Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                    P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9280                                     June 2022
Obsoletes: 8728
Updates: 7841, 8729, 8730
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721


                     RFC Editor Model (Version 3)

Abstract

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

  This document obsoletes RFC 8728.  This document updates RFCs 7841,
  8729, and 8730.

Status of This Memo

  This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
  published for informational purposes.

  This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
  and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
  provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of the
  Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for
  publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet
  Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

  Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
  and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9280.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
  document authors.  All rights reserved.

  This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
  Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
  (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.

Table of Contents

  1.  Introduction
  2.  Overview of the Model
  3.  Policy Definition
    3.1.  Structure and Roles
      3.1.1.  RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
      3.1.2.  RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
    3.2.  Process
      3.2.1.  Intent
      3.2.2.  Workflow
      3.2.3.  Community Calls for Comment
      3.2.4.  Appeals
      3.2.5.  Anti-Harassment Policy
      3.2.6.  RFC Boilerplates
  4.  Policy Implementation
    4.1.  Roles and Processes
    4.2.  Working Practices
    4.3.  RPC Responsibilities
    4.4.  Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC
    4.5.  Point of Contact
    4.6.  Administrative Implementation
      4.6.1.  Vendor Selection for the RPC
      4.6.2.  Budget
  5.  RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)
    5.1.  RSCE Selection
    5.2.  RSCE Performance Evaluation
    5.3.  Temporary RSCE Appointment
    5.4.  Conflict of Interest
  6.  Editorial Stream
    6.1.  Procedures Request of the IETF Trust
    6.2.  Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream
    6.3.  Editorial Stream Boilerplate
  7.  Historical Properties of the RFC Series
    7.1.  Availability
    7.2.  Accessibility
    7.3.  Language
    7.4.  Diversity
    7.5.  Quality
    7.6.  Stability
    7.7.  Longevity
  8.  Updates to This Document
  9.  Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model
    9.1.  RFC Editor Function
    9.2.  RFC Series Editor
    9.3.  RFC Publisher
    9.4.  IAB
    9.5.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
    9.6.  RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
    9.7.  Editorial Stream
  10. Security Considerations
  11. IANA Considerations
  12. References
    12.1.  Normative References
    12.2.  Informative References
  IAB Members at the Time of Approval
  Acknowledgments
  Author's Address

1.  Introduction

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

  The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function
  is described in [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 Series Working Group (RSWG), RFC
  Series Advisory Board (RSAB), RFC Production Center (RPC), RFC Series
  Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF Administration Limited Liability
  Company (IETF LLC) [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 role with the RSWG, RSAB, and
  RSCE.  This document updates [RFC8730] by removing the dependency on
  certain policies specified by the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE).
  More detailed information about changes from version 2 of the RFC
  Editor Model can be found in Section 9.

2.  Overview of the Model

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

  1.  Policy definition governing the RFC Series as a whole.  This is
      the joint responsibility of two entities.  First, the RFC Series
      Working Group (RSWG) is an open working group independent of the
      IETF that generates policy proposals.  Second, the RFC Series
      Approval Board (RSAB) is an appointed body that approves such
      proposals for publication in the Editorial Stream.  The RSAB
      includes representatives of the streams [RFC8729] as well as an
      expert in technical publishing, the RFC Series Consulting Editor
      (RSCE).

  2.  Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the
      streams that form the RFC Series.  This is primarily the
      responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as
      contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited
      Liability Company (IETF LLC) [RFC8711].

  As described more fully in the remainder of this document, the core
  activities and responsibilities are as follows:

  *  The RSWG proposes policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole,
     with input from the community, the RSAB, and the RSCE.

  *  The RSAB considers those proposals and either approves them or
     returns them to the RSWG, which may make further changes or remove
     them from further consideration.

  *  If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the Editorial
     Stream and thus define the policies to be followed by the RSWG,
     RSAB, RSCE, and RPC.

  *  The RSCE provides expert advice to the RPC and RSAB on how to
     implement established policies on an ongoing and operational
     basis, which can include raising issues or initiating proposed
     policy changes within the RSWG.

  *  The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in
     its day-to-day editing and publication of RFCs from all of the
     streams.

  *  If issues arise with the implementation of particular policies,
     the RPC brings those issues to the RSAB, which interprets the
     policies and provides interim guidance to the RPC, informing the
     RSWG of those interpretations.

  This model is designed to ensure public processes and policy
  documents, clear lines of responsibility and authority, transparent
  mechanisms for updates and changes to policies governing the RFC
  Series as a whole, and effective operational implementation of the
  RFC Series, thus meeting the requirements specified in Section 4 of
  [RFC8729].

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

3.  Policy Definition

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

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

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

  3.  Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board
      (RSAB).

  Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but
  are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication and
  dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series.

3.1.  Structure and Roles

3.1.1.  RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)

3.1.1.1.  Purpose

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

3.1.1.2.  Participation

  All interested individuals are welcome to participate in the RSWG;
  participants are subject to anti-harassment policies as described in
  Section 3.2.5.  This includes but is not limited to participants in
  the IETF and IRTF, members of the IAB and IESG, developers of
  software or hardware systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and
  Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and
  Internet-Drafts, individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions,
  scholarly researchers, and representatives of standards development
  organizations other than the IETF and IRTF.  The IETF LLC Board
  members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFC
  Production Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited to
  participate as community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted
  by any relevant IETF LLC policies.  Members of the RSAB are also
  expected to participate actively.

3.1.1.3.  Chairs

  The RSWG shall have two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the
  other appointed by the IAB.  When the RSWG is formed, the chair
  appointed by the IESG shall serve for a term of one (1) year and the
  chair appointed by the IAB shall serve for a term of two (2) years;
  thereafter, chairs shall serve for a term of two (2) years, with no
  term limits on renewal.  The IESG and IAB shall determine their own
  processes for making these appointments, making sure to take account
  of any potential conflicts of interest.  Community members who have
  concerns about the performance of an RSWG Chair should direct their
  feedback to the appropriate appointing body via mechanisms such
  bodies shall specify at the time that the RSWG is formed.  The IESG
  and IAB shall have the power to remove their appointed chairs at
  their discretion at any time and to name a replacement who shall
  serve the remainder of the original chair's term.

  It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus
  within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision
  making, for instance, regarding acceptance of new proposals and
  advancement of proposals to the RSAB.

3.1.1.4.  Mode of Operation

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

  When the RSWG is formed, all discussions shall take place on an open
  email discussion list, which shall be publicly archived.

  The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person, online-only, or hybrid
  meetings, which should be announced with sufficient notice to enable
  broad participation; the IESG Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual
  Interim Meetings (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/
  interim-meetings-guidance-2016-01-16/) provides a reasonable
  baseline.  In-person meetings should include provision for effective
  online participation for those unable to attend in person.

  The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation
  informally described in [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 operation of
  the RSWG, the general guidance provided in Section 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 in
  order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC
  Editor Model.

3.1.2.  RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)

3.1.2.1.  Purpose

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

3.1.2.2.  Members

  The RSAB consists primarily of the following voting members:

  *  A stream representative for the IETF Stream: either an IESG member
     or someone appointed by the IESG

  *  A stream representative for the IAB Stream: either an IAB member
     or someone appointed by the IAB

  *  A stream representative for the IRTF Stream: either the IRTF Chair
     or someone appointed by the IRTF Chair

  *  A stream representative for the Independent Stream: either the
     Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) [RFC8730] or someone
     appointed by the ISE

  *  The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)

  If and when a new stream is created, the document that creates the
  stream shall specify if a voting member representing that stream
  shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules and processes
  related to that representative (e.g., whether the representative is a
  member of the body responsible for the stream or an appointed
  delegate thereof).

  The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a voting member of the
  RSAB but does not act as a representative of the Editorial Stream.

  To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
  include the following non-voting, ex officio members:

  *  The IETF Executive Director or their delegate (the rationale is
     that the IETF LLC is accountable for implementation of policies
     governing the RFC Series)

  *  A representative of the RPC, named by the RPC (the rationale is
     that the RPC is responsible for implementation of policies
     governing the RFC Series)

  In addition, the RSAB may include other non-voting members at its
  discretion; these non-voting members may be ex officio members or
  liaisons from groups or organizations with which the RSAB deems it
  necessary to formally collaborate or coordinate.

3.1.2.3.  Appointment and Removal of Voting Members

  The appointing bodies (i.e., IESG, IAB, IRTF Chair, and ISE) shall
  determine their own processes for appointing RSAB members (note that
  processes related to the RSCE are described in Section 5).  Each
  appointing body shall have the power to remove its appointed RSAB
  member at its discretion at any time.  Appointing bodies should
  ensure that voting members are seated at all times and should fill
  any vacancies with all due speed, if necessary on a temporary basis.

  In the case that the IRTF Chair or ISE is incapacitated or otherwise
  unable to appoint another person to serve as a delegate, the IAB (as
  the appointing body for the IRTF Chair and ISE) shall act as the
  temporary appointing body for those streams and shall appoint a
  temporary member of the RSAB until the IAB has appointed an IRTF
  Chair or ISE, who can then act as an RSAB member or appoint a
  delegate through normal processes.

3.1.2.4.  Vacancies

  In the case of vacancies by voting members, the RSAB shall operate as
  follows:

  *  Activities related to implementation of policies already in force
     shall continue as normal.

  *  Voting on approval of policy documents produced by the RSWG shall
     be delayed until the vacancy or vacancies have been filled, up to
     a maximum of three (3) months.  If a further vacancy arises during
     this three-month period, the delay should be extended by up to
     another three months.  After the delay period expires, the RSAB
     should continue to process documents as described below.  Note
     that this method of handling vacancies does not apply to a vacancy
     of the RSCE role; it only applies to vacancies of the stream
     representatives enumerated in Section 3.1.2.2.

3.1.2.5.  Chair

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

3.1.2.6.  Mode of Operation

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

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

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

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

  The IAB is requested to convene the RSAB when it is first formed in
  order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC
  Editor Model.

3.2.  Process

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

3.2.1.  Intent

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

  Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWG
  participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work
  together in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to
  achieve rough consensus (see [RFC2418]).  In particular, RSWG members
  are encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously, and RSAB members are
  encouraged to clearly express their concerns early in the process and
  to be responsive to the community.  All parties are encouraged to
  respect the value of each stream and the long-term health and
  viability of the RFC Series.

  This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation.  RSAB
  members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,
  authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an
  ongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider the approval
  of a proposal, there should be no surprises.  Appointing bodies are
  expected to establish whatever processes they deem appropriate to
  facilitate this goal.

3.2.2.  Workflow

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

  1.   An individual or set of individuals generates a proposal in the
       form of an Internet-Draft (which must be submitted in full
       conformance with the provisions of [BCP78] and [BCP79]) and asks
       the RSWG to adopt the proposal as a working group item.

  2.   The RSWG may adopt the proposal as a working group item if the
       chairs determine (by following working group procedures for
       rough consensus) that there is sufficient interest in the
       proposal; this is similar to the way a working group of the IETF
       would operate (see [RFC2418]).

  3.   The RSWG shall then further discuss and develop the proposal.
       All participants, but especially RSAB members, should pay
       special attention to any aspects of the proposal that have the
       potential to significantly modify long-standing policies or
       historical characteristics of the RFC Series as described in
       Section 7.  Members of the RSAB are expected to participate as
       individuals in all discussions relating to RSWG proposals.  This
       should help to ensure that they are fully aware of proposals
       early in the RFC Series Policy Definition Process.  It should
       also help to ensure that RSAB members will raise any issues or
       concerns during the development of the proposal and not wait
       until the RSAB review period.  The RSWG Chairs are also expected
       to participate as individuals.

  4.   At some point, if the RSWG Chairs believe there may be rough
       consensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a Last
       Call for comments within the working group.

  5.   After a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG Chairs will
       determine whether rough consensus for the proposal exists
       (taking their own feedback as individuals into account along
       with feedback from other participants).  If comments have been
       received and substantial changes have been made, additional Last
       Calls may be necessary.  Once the chairs determine that
       consensus has been reached, they shall announce their
       determination on the RSWG email discussion list and forward the
       document to the RSAB.

  6.   Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue
       a community call for comments as further described in
       Section 3.2.3.  If substantial comments are received in response
       to the community call for comments, the RSAB may return the
       proposal to the RSWG to consider those comments and make
       revisions to address the feedback received.  In parallel with
       the community call for comments, the RSAB itself shall also
       consider the proposal.

  7.   If the scope of the revisions made in the previous step is
       substantial, an additional community call for comments should be
       issued by the RSAB, and the feedback received should be
       considered by the RSWG.

  8.   Once the RSWG Chairs confirm that concerns received during the
       community call(s) for comments have been addressed, they shall
       inform the RSAB that the document is ready for balloting by the
       RSAB.

  9.   Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will poll its
       members for their positions on the proposal.  Positions may be
       as follows:

       *  YES: the proposal should be approved

       *  CONCERN: the proposal raises substantial concerns that must
          be addressed

       *  RECUSE: the person holding the position has a conflict of
          interest

       Any RSAB member holding a CONCERN position must explain their
       concern to the community in detail.  Nevertheless, the RSWG
       might not be able to come to consensus on modifications that
       will address the RSAB member's concern.

       There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a position
       of CONCERN:

       *  The RSAB member believes that the proposal represents a
          serious problem for one or more of the individual streams.

       *  The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause
          serious harm to the overall RFC Series, including harm to the
          long-term health and viability of the Series.

       *  The RSAB member believes, based on the results of the
          community call(s) for comments (Section 3.2.3), that rough
          consensus to advance the proposal is lacking.

       Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the
       discussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues
       during those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come
       as a surprise to the RSWG.  Notwithstanding, late CONCERN
       positions are always possible if issues are identified during
       RSAB review or the community call(s) for comments.

  10.  If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
       Again, all RSAB members are expected to participate.  If
       substantial changes are made in order to address CONCERN
       positions, an additional community call for comments might be
       needed.

  11.  A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.

  12.  If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions
       remain, a vote of the RSAB is taken.  If at least three voting
       members vote YES, the proposal is approved.

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

  14.  If the proposal is approved, a notification is sent to the
       community, and the document enters the queue for publication as
       an RFC within the Editorial Stream.

  15.  Policies may take effect immediately upon approval by the RSAB
       and before publication of the relevant RFC, unless they are
       delayed while the IETF LLC resolves pending resource or contract
       issues.

3.2.3.  Community Calls for Comment

  The RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community calls
  for comments on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG.
  The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input.  The RSAB seeks
  such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the
  [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
  email discussion list or to its successor or future equivalent.  RSAB
  members should also send a notice to the communities they directly
  represent (e.g., the IETF and IRTF).  Notices are also to be made
  available and archived on the RFC Editor website.  In addition, other
  communication channels can be established for notices (e.g., via an
  RSS feed or by posting to social media venues).

  In cases where a proposal has the potential to significantly modify
  long-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFC
  Series as described in Section 7, the RSAB should take extra care to
  reach out to a very wide range of communities that make use of RFCs
  (as described in Section 3.1.1.2) since such communities might not be
  actively engaged in the RSWG directly.  The RSAB should work with the
  stream approving bodies and the IETF LLC to identify and establish
  contacts in such communities, assisted by the RSCE in particular.

  The RSAB should maintain a public list of communities that are
  contacted during calls for comments.

  A notice of a community call for comments contains the following:

  *  A subject line beginning with 'Call for Comments:'

  *  A clear, concise summary of the proposal

  *  A URL pointing to the Internet-Draft that defines the proposal

  *  Any explanations or questions for the community that the RSAB
     deems necessary (using their usual decision-making procedures)

  *  Clear instructions on how to provide public comments

  *  A deadline for comments

  A comment period will last not less than two weeks and should be
  longer if wide outreach is required.  Comments will be publicly
  archived on the RFC Editor website.

  The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during a
  community call for comments.  If RSAB members conclude that such
  comments raise important issues that need to be addressed, they
  should do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if the
  issues meet the criteria specified in Step 9 of Section 3.2.2)
  lodging a position of CONCERN during RSAB balloting.

3.2.4.  Appeals

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

  Decisions of the RSAB can be appealed on grounds of failure to follow
  the correct process.  In addition, if the RSAB makes a decision in
  order to resolve a disagreement between authors and the RPC (as
  described in Section 4.4), appeals can be filed on the basis that the
  RSAB misinterpreted an approved policy.  Aside from these two cases,
  disagreements about the conduct of the RSAB are not subject to
  appeal.  Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB and
  should be made within thirty (30) days of public notice of the
  relevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are posted).  The IAB
  shall decide whether a process failure occurred and what (if any)
  corrective action should take place.

3.2.5.  Anti-Harassment Policy

  The IETF anti-harassment policy
  (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-harassment-
  policy/) also applies to the RSWG and RSAB, which strive to create
  and maintain an environment in which people of many different
  backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect.
  Participants are expected to behave according to professional
  standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior.  For
  further information about these policies, see [RFC7154], [RFC7776],
  and [RFC8716].

3.2.6.  RFC Boilerplates

  RFC boilerplates (see [RFC7841]) are part of the RFC Style Guide, as
  defined in Section 4.2.  New or modified boilerplates considered
  under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model must be approved by the
  following parties, each of which has a separate area of
  responsibility with respect to boilerplates:

  *  The applicable stream, which approves that the boilerplate meets
     its needs

  *  The RSAB, which approves that the boilerplate is not in conflict
     with the boilerplate used in the other streams

  *  The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate is
     consistent with the RFC Style Guide

  *  The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly
     states the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership

4.  Policy Implementation

4.1.  Roles and Processes

  Publication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC).

  A few general considerations apply:

  *  The general roles and responsibilities of the RPC are defined by
     RFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by the
     RSWG, RSAB, or RSCE), by existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and
     have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and by the
     requisite contracts.

  *  The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and it has a duty to
     consult with them under specific circumstances, such as those
     relating to disagreements between authors and the RPC as described
     in Section 4.4.

  *  The RPC is overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that it performs in
     accordance with contracts in place.

  All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance
  targets are between the RPC and IETF LLC.

  The RPC shall regularly provide reports to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG,
  and broader community regarding its activities and any key risks or
  issues affecting it.

  In the event that the RPC is required to make a decision without
  consultation that would normally deserve consultation, or makes a
  decision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify the
  RSAB.

  This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
  IETF LLC and the RPC; for example, the work of the RPC could be
  performed by a separate corporate entity under contract to the IETF
  LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or the IETF
  LLC could engage with independent contractors for some or all aspects
  of such work.  The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC to
  determine.

  The IETF LLC is responsible for the method and management of the
  engagement of the RPC.  Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority over
  negotiating performance targets for the RPC and also has
  responsibility for ensuring that those targets are met.  Such
  performance targets are set based on the RPC's publication load and
  additional efforts required to implement policies specified in
  Editorial Stream RFCs, in existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and
  have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and in the
  requisite contracts.  The IETF LLC may consult with the community
  regarding these targets.  The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a
  manager or to convene a committee to complete these activities.

  If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the
  performance of the RPC, they can request that the matter be
  investigated by the IETF LLC Board, the IETF Executive Director, or a
  point of contact designated by the IETF LLC Board.  Even if the IETF
  LLC opts to delegate this activity, concerns should be raised with
  the IETF LLC.  The IETF LLC is ultimately answerable to the community
  via the mechanisms outlined in [RFC8711].

4.2.  Working Practices

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

  *  Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards for
     RFCs; specifically, the RFC Style Guide consists of [RFC7322] and
     the other documents and resources listed at [STYLEGUIDE].

  *  Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as input
     to the editing and publication process.

  *  Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published
     documents.  In the context of the XML vocabulary [RFC7991], such
     guidelines could include clarifications regarding the preferred
     XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic content
     of RFCs.

4.3.  RPC Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

  4.   Establishing the publication readiness of each document through
       communication with the authors, IANA, or stream-specific
       contacts, supplemented if needed by the RSAB and RSCE.

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

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

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

  8.   Participating within the RSWG in the creation of new Editorial
       Stream RFCs that impact the RPC, specifically with respect to
       any challenges the RPC might foresee with regard to
       implementation of proposed policies.

  9.   Identifying topics and issues while processing documents or
       carrying out other responsibilities on this list for which they
       lack sufficient expertise, and identifying and conferring with
       relevant experts as needed.

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

  11.  Consulting with the community on its plans.

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

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

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

  15.  Assigning RFC numbers.

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

  17.  Publishing RFCs, which includes:

       *  posting copies to the RFC Editor site both individually and
          in collections

       *  depositing copies with external archives

       *  creating catalogs and catalog entries

       *  announcing the publication to interested parties

  18.  Providing online access to RFCs.

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

  20.  Maintaining the RFC Editor website.

  21.  Providing for the backup of RFCs.

  22.  Ensuring the storage and preservation of records.

  23.  Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.

4.4.  Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC

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

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

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

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

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

4.5.  Point of Contact

  From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF
  and the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC
  Series.  Such inquiries should be directed to the
  [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) email
  alias or to its successor or future equivalent and then handled by
  the appropriate bodies (e.g., RSAB and RPC) or individuals (e.g.,
  RSWG Chairs and RSCE).

4.6.  Administrative Implementation

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

4.6.1.  Vendor Selection for the RPC

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

  The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) for
  the RPC and manages the vendor-selection process.  The work
  definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into
  account the RPC responsibilities (as described in Section 4.3), the
  needs of the streams, and community input.

  The process to select and contract for the RPC and other RFC-related
  services is as follows:

  *  The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps
     necessary to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) when necessary,
     the timing, and the contracting procedures.

  *  The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will consist
     of the IETF Executive Director and other members selected by the
     IETF LLC in consultation with the stream approving bodies.  The
     committee shall select a chair from among its members.

  *  The selection committee selects the vendor, subject to the
     successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC.  In
     the event that a contract cannot be signed, the matter shall be
     referred to the selection committee for further action.

4.6.2.  Budget

  Most expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses.  They
  have been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.

  The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding
  to support the RSCE, the RFC Production Center, and the Independent
  Stream.

  The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor
  budget (and the authority to deny it).  All relevant parties must
  work within the IETF LLC budgetary process.

5.  RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)

  The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a senior technical
  publishing professional who will apply their deep knowledge of
  technical publishing processes to the RFC Series.

  The primary responsibilities of the RSCE are as follows:

  *  Serve as a voting member on the RSAB

  *  Identify problems with the RFC publication process and
     opportunities for improvement

  *  Provide expert advice within the RSWG regarding policy proposals

  *  Provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC

  Matters on which the RSCE might provide guidance could include the
  following (see also Section 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 the
  engagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and the
  timely filling of any vacancy.  Therefore, whether the RSCE role is
  structured as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for
  the IETF LLC to determine.

5.1.  RSCE Selection

  Responsibility for making a recommendation to the IETF LLC regarding
  the RSCE role will lie with a selection committee.  The IETF LLC
  should propose an initial slate of members for this committee, making
  sure to include community members with diverse perspectives, and
  consult with the stream representatives regarding the final
  membership of the committee.  In making its recommendation for the
  role of RSCE, the selection committee will take into account the
  definition of the role as well as any other information that the
  committee deems necessary or helpful in making its decision.  The
  IETF LLC is responsible for contracting or employment of the RSCE.

5.2.  RSCE Performance Evaluation

  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.

5.3.  Temporary RSCE Appointment

  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.

5.4.  Conflict of Interest

  The RSCE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of
  interest or judgment in performing their role.  To ensure this, the
  RSCE will be subject to a conflict-of-interest policy established by
  the IETF LLC.

  The RPC service provider may contract services from the RSCE service
  provider, and vice versa, including services provided to the IETF
  LLC.  All contracts between the two must be disclosed to the IETF
  LLC.  Where those services are related to services provided to the
  IETF LLC, IETF LLC policies shall apply, including publication of
  relevant parts of the contract.

6.  Editorial Stream

  This document creates the Editorial Stream as a separate space for
  publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related
  information regarding the RFC Series as a whole.

  The Editorial Stream shall be used only to specify and update
  policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related information
  regarding the RFC Series as a whole; no other use of the Editorial
  Stream is authorized by this memo, and no other streams are so
  authorized.  This policy may be changed only by agreement of the IAB,
  IESG, and IETF LLC.

  All documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB shall be
  published as RFCs in the Editorial Stream with a status of
  Informational.  (Note that the Editorial Stream is not authorized to
  publish RFCs that are Standards Track or Best Current Practice, since
  such RFCs are reserved for the IETF Stream [RFC8729].)
  Notwithstanding the status of Informational, it should be understood
  that documents published in the Editorial Stream define policies for
  the RFC Series as a whole.

  The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams
  are outside the scope of this document.

6.1.  Procedures Request of the IETF Trust

  The IAB requests that the IETF Trust and its Trustees assist in
  meeting the goals and procedures set forth in this document.

  The Trustees are requested to publicly confirm their willingness and
  ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights
  (IPR) for the Editorial Stream.

  Specifically, the Trustees are asked to develop the necessary
  boilerplate to enable the suitable marking of documents so that the
  IETF Trust receives the rights as specified in [BCP78].  These
  procedures need to also allow authors to indicate either no rights to
  make derivative works or, preferentially, the right to make unlimited
  derivative works from the documents.  It is left to the Trust to
  specify exactly how this shall be clearly indicated in each document.

6.2.  Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream

  As specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial
  Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying
  therein with the rules specified in [BCP9].  This includes the
  disclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can be
  reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor.

  Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as
  specified in [BCP79].  The Editorial Stream has chosen to use the
  IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism (https://www.ietf.org/ipr/) for this
  purpose.  The IAB would prefer that the most liberal terms possible
  be made available for Editorial Stream documents.  Terms that do not
  require fees or licensing are preferable.  Non-discriminatory terms
  are strongly preferred over those that discriminate among users.
  However, although disclosure is required and the RSWG and the RSAB
  may consider disclosures and terms in making a decision as to whether
  to submit a document for publication, there are no specific
  requirements on the licensing terms for intellectual property related
  to Editorial Stream publication.

6.3.  Editorial Stream Boilerplate

  This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This
  Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream.  Any changes
  to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy
  Definition Process specified in Section 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 be as
  specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].

  The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
  follows:

     This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
     Process.  It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working
     Group approved by the RFC Series Approval Board.  Such documents
     are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see
     Section 2 of RFC 7841.

  The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
  specified in Section 3.5 of [RFC7841].

7.  Historical Properties of the RFC Series

  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 Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, proposals that
  might have a detrimental effect on these properties should receive
  heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB review.  The
  purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes are deliberate
  and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as they can be
  identified, have been carefully considered.

7.1.  Availability

  Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades,
  with no restrictions on access or distribution.

7.2.  Accessibility

  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.

7.3.  Language

  All existing RFC Series documents have been published in English.
  However, since the beginning of the RFC Series, documents have been
  published under terms that explicitly allow translation into
  languages other than English without asking for permission.

7.4.  Diversity

  The RFC Series has included many types of documents including
  standards for the Internet, procedural and informational documents,
  thought experiments, speculative ideas, research papers, histories,
  humor, and even eulogies.

7.5.  Quality

  RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality
  and edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documents
  are clear, consistent, and readable [RFC7322].

7.6.  Stability

  Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.

7.7.  Longevity

  RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be
  comprehensible to humans for decades or longer.

8.  Updates to This Document

  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.

9.  Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model

  The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs have
  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 then
  modified 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 and
  describes version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining
  consistent with [RFC8729].

  The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in more
  detail.

9.1.  RFC Editor Function

  Several responsibilities previously assigned to the RFC Editor or,
  more precisely, the RFC Editor function, are now performed by the
  RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination).  These
  include various aspects of strategic leadership (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 to
  the RFC Series (Section 4.4 of [RFC8729]).  Among other things, this
  changes the dependency on the RFC Series Editor (RSE) included in
  Section 2.2 of [RFC8730] with regard to "coordinating work and
  conforming to general RFC Series policies as specified by the IAB and
  RSE."  In addition, various details regarding these responsibilities
  have been modified to accord with the framework defined in this
  document.

9.2.  RFC Series Editor

  Implied by the changes outlined in the previous section, the
  responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or role
  (contrasted with the overall RFC Editor function) are now split or
  shared among the RSWG, RSAB, RSCE, RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or in
  combination).  More specifically, the responsibilities of the RFC
  Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) under version 3 of the RFC Editor
  Model differ in many ways from the responsibilities of the RFC Series
  Editor under version 2 of the RFC Editor Model.  In general,
  references in existing documents to the RSE can be taken as referring
  to the RFC Editor function as described herein but should not be
  taken as referring to the RSCE.

9.3.  RFC Publisher

  In practice, the RFC Production Center (RPC) and RFC Publisher roles
  have been performed by the same entity, and this practice is expected
  to continue; therefore, this document dispenses with the distinction
  between these roles and refers only to the RPC.

9.4.  IAB

  Under earlier versions of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB was
  responsible for oversight of the RFC Series and acted as a body for
  final conflict resolution regarding the RFC Series.  The IAB's
  authority in these matters is described in the IAB Charter
  ([RFC2850], as updated by [RFC9283]).  Under version 2 of the RFC
  Editor Model, the IAB delegated some of its authority to the RFC
  Series Oversight Committee (see Section 9.5).  Under version 3 of the
  RFC Editor Model, authority for policy definition resides with the
  RSWG as an independent venue for work by members of the community
  (with approval of policy proposals being the responsibility of the
  RSAB, which represents the streams and includes the RSCE), whereas
  authority for policy implementation resides with the IETF LLC.

9.5.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)

  In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and
  responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy
  and somewhat opaque.  To overcome some of these issues, this document
  dispenses with the RSOC.  References to the RSOC in documents such as
  [RFC8730] are obsolete because this document disbands the RSOC.

9.6.  RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)

  Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC5620] specified the existence
  of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer
  specified in version 2 of the RFC Editor Model.  For the avoidance of
  doubt, this document affirms that the RSAG has been disbanded.  (The
  RSAG is not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB),
  which this document establishes.)

9.7.  Editorial Stream

  This document creates the Editorial Stream in addition to the streams
  already described in [RFC8729].

10.  Security Considerations

  The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply.  The
  processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
  introduction of unapproved changes.  Because multiple entities
  described in this document (most especially the RPC) participate in
  maintenance of the index of publications, sufficient security must be
  in place to prevent these published documents from being changed by
  external parties.  The archive of RFC documents, any source documents
  needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original
  documents (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items,
  originals that are not machine-readable) need to be secured against
  data storage failure.

  The IETF LLC (along with any other contracting or contracted
  entities) should take these security considerations into account
  during the implementation and enforcement of any relevant contracts.

11.  IANA Considerations

  The RPC is responsible for coordinating with the IANA to ensure that
  RFCs accurately document registration processes and assigned values
  for IANA registries.

  The IETF LLC facilitates management of the relationship between the
  RPC and IANA.

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

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

  [BCP9]     Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
             3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

             Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
             and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
             Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.

             Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
             Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
             October 2011.

             Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official
             Protocol Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100,
             December 2013.

             Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
             of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127, January 2014.

             Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in
             an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, March 2015.

             Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream
             Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789,
             June 2020.

             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>

  [BCP78]    Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
             Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
             November 2008.

             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>

  [BCP79]    Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
             Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179, May 2017.

             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>

  [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
             Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
             September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.

  [RFC7154]  Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
             RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>.

  [RFC7322]  Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.

  [RFC7776]  Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
             Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
             2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.

  [RFC7841]  Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed.,
             "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7841>.

  [RFC8716]  Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IETF Anti-
             Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF
             Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF
             Administration LLC", BCP 25, RFC 8716,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC8716, February 2020,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716>.

  [RFC8729]  Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
             RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
             2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.

  [RFC8730]  Brownlee, N., Ed. and B. Hinden, Ed., "Independent
             Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730,
             February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8730>.

12.2.  Informative References

  [RFC2850]  Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed.,
             "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)",
             BCP 39, RFC 2850, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>.

  [RFC5620]  Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
             RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620>.

  [RFC6635]  Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
             Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
             2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.

  [RFC7991]  Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
             RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.

  [RFC8700]  Flanagan, H., Ed., "Fifty Years of RFCs", RFC 8700,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC8700, December 2019,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8700>.

  [RFC8711]  Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
             the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
             BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.

  [RFC8728]  Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
             "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728>.

  [RFC8874]  Thomson, M. and B. Stark, "Working Group GitHub Usage
             Guidance", RFC 8874, DOI 10.17487/RFC8874, August 2020,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8874>.

  [RFC9283]  Carpenter, B., Ed., "IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor
             Model", BCP 39, RFC 9283, DOI 10.17487/RFC9283, June 2022,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9283>.

  [STYLEGUIDE]
             RFC Editor, "Style Guide",
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>.

IAB Members at the Time of Approval

  Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
  approved 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
  Development Program.  The RFC Editor Future Development Program
  allowed for open participation and used a rough consensus model for
  decision making.

Acknowledgments

  Portions of this document were borrowed from [RFC5620], [RFC6635],
  [RFC8728], [RFC8729], the Frequently Asked Questions of the IETF
  Trust, and earlier proposals submitted within the IAB's RFC Editor
  Future Development Program by Brian Carpenter, Michael StJohns, and
  Martin Thomson.  Thanks to Eliot Lear and Brian Rosen in their role
  as chairs of the Program for their leadership and assistance.  Thanks
  also for feedback and proposed text to Jari 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, and Nico Williams.

Author's Address

  Peter Saint-Andre (editor)
  Email: [email protected]

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.fnord.one. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.