 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 inSection 4.4.¶
During the process of editorial preparation and publication,disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and theRPC. Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically suchdisagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through directconsultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes incollaboration with stream-specific contacts.¶
However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies or if itis unclear how to interpret an existing policy, the parties may needto consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB, IESG,IRSG, or stream approving bodies) to help achieve a resolution. Thefollowing points are intended to provide more specific guidance.¶
If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, tohelp achieve a resolution, the RPC should consult with therelevant stream approving body (such as the IESG or IRSG) andother representatives of the relevant stream as appropriate.¶
If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC shouldconsult with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.¶
The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by anexisting policy or that cannot be resolved through consultationbetween the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies, asdescribed above. In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a)resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary so thatthe relevant stream document(s) can be published before a newpolicy is defined and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so that anew policy can be defined.¶
(The text in the next paragraph is added bySection 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.¶
From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETFand the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFCSeries. Such inquiries should be directed to therfc-editor@rfc-editor.org emailalias or to its successor or future equivalent and then handled bythe appropriate bodies (e.g., RSAB and RPC) or individuals (e.g.,RSWG Chairs and RSCE).¶
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractualactivities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. Thissection provides general guidance regarding several aspects of suchactivities.¶
Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and underthe final authority of the IETF LLC.¶
The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) forthe RPC and manages the vendor-selection process. The workdefinition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes intoaccount the RPC responsibilities (as described inSection 4.3), theneeds of the streams, and community input.¶
The process to select and contract for the RPC and other RFC-relatedservices is as follows:¶
The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the stepsnecessary to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) when necessary,the timing, and the contracting procedures.¶
The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will consistof the IETF Executive Director and other members selected by theIETF LLC in consultation with the stream approving bodies. Thecommittee shall select a chair from among its members.¶
The selection committee selects the vendor, subject to thesuccessful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC. Inthe event that a contract cannot be signed, the matter shall bereferred to the selection committee for further action.¶
Most expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. Theyhave been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.¶
The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include fundingto support the RSCE, the RFC Production Center, and the IndependentStream.¶
The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editorbudget (and the authority to deny it). All relevant parties mustwork within the IETF LLC budgetary process.¶
The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a senior technicalpublishing professional who will apply their deep knowledge oftechnical 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 andopportunities 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 thefollowing (see alsoSection 4 of [RFC8729]):¶
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 theengagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and thetimely filling of any vacancy. Therefore, whether the RSCE role isstructured as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter forthe IETF LLC to determine.¶
Responsibility for making a recommendation to the IETF LLC regardingthe RSCE role will lie with a selection committee. The IETF LLCshould propose an initial slate of members for this committee, makingsure to include community members with diverse perspectives, andconsult with the stream representatives regarding the finalmembership of the committee. In making its recommendation for therole of RSCE, the selection committee will take into account thedefinition of the role as well as any other information that thecommittee deems necessary or helpful in making its decision. TheIETF LLC is responsible for contracting or employment of the RSCE.¶
Periodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the RSCE,including a call for confidential input from the community. The IETFLLC will produce a draft evaluation of the RSCE's performance forreview by RSAB members (other than the RSCE), who will providefeedback to the IETF LLC.¶
In the case that the currently appointed RSCE is expected to beunavailable for an extended period, the IETF LLC may appoint aTemporary RSCE through whatever recruitment process it considersappropriate. A Temporary RSCE acts as the RSCE in all aspects duringtheir term of appointment.¶
The RSCE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict ofinterest or judgment in performing their role. To ensure this, theRSCE will be subject to a conflict-of-interest policy established bythe IETF LLC.¶
The RPC service provider may contract services from the RSCE serviceprovider, and vice versa, including services provided to the IETFLLC. All contracts between the two must be disclosed to the IETFLLC. Where those services are related to services provided to theIETF LLC, IETF LLC policies shall apply, including publication ofrelevant parts of the contract.¶
This document creates the Editorial Stream as a separate space forpublication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and relatedinformation regarding the RFC Series as a whole.¶
The Editorial Stream shall be used only to specify and updatepolicies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related informationregarding the RFC Series as a whole; no other use of the EditorialStream is authorized by this memo, and no other streams are soauthorized. 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 bepublished as RFCs in the Editorial Stream with a status ofInformational. (Note that the Editorial Stream is not authorized topublish RFCs that are Standards Track or Best Current Practice, sincesuch RFCs are reserved for the IETF Stream[RFC8729].)Notwithstanding the status of Informational, it should be understoodthat documents published in the Editorial Stream define policies forthe RFC Series as a whole.¶
The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streamsare outside the scope of this document.¶
In[RFC9280], the IAB requested that the IETF Trust and its Trustees assist inmeeting the goals and procedures set forth in this document.¶
The Trustees were requested to publicly confirm their willingness andability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights(IPR) for the Editorial Stream.¶
Specifically, the Trustees were asked to develop the necessaryboilerplate to enable the suitable marking of documents so that theIETF Trust receives the rights as specified in[BCP78]. Theseprocedures needed to also allow authors to indicate either no rights tomake derivative works or, preferentially, the right to make unlimitedderivative works from the documents. It is left to the Trust tospecify exactly how this shall be clearly indicated in each document.¶
As specified above, contributors of documents for the EditorialStream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complyingtherein with the rules specified in[BCP9]. This includes thedisclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can bereasonably expected to be known, to the contributor.¶
Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, asspecified in[BCP79]. The Editorial Stream has chosen to use theIETF's IPR disclosure mechanism for thispurpose. It is preferred that the most liberal terms possiblebe made available for Editorial Stream documents. Terms that do notrequire fees or licensing are preferable. Non-discriminatory termsare strongly preferred over those that discriminate among users.However, although disclosure is required and the RSWG and the RSABmay consider disclosures and terms in making a decision as to whetherto submit a document for publication, there are no specificrequirements on the licensing terms for intellectual property relatedto Editorial Stream publication.¶
This document specifies the following text for the "Status of ThisMemo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changesto this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series PolicyDefinition Process specified inSection 3 of this document.¶
Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, thefirst paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be asspecified inAppendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].¶
The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be asfollows:¶
This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy DefinitionProcess. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series WorkingGroup approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documentsare not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; seeSection 2 of RFC 7841.¶
The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be asspecified inSection 3.5 of [RFC7841].¶
This section lists some of the properties that have been historicallyregarded as important to the RFC Series. Proposals that affect theseproperties are possible within the processes defined in thisdocument. As described in Sections3.2.2 and3.2.3, proposals thatmight have a detrimental effect on these properties should receiveheightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB review. Thepurpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes are deliberateand that the consequences of a proposal, as far as they can beidentified, have been carefully considered.¶
Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades,with no restrictions on access or distribution.¶
RFC Series documents have been published in a format that wasintended to be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities,e.g., people with impaired sight.¶
All existing RFC Series documents have been published in English.However, since the beginning of the RFC Series, documents have beenpublished under terms that explicitly allow translation intolanguages other than English without asking for permission.¶
The RFC Series has included many types of documents includingstandards for the Internet, procedural and informational documents,thought experiments, speculative ideas, research papers, histories,humor, and even eulogies.¶
RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter qualityand edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documentsare clear, consistent, and readable[RFC7322].¶
(The text in this section is updated bySection 1.3.1.)¶
Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, as described inSection 2.2 of [RFC9720].¶
RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to becomprehensible to humans for decades or longer.¶
(The text in this section is added bySection 1.3.2.)¶
RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published.They may be reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.¶
Updates, 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.¶
The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs havechanged significantly over the years. Most recently, in 2009,[RFC5620] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1), and in 2012,[RFC6635] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), which was thenmodified slightly in 2020 by[RFC8728].¶
However, the community experienced several problems with versions 1and 2, including a lack of transparency, a lack of avenues forcommunity input into policy definition, and unclear lines ofauthority and responsibility.¶
To address these problems, in 2020, the IAB formed the RFC EditorFuture Development Program to conduct a community discussion andconsensus process for the further evolution of the RFC Editor Model.Under the auspices of this Program, the community considered changesthat would increase transparency and community input regarding thedefinition of policies for the RFC Series as a whole, while at thesame time ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, maintaining thequality and timely publication of RFCs, ensuring documentaccessibility, and clarifying lines of authority and responsibility.¶
[RFC9280] was the result of discussion within the original Program anddescribed version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remainingconsistent with[RFC8729].As stated earlier, this document obsoletes[RFC9280].¶
The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in moredetail.¶
Several responsibilities previously assigned to the RFC Editor (ormore precisely, the RFC Editor function) are now performed by theRSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). Theseinclude various aspects of strategic leadership (Section 2.1.1 of [RFC8728]), representation of the RFC Series (Section 2.1.2 of [RFC8728]), development of RFC production and publication(Section 2.1.3 of [RFC8728]), development of the RFC Series(Section 2.1.4 of [RFC8728]), operational oversight (Section 3.3 of [RFC8729]), policy oversight (Section 3.4 of [RFC8729]), the editing,processing, and publication of documents (Section 4.2 of [RFC8729]),and development and maintenance of guidelines and rules that apply tothe RFC Series (Section 4.4 of [RFC8729]). Among other things, thischanges the dependency on the RFC Series Editor (RSE) included inSection 2.2 of [RFC8730] with regard to "coordinating work andconforming to general RFC Series policies as specified by the IAB andRSE." In addition, various details regarding these responsibilitieshave been modified to accord with the framework defined in thisdocument.¶
Implied by the changes outlined in the previous section, theresponsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or role(contrasted with the overall RFC Editor function) are now split orshared among the RSWG, RSAB, RSCE, RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or incombination). More specifically, the responsibilities of the RFCSeries Consulting Editor (RSCE) under version 3 of the RFC EditorModel differ in many ways from the responsibilities of the RFC SeriesEditor under version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. In general,references in existing documents to the RSE can be taken as referringto the RFC Editor function as described herein but should not betaken as referring to the RSCE.¶
In practice, the RFC Production Center (RPC) and RFC Publisher roleshave been performed by the same entity, and this practice is expectedto continue; therefore, this document dispenses with the distinctionbetween these roles and refers only to the RPC.¶
Under earlier versions of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB wasresponsible for oversight of the RFC Series and acted as a body forfinal conflict resolution regarding the RFC Series. The IAB'sauthority in these matters is described in the IAB Charter([RFC2850], as updated by[RFC9283]). Under version 2 of the RFCEditor Model, the IAB delegated some of its authority to the RFCSeries Oversight Committee (seeSection 9.5). Under version 3 of theRFC Editor Model, authority for policy definition resides with theRSWG as an independent venue for work by members of the community(with approval of policy proposals being the responsibility of theRSAB, which represents the streams and includes the RSCE), whereasauthority for policy implementation resides with the IETF LLC.¶
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority andresponsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE proved unwieldyand somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues,[RFC9280]dispensed with the RSOC. References to the RSOC in documents such as[RFC8730] are obsolete.¶
Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model[RFC5620] specified the existenceof the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longerspecified in version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. For the avoidance ofdoubt,[RFC9280] affirmed that the RSAG was disbanded. (TheRSAG is not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB),which this document specifies.)¶
This document specifies the Editorial Stream in addition to the streamsalready described in[RFC8729].¶
The same security considerations as those in[RFC8729] apply. Theprocesses for the publication of documents must prevent theintroduction of unapproved changes. Because multiple entitiesdescribed in this document (most especially the RPC) participate inmaintenance of the index of publications, sufficient security must bein place to prevent these published documents from being changed byexternal parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documentsneeded to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated originaldocuments (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items,originals that are not machine-readable) need to be secured againstdata storage failure.¶
The IETF LLC (along with any other contracting or contractedentities) should take these security considerations into accountduring the implementation and enforcement of any relevant contracts.¶
The RPC is responsible for coordinating with the IANA to ensure thatRFCs accurately document registration processes and assigned valuesfor IANA registries.¶
The IETF LLC facilitates management of the relationship between theRPC and IANA.¶
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register anyvalues in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.¶
This document is the product of the RFC Series Working Group.Many people in the RSWG participated in the active discussions that led to the changes listed inSection 1.1.The authors are indebted to them for their contributions.¶
[RFC9280] was authored byPeter Saint-Andre.It had additional, extensive acknowledgments.¶