| RFC 9280 | RFC Editor Model | June 2022 |
| Saint-Andre | Informational | [Page] |
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 AdministrationLimited Liability Company (IETF LLC). In addition, various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are now performed aloneor in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document establishes the Editorial Stream for publication of future policy definition documents produced through the processes defined herein.¶
This document obsoletes RFC 8728. This document updates RFCs 7841,8729, and 8730.¶
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9280.¶
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (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,including general contributions from the Internet research andengineering community as well as standards documents. RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the Internet. As describedin[RFC8700], RFCs have been published continually since 1969.¶
RFCs are generated and approved by multiple document streams. Whereas the stream approving body[RFC8729] 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[RFC8729]. This document adds a fifth stream, the Editorial Stream, for publicationof policies governing the RFC Series as a whole.¶
The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editorfunction is described in[RFC8729] 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 SeriesWorking Group (RSWG), RFC Series Advisory Board (RSAB), RFCProduction Center (RPC), RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC)[RFC8711], 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[RFC8729].¶
This document obsoletes[RFC8728] by defining version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. This document updates[RFC7841] by defining boilerplate text for the Editorial Stream. This document updates[RFC8729] by replacing the RFC Editor rolewith the RSWG, RSAB, and RSCE. This document updates[RFC8730]by removing the dependency on certain policies specified by theIAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE). More detailed information about changes from version 2 of the RFC Editor Model can be found inSection 9.¶
This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into two high-level tasks:¶
As described more fully in the remainder of this document, the coreactivities and responsibilities are as follows:¶
This model is designed to ensure public processes and policy documents,clear lines of responsibility and authority, transparent mechanisms for updates and changes to policiesgoverning the RFC Series 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 the following high-level process:¶
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but arenot limited to, document formats, processes for publication anddissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series.¶
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.¶
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 in the IETFand IRTF, members of the IAB and IESG, developers of software or hardwaresystems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and Internet-Drafts, developersof tools used to author or edit RFCs and Internet-Drafts, individuals who useRFCs in procurement decisions, scholarly researchers, and representatives ofstandards development organizations other than the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLCBoard members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFCProduction Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited to participateas community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted by any relevant IETFLLC policies. Members of the RSAB are also expected to participateactively.¶
The RSWG shall have two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and theother appointed by the IAB. When the RSWG is formed, the chairappointed by the IESG shall serve for a term of one (1) year andthe chair appointed by the IAB shall serve for a term of two (2)years; thereafter, chairs shall serve for a term of two (2)years, with no term limits on renewal. The IESG and IAB shalldetermine their own processes for making these appointments, makingsure to take account of any potential conflicts of interest.Community members who have concerns about the performance of anRSWG Chair should direct their feedback to the appropriate appointing body via mechanisms such bodies shall specify at the time that theRSWG is formed. The IESG and IAB shall have the power to remove theirappointed chairs at their discretion at any time and to name areplacement who shall serve the remainder of the original chair'sterm.¶
It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensuswithin the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision making,for instance, regarding acceptance of new proposals and advancement ofproposals to the RSAB.¶
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].¶
When the RSWG is formed, all discussions shall take place on anopen 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 broadparticipation; theIESG Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual InterimMeetings provides a reasonable baseline. In-person meetings should includeprovision for effective online participation for those unable toattend 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, and working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent with this document and with[RFC2418] or its successors.¶
Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the operationof the RSWG, the general guidance provided inSection 6 of [RFC2418] should be considered appropriate.¶
The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies.¶
The IAB is requested to convene the RSWG when it is first formed inorder to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC Editor Model.¶
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 roleof the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by the RSWG; it shallhave no independent authority to formulate policy on its own. It isexpected that the RSAB will respect the rough consensus of theRSWG wherever possible, without ceding its responsibility to review RSWG proposals, as further described inSection 3.2.2.¶
The RSAB consists primarily of the following voting members:¶
If and when a new stream is created, the document thatcreates the stream shall specify if a voting member representingthat stream shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rulesand processes related to that representative (e.g., whether therepresentative is a member of the body responsible for the streamor an appointed delegate 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:¶
In addition, the RSAB may includeother non-voting members at its discretion; these non-voting members may be ex officio members or liaisons fromgroups or organizations with which the RSAB deems it necessary toformally collaborate or coordinate.¶
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 inSection 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.¶
In the case of vacancies by voting members, the RSAB shall operateas follows:¶
The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members usinga method of its choosing. If the chair position isvacated during the chair's term, the RSAB chooses a new chairfrom among its members.¶
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, 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., 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 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 to support RSAB communication, decision processes, and policies.¶
The IAB is requested to convene the RSAB when it is first formed inorder to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC Editor 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 to theRFC Series are defined and evolved. The general expectation is that allinterested parties will participate in the RSWG and that only underextreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold CONCERNpositions (as described inSection 3.2.2).¶
Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWGparticipants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work togetherin a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to achieve roughconsensus (see[RFC2418]). In particular, RSWG members areencouraged 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 to respectthe value of each stream and the long-term health and viability ofthe 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 an ongoingbasis, so that when the time comes to consider the approval of a proposal, there shouldbe no surprises. Appointing bodies are expected to establish whateverprocesses they deem appropriate to facilitate this goal.¶
The following process shall be used to formulate or modify policiesrelated to the RFC Series:¶
Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will poll its members for their positions on the proposal. Positions may be as follows:¶
Any RSAB member holding a CONCERN position must explain their concernto 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:¶
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 possibleif issues are identified during RSAB review or the community call(s) for comments.¶
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. RSAB membersshould also send a notice to the communities they directly represent(e.g., the IETF and IRTF). Notices are also to be made available andarchived on the RFC Editor website. In addition, other communicationchannels can be established for notices (e.g., via an RSS feed or byposting 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 to reach out to a very wide range of communities that make use of RFCs (as described inSection 3.1.1.2) since such communitiesmight 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 arecontacted during calls for comments.¶
A notice of a community call for comments contains the following:¶
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 a community call for comments. If RSAB members conclude that suchcomments 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 inStep 9 ofSection 3.2.2) lodging a position of CONCERN during RSAB balloting.¶
Appeals of RSWG Chair decisions shall be made to the RSAB. Decisions of theRSWG Chairs can be appealed only on grounds of failure to follow the correctprocess. Appeals should be made within thirty (30) days of any action or, inthe 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 directthe 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 inSection 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.¶
TheIETF anti-harassment policy also applies to the RSWG and RSAB,which strive to create and maintain an environment in which peopleof many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency,and respect. Participants are expected to behave according toprofessional standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplacebehavior. For further information about these policies, see[RFC7154],[RFC7776], and[RFC8716].¶
RFC boilerplates (see[RFC7841]) are part of the RFC Style Guide, as defined inSection 4.2. New or modified boilerplatesconsidered 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:¶
Publication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC).¶
A few general considerations apply:¶
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 theIETF LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, orthe IETF LLC could engage with independent contractors for some orall aspects of such work. The exact relationship is a matter forthe IETF LLC to determine.¶
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 and havenot yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and in the requisitecontracts. The IETF LLC may consult with the community regardingthese targets. The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a manager or toconvene 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 be investigatedby 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[RFC8711].¶
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:¶
The core responsibility of the RPC is the implementation of RFC Series policies through publication of RFCs (including the dimensions of documentquality, timeliness of publication, and accessibility of results), whiletaking into account issues raised by the community through the RSWG andby the stream approving bodies. More specifically, the RPC's responsibilitiesat the time of writing include the following:¶
Publishing RFCs, which includes:¶
During the process of editorial preparation and publication, disagreementscan arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the RPC. Where an existingpolicy clearly applies, typically such disagreements are handled in astraightforward manner through direct consultation between the authors andthe 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 toconsult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB, IESG, IRSG, orstream approving bodies) to help achieve a resolution. The following points areintended to provide more specific guidance.¶
From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF andthe broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC Series.Such inquiries should be directed to therfc‑editor@rfc‑editor.org emailalias 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).¶
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 andunder the final authority of the IETF LLC.¶
The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work)for the RPC and manages the vendor-selection process. The workdefinition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes intoaccount the RPC responsibilities (as described inSection 4.3), the needs of the streams, and community input.¶
The process to select and contract for the RPCand other RFC-related services is as follows:¶
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 must workwithin 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:¶
Matters on which the RSCE might provide guidance could include thefollowing (see alsoSection 4 of [RFC8729]):¶
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method and management of theengagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and the timelyfilling of any vacancy. Therefore, whether the RSCE role is structuredas a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for the IETF LLCto determine.¶
Responsibility for making a recommendation to the IETF LLC regardingthe RSCE role will lie with a selection committee. The IETF LLC shouldpropose an initial slate of members for this committee, making sureto include community members with diverse perspectives, and consult with the streamrepresentatives regarding the final membership of the committee. Inmaking its recommendation for the role of RSCE, the selectioncommittee will take into account the definition of the role as wellas any other information that the committee deems necessary orhelpful in making its decision. The IETF LLC is responsible forcontracting 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 IETF LLC will produce a draft evaluation of the RSCE's performance for review by RSAB members (other than the RSCE), who will provide feedback to the IETF LLC.¶
In the case that the currently appointed RSCE is expected to be unavailable for an extended period, the IETF LLC may appoint a Temporary RSCE through whatever recruitment process it considers appropriate. A Temporary RSCE acts as the RSCE in all aspects during their term of appointment.¶
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 service provider, and vice versa, including services provided to the IETF LLC. All contracts between the two must be disclosed to the IETF LLC.Where those services are related to services provided to the IETF LLC, IETF LLC policies shall apply, including publication of relevant parts of the contract.¶
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 update policies,procedures, guidelines, rules, and related information regarding theRFC Series as a whole; no other use of the Editorial Stream is authorizedby this memo, and no other streams are so authorized. This policy may bechanged 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 of Informational.(Note that the Editorial Stream is not authorized to publish RFCs thatare Standards Track or Best Current Practice, since such RFCs arereserved for the IETF Stream[RFC8729].) Notwithstanding the statusof Informational, it should be understood that documents publishedin the Editorial Stream define policies for the RFC Series as a whole.¶
The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams areoutside the scope of this document.¶
The IAB requests that the IETF Trust and its Trustees assist inmeeting the goals and procedures set forth in this document.¶
The Trustees are requested to publicly confirm their willingness andability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights(IPR) for the Editorial Stream.¶
Specifically, the Trustees are asked to develop the necessaryboilerplate to enable the suitable marking of documents so that theIETF Trust receives the rights as specified in[BCP78]. Theseprocedures need 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 Editorial Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying thereinwith the rules specified in[BCP9]. This includes the disclosure 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 this purpose. The IAB would prefer thatthe most liberal terms possible be made available for Editorial Stream documents. Terms that do not require fees or licensing are preferable.Non-discriminatory terms are strongly preferred over those thatdiscriminate among users. However, although disclosure is requiredand the RSWG and the RSAB may consider disclosures and terms in making a decision as to whether to submit a document for publication, there are no specific requirements on the licensing terms for intellectualproperty related to Editorial Stream publication.¶
This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This Memo"section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes to thisboilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy Definition Processspecified inSection 3 of this document.¶
Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational,the first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall beas specified inAppendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].¶
The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall beas follows:¶
This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition Process.It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working Group approved bythe RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents are not candidates for anylevel of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall beas specified inSection 3.5 of [RFC7841].¶
This section lists some of the properties that have been historically regarded as important to the RFC Series. Proposals that affect these properties are possible within the processes defined in this document. As described in Sections3.2.2 and3.2.3,proposals that might have a detrimental effect on these propertiesshould receive heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB review. The purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes are deliberate and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as they can 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 was intended 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 into languages other than English without asking for permission.¶
The RFC Series has included many types of documents including standards forthe Internet, procedural and informational documents, thought experiments,speculative ideas, research papers, histories, humor, and even eulogies.¶
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) ensuringthat the IETF LLC has no objections regarding its ability to implement any proposed changes.¶
The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCshave changed 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 1 and 2, including a lack of transparency, a lack of avenues for community input into policy definition, and unclear lines of authority and responsibility.¶
To address these problems, in 2020, the IAB formed the RFC Editor Future Development Program to conduct a community discussion and consensus process for the further evolution of the RFC Editor Model. Under the auspices of this Program, the community considered changes that would increase transparency and community input regarding the definition of policies for the RFC Series as a whole, while at the same time ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, maintaining the quality and timely publication of RFCs, ensuring document accessibility, and clarifying lines of authority and responsibility.¶
This document is the result of discussion within the Program anddescribes version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining consistent with[RFC8729].¶
The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in more detail.¶
Several responsibilities previously assigned to the RFC Editoror, more precisely, the RFC Editor function, are now performedby the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination).These include 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 andpublication (Section 2.1.3 of [RFC8728]), development of theRFC 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 ofdocuments (Section 4.2 of [RFC8729]), and development andmaintenance of guidelines and rules that apply to the RFC Series(Section 4.4 of [RFC8729]). Among other things, this changes the dependency onthe RFC Series Editor (RSE) included inSection 2.2 of [RFC8730] with regard to "coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policiesas specified by the IAB and RSE." In addition, various details regarding these responsibilities have been modified to accord with the framework defined in this document.¶
Implied by the changes outlined in the previous section, theresponsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person orrole (contrasted with the overall RFC Editor function) are nowsplit or shared among the RSWG, RSAB, RSCE, RPC, and IETF LLC (aloneor in combination). More specifically, the responsibilities ofthe RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) under version 3 of the RFCEditor Model differ in many ways from the responsibilities of theRFC Series Editor under version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. In general,references in existing documents to the RSE can be taken asreferring to the RFC Editor function as described herein butshould not be taken 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 bodyfor final 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 RFC Editor Model, the IAB delegated someof its authority to the RFC Series Oversight Committee (seeSection 9.5).Under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model, authority for policy definitionresides with the RSWG as an independent venue for work by membersof the community (with approval of policy proposals being theresponsibility of the RSAB, which represents the streams and includesthe RSCE), whereas authority for policy implementation resides withthe IETF LLC.¶
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and responsibilitybetween the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy and somewhat opaque.To overcome some of these issues, this document dispenses with the RSOC.References to the RSOC in documents such as[RFC8730] are obsoletebecause this document disbands the RSOC.¶
Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model[RFC5620] specified the existence ofthe RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer specified inversion 2 of the RFC Editor Model. For the avoidance of doubt, this document affirmsthat the RSAG has been disbanded. (The RSAG is not to be confused with theRFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which this document establishes.)¶
This document creates the Editorial Stream in addition to the streamsalready described in[RFC8729].¶
The same security considerations as those in[RFC8729] apply.The processes for the publication of documents must prevent theintroduction of unapproved changes. Because multiple entities described in this document (most especially the RPC) participate in maintenance of the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place toprevent these published documents from being changed by externalparties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents neededto recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents(such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, originalsthat are not machine-readable) need to be secured againstdata storage failure.¶
The IETF LLC (along with any other contracting or contracted entities) 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 the RPC and IANA.¶
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register anyvalues in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.¶
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document wasapproved for publication were:¶
Jari Arkko¶
Deborah Brungard¶
Lars Eggert¶
Wes Hardaker¶
Cullen Jennings¶
Mallory Knodel¶
Mirja Kühlewind¶
Zhenbin Li¶
Tommy Pauly¶
David Schinazi¶
Russ White¶
Qin Wu¶
Jiankang Yao¶
This document is the product of the IAB's RFC Editor Future DevelopmentProgram. The RFC Editor Future Development Program allowed for openparticipation and used a rough consensus model for decision making.¶
Portions of this document were borrowed from[RFC5620],[RFC6635],[RFC8728],[RFC8729], the Frequently Asked Questions of the IETF Trust, and earlier proposalssubmitted within the IAB's RFC Editor Future Development ProgrambyBrian Carpenter,Michael StJohns, andMartin Thomson. ThankstoEliot Lear andBrian Rosen in their role as chairs of the Programfor their leadership and assistance. Thanks also for feedback andproposed text toJari Arkko,Sarah Banks,Carsten Bormann,Scott Bradner,Nevil Brownlee,Ben Campbell,Jay Daley,Martin Dürst,Wesley Eddy,Lars Eggert,Adrian Farrel,Stephen Farrell,Sandy Ginoza,Bron Gondwana,Joel Halpern,Wes Hardaker,Bob Hinden,Russ Housley,Christian Huitema,Ole Jacobsen,Sheng Jiang,Benjamin Kaduk,John Klensin,Murray Kucherawy,Mirja Kühlewind,Ted Lemon,John Levine,Lucy Lynch,Jean Mahoney,Andrew Malis,Larry Masinter,S. Moonesamy,Russ Mundy,Mark Nottingham,Tommy Pauly,Colin Perkins,Julian Reschke,Eric Rescorla,Alvaro Retana,Adam Roach,Dan Romascanu,Doug Royer,Alice Russo,Rich Salz,John Scudder,Stig Venaas,Tim Wicinski,andNico Williams.¶