RFC Editor Model (Version 1)
RFC 5620

3.4.  RFC Publisher

   The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:

   1.  Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.

   2.  Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata.

   3.  Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.

   4.  Providing backups.

   5.  Providing storage and preservation of records.

   6.  Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.

   All these activities will be done under general supervision of the
   RSE and need some level of coordination with various submission
   streams and the RSE.

   Implementation of the RFC Publisher function can be pursued in two
   different ways.  The choice between these alternatives will be based
   on an RFI issued by the IAOC in January 2009.

   The first alternative is to modify the IETF Secretariat contract to
   include these services.  Expenses to support these services would be
   part of the revised contract.

   The second alternative is a separate vendor selected by the IAOC
   through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the
   RFC Series Editor.  Expenses to support these services would be part
   of the awarded contract.

4.  Committees

4.1.  RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)

4.1.1.  Charter

   The purpose of the RSAG is to provide expert, informed guidance
   (chiefly, to the RSE) in matters affecting the RFC Series operation
   and development.  Such matters include, but are not limited to,
   issues in operation of the RFC model components, and consideration of
   additional RFC streams, to give a sense of the range of topics
   covered.

Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 11]
RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009

   The RSAG is chartered by the IAB.  As such, it operates independently
   of the IAB to fulfill that charter, and provides periodic reports to
   the IAB via the RSE.

   The group provides guidance to the RSE, who in turn addresses
   immediate operational issues or opportunities with the ISE,
   Production Center, or Publisher.  In cases where these issues have
   contractual side-effects, the RSE provides guidance to the IETF
   Administrative Director (IAD).  The RSAG also serves to provide
   advice to the RSE on longer-term, larger-scale developments for the
   RFC Series.  This informs the proposals the RSE takes to the
   community for discussion, and the IAD/IAOC as proposals for
   implementation.

   The RSAG will assist the RSE in identifying and leading community
   discussion of important issues and opportunities facing the RFC
   Series.  The IAB retains its oversight role and is responsible for
   ensuring that adequate community discussion has been held on any such
   significant topics.

4.1.2.  Membership

   The RSAG full members are all at-large members, selected for their
   experience and interest in the RFC Series, to provide consistency and
   constancy of the RFC Series interpretation over time; the members do
   not represent a particular RFC stream or any organizations.  In
   particular, there is no requirement or expectation that RSAG members
   will be IAB members.  The RSAG members are proposed by the Series
   Editor in consultation with the sitting RSAG members, and then
   confirmed and formally appointed by the IAB.  In addition to these
   full members, each RFC stream approver will appoint a liaison to the
   RSAG to provide context specific to their stream.  The liaisons do
   not have to be members of the stream approval bodies.  Initially,
   there will be no IAOC or IAB liaison for their oversight role;
   however, as experience is gained, the IAOC, IAB, or RSAG may request
   such liaisons.

   The RSAG does not select or appoint the RSE, or any other component
   of the RFC Editor model, although it acts as an important resource
   for informing any selection process.

   It is envisioned that the RSAG will be composed of appointed full
   members serving staggered 3 year terms, plus the RSE.  The full
   members will serve at the pleasure of the IAB -- appointed by the
   IAB, and if necessary, removed by the IAB.

Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 12]
RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009

   In order to provide continuity and to assist with a smooth transition
   of the RFC Editor function, the members of the existing RFC Editor
   Editorial Board who are willing to do so are asked to serve as an
   interim RSAG, effective as of the time of approval of this document.
   Within one year from the time the RFC Editor function transitions to
   the new model and after consideration of the operation of the new
   model in practice, the interim RSAG and RSE will formulate
   recommendations to the IAB about this model, regarding the regular
   composition, size, and selection process for the permanent RSAG in
   particular.

4.1.3.  Disagreements among RFC Editor Entities

   If during the execution of their activities, a disagreement arises
   over an implementation decision made by one of the entities in the
   model, any relevant party should first request a review and
   reconsideration of the decision.  If that party still disagrees after
   the reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or,
   especially if the RSE is involved, that party may ask the IAB Chair
   (for a technical or procedural matter) or IAD (for an administrative
   or contractual one) to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in the
   discussions, although neither is obligated to do so.  All parties
   should work informally and in good faith to reach a mutually
   agreeable conclusion.

   If such a conclusion is not possible through those informal
   processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC Series
   Advisory Group.  The RSAG may choose to offer advice to the RSE or
   more general advice to the parties involved and may ask the RSE to
   defer a decision until it formulates its advice.  However, if a
   timely decision cannot be reached through discussion, mediation, and
   mutual agreement, the Series Editor is expected to make whatever
   decisions are needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC
   Editor function; those decisions are final.

   RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the
   process and evaluation of whether current policies are appropriately
   implemented in the decision or need adjustment.  In particular, it
   should be noted that final decisions about the technical content of
   individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream
   approvers for those documents, as shown in the illustration in
   Figure 1.

   If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual
   consequences, the Series Editor must identify the issue to the IAOC
   and, if the RSAG has provided advice, forward that advice as well.

Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 13]
RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009

   After the IAOC has notified the IAB, the IAD as guided by the IAOC,
   with advice provided by the Series Editor, has the responsibility to
   resolve these contractual issues.

   If informal agreements cannot be reached and formal RSAG review
   and/or RSE or stream approver decisions are required, the RSE must
   identify the issues involved to the community and report them to the
   IAB in its oversight capacity.  The RSE and IAB shall mutually
   develop a satisfactory mechanism for this type of reporting when and
   if it is necessary.

   IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected
   to inform future changes to Series policies including possible
   updates to this document.

4.2.  Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board

   Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board for the
   review of Independent Submission stream documents.  This board is
   expected to evolve in what we will call the Independent Submission
   Stream Editorial Board.  This volunteer Editorial Board will exist at
   the pleasure of the ISE, and the members serve at the pleasure of the
   ISE.  The existence of this board is simply noted within this model,
   and additional discussion of such is considered out of scope of this
   document.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor
   structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of
   registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center.  The IAOC
   will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC
   Production Center and IANA.

   This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any
   values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.

6.  Security Considerations

   The same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply.  The
   processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
   introduction of unapproved changes.  Since the RFC Editor maintains
   the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to
   prevent these published documents from being changed by external
   parties.  The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed
   to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents

Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 14]
RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009

   (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, non-
   machine-readable originals) need to be secured against failure of the
   storage medium and other similar disasters.

   The IAOC should take these security considerations into account
   during the implementation of this RFC Editor model.

7.  Acknowledgments

   The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on
   mail lists.  The first iteration of the text on which this document
   is based was drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ray
   Pelletier.  In addition to the members of the IAOC and IAB in
   conjunction with those roles, major and minor contributions were made
   by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy
   Ginoza, Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman,
   John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim Schaad.

   The IAOC members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were
   (in alphabetical order): Fred Baker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Ole
   Jacobsen, Ed Juskevicius, Olaf Kolkman, Ray Pelletier (non-voting),
   Lynn St. Amour, and Jonne Soininen.  In addition, Marshall Eubanks
   was serving as the IAOC Scribe.

   The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved
   were (in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo,
   Stuart Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry
   Leiba, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran,
   Dave Thaler, and Lixia Zhang.  In addition, the IAB included two ex-
   officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive
   Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.

   The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in
   alphabetical order): Marcelo Bagnulo, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart
   Cheshire, Vijay Gill, Russ Housley, John Klensin, Olaf Kolkman,
   Gregory Lebovitz, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Jon
   Peterson, and Dave Thaler.

Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 15]
RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC Series and
        RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.

8.2.  Informative References

   [2]  Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, "The IETF Administrative Oversight
        Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process",
        BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005.

Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 16]
RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009

Appendix A.  2009 Selection Process

   In 2009, the IAB is responsible for the selection of the RFC Series
   Editor and for the selection of the Independent Submission Editor.
   The IAOC selects the RFC Production Center and the RFC Publisher from
   vendors that choose to submit a proposal.  The IAOC procurement
   process is not described in this document.

   The selection process for the ISE and RSE is taken from [2] but
   modified to allow for subject-matter experts to advise the IAB, to
   take into account that the community with interest in the RFC series
   extends beyond the IETF community.

A.1.  Ad Hoc Advisory Committee(s)

   It is expected that the IAB and IAOC will, during the various stages
   of the bidding process, establish one or more ad hoc advisory
   committees to assist them in the selection of the various functions.
   The names of the members of the committees, who do not need to be IAB
   members or IETF participants, will be made public through the IAB and
   IAOC minutes and possibly other mechanisms as well.

   Members of these committees are expected to have an understanding of
   the RFC series and related processes, and of procedures and interests
   of the various streams.

   Members of the subcommittees will be privy to confidential material
   and are expected to honor confidentiality.  Because they are subject
   to confidential material, they are recused from bidding on any of the
   functions for which financial compensation is offered.

   The IAB and IAOC bear the responsibility for the selections of the
   candidates for defined functions.  The committees provide advice and
   recommendations but are not expected to act as nomination or
   selection committees.

A.2.  The IAB Selection Process of an RFC Series Editor and/or an
      Independent Submission Editor

A.2.1.  Nominations and Eligibility

   The IAB will be making a broad public call for nominations.  The
   public call will specify the manner by which nominations will be
   accepted and the means by which the list of nominees will be
   published.  Self-nominations are permitted.  Along with the name and
   contact information for each candidate, details about the candidate's
   background and qualifications for the position should be attached to
   the nomination.

Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 17]
RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009

   People that served on the ad-hoc advisory committee(s) mentioned
   above are not eligible.  There are no further limitations.
   Specifically, nominees do not have to be actively contributing to the
   IETF and active participation as a working group chair, an IETF
   Nominating Committee member, or an IAB or IESG member is not a
   limitation.

   IAB members who accept a nomination for an IAB-selected position will
   recuse themselves from IAB selection discussions.

A.2.2.  Committees in 2009

   During the 2009 selection process, a committee assisted the IAOC/IAB
   in creating the job descriptions and statements of work.  This
   committee may also assist in assessing the bids made to the IAOC for
   the Production Center and the RFC Publisher.  Another committee, the
   Ad Hoc Committee for Selection of Editorial Functions, assists the
   IAB in the assessment of the RFC Series Editor and the Independent
   Submission Editor candidates.

A.2.3.  Selection

   The IAB will publish the list of nominated persons prior to making a
   decision, allowing time for the community to pass any relevant
   comments to the IAB.  When established, the advisory committee will
   be asked to provide a motivated shortlist.  The IAB will review the
   nomination material, any submitted comments, the shortlist from the
   advisory committee, and make its selection.

   It is noted that the community mentioned above is the community with
   an interest in RFCs and the RFC Editor's functioning; the IETF
   community is only a part of that community.

   The main intent is to select the superior candidate, taking the
   continuity of the series into account.

A.2.4.  Care of Personal Information

   The following procedures will be used by the IAB in managing
   candidates' personal information:

   o  The candidate's name will be published, with all other candidate
      names, at the close of the nominations period.

   o  Except as noted above, all information provided to the IAB during
      this process will be kept as confidential to the IAB and, when
      established, the advisory committee.

Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 18]
RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009

A.2.5.  Term of Office and Selection Time Frame

   Subject to further negotiations and in the interest of providing
   stability, terms of office are expected to be five years with no
   restrictions on renewals and with provision for shorter actual
   contracts and intermediate reviews.  In addition, an effort should be
   made so that terms of office for the RSE, ISE, and RFC Production
   Center do not terminate concurrently.

   The selection timeframe for 2009 is roughly:

      June - IAB calls for nominations for ISE and RSE positions;

      July - A Committee conducts interviews;

      Mid-August - Committee recommends individuals to IAB for ISE and
      RSE positions;

      Second half of September - IAB appoints ISE and RSE, subject to
      successful negotiations of agreement with IAOC;

      Mid-October - Memorandums of understanding (MOUs) executed with
      IAD, ISE for expenses, RSE for stipend and expenses;

      Mid-October - Transition begins;

      January 2010 - Contract begins.

   The timeline for future selections is subject to recommendation from
   the RSAG and review by the IAB.

Authors' Addresses

   Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)

   EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl

   Internet Architecture Board

   EMail: iab@iab.org

Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 19]