Internet DRAFT - draft-flanagan-rseme
draft-flanagan-rseme
Network Working Group H. Flanagan
Internet-Draft RFC Editor
Intended status: Informational 20 November 2019
Expires: 23 May 2020
RFC Series Model Process
draft-flanagan-rseme-03
Abstract
The RFC Series has come to a crossroads where questions must be
answered regarding how the Series should be managed, the role of the
RFC Series Editor, and the oversight of the RFC Editor function.
This draft offers a proposal to form a new IAB program called the RFC
Editor Future Development Program. This proposal is based on the
discussions held during three virtual meetings in September and
October 2019, as well as the RSEME session at IETF 106, and requests
a new, open IAB program that will drive consensus around any changes
to the RFC Editor model. The program will require extensive
community engagement and outreach to a broad set of stakeholder
communities.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 23 May 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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.
Flanagan Expires 23 May 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Model Process November 2019
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Summaries from Virtual Meetings and IETF 106 . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. First Virtual Meeting Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Second Virtual Meeting Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Third Virtual Meeting Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. RSEME session at IETF 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Proposal - RFC Editor Future Development Program . . . . . . 4
4. Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The RFC Series has come to a crossroads where questions must be
answered regarding how the Series should be managed, the role of the
RFC Series Editor, and the oversight of the RFC Editor function. The
RFC Editor, editor and publisher of the Series, publishes RFCs for
the IETF, the IRTF, the IAB, and the Independent Submissions streams.
Those RFCs are referred to by other Standards Development
Organizations (SDOs) and the users of their documents, by
organizations and governments in their procurement processes, by
academics, by network operators, and more. Decisions on the future
of the RFC Editor and the RFC Series must include input from, and
reflect considerations of the needs and uses of, both the producers
and the consumers of RFCs.
2. Summaries from Virtual Meetings and IETF 106
Three virtual meetings were organized, scheduled to be sensitive to a
wide range of time zones, to discuss the process by which the
communities of interest can determine consensus on the RFC Series
model. These meetings were coordinated by Heather Flanagan, RFC
Series Editor, and explicit invitations were sent to:
* IETF, IRTF, IAB, and Independent Submission authors and
participants via various mailing lists, including the rfc-
interest, ietf-announce, and wgchairs mailing lists
* IETF liaison contacts [IETF-LIAISONS]
Flanagan Expires 23 May 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Model Process November 2019
* REFEDS [REFEDS]
Invitations were considered for ISOC chapter heads and NANOG Board
leadership, but the invitations were not delivered in time for the
meetings.
2.1. First Virtual Meeting Summary
Approximately 24 people attended this meeting.
The stream managers and and a small number of community at-large
members should be part of a committee that would work much like a
design team [DESIGN]. A chair and a co-chair should be chosen from
within that committee to run a working group. That working group is
not to be part of the IETF (though much participation is expected
from within the IETF community). An important characteristic of the
chair (and possibly co-chair) is clearly identifying any potential
Conflict of Interest that the chair(s) have before they call
consensus.
A key characteristic and requirement of the working group is openness
of participation and process.
While external stakeholders may not be interested in defining and
developing the RFC Editor model, they should still be offered another
opportunity to comment on any plans after those plans are developed
(and before a full consensus call is made).
2.2. Second Virtual Meeting Summary
Approximately 12 people attended this meeting.
Despite the current tension between the community and the IAB, the
IAB is the correct home, from a logical and organizational
architecture perspective, to host the discussion for the RFC Editor
model. The IAB should organize a program that follows the principles
of open participation (e.g., the model of an IETF working group), and
run a community-wide call for volunteers to both find chairs for this
group and to invite participation. The program should have a clear,
concrete, and objective charter that can be published as an Internet-
Draft. Organizations external to the IETF should be invited to
participate as well as to offer feedback on any proposed products
from the group (assuming the external organizations do not actively
participate in developing those final products).
Reaching consensus through this group should be expected to take a
long time, but it is important that that time be taken so as to avoid
a bigger mess in the future.
Flanagan Expires 23 May 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Model Process November 2019
2.3. Third Virtual Meeting Summary
Approximately 6 people attended this meeting.
While there was no agreement on whether or not the group that drives
the discussion and consensus needs to be an entirely new group
outside the existing leadership structure, there was consensus that
some IAB involvement is critical. One suggestion was to bring in
past IAB and IETF chairs as core membership to the group, and that
the group must look to the long-term structure of the RFC Editor (as
opposed to looking at short-term, tactical matters).
In terms of what needs to be decided for the long-term (where 'long-
term' was defined as 6-8 years), structural issues that will need to
be considered: business (funding), administration (hiring/firing) as
well as more about publishing documents (who gets to say no to
publishing something). There will be a role for many of the existing
groups (e.g., IETF LLC Board, since they hold contracts). The model
must be clear around when the RSE can be overridden (and when they
can't be). The model cannot be designed around one individual or
entity, which means the roles themselves have to be more clearly
described.
2.4. RSEME session at IETF 106
The session held during IETF 106 [RSEME] was a review of the ideas
generated during the virtual meetings and a discussion on the
proposal laid out in the -02 version of this draft. The consensus of
the room was, first and foremost, to focus on doing the right thing
over making sure an end-to-end process was defined at the start.
Some decisions, such as where to ultimately publish any outputs of
the proposed program should be made later when there was some idea of
what, exactly, would be proposed as the final outcomes of the
program.
The proposal below has been revised based on the discussion. This
draft is ultimately intended as guidance for next steps, but will not
itself turn into an RFC.
3. Proposal - RFC Editor Future Development Program
The proposal, based on the calls and the session at IETF 106, is to
request the immediate formation of a new IAB program. The role of
the IAB is to convene this program and to ultimately verify that the
program and any outputs it generates have followed a consensus
process. The work and the participation should be open and
transparent, and must focus on the long-term needs of the RFC Series
and the communities it serves.
Flanagan Expires 23 May 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Model Process November 2019
An IAB program, run correctly and with community accountability,
covers many of the required characteristic of this group. For
example, an IAB program is designed to support a long-term
perspective, and to exist beyond any given IAB cohort.[IAB-PROGRAM]
Note that while programs are not generally required to produce
minutes, this group should regularly offer updates on its activities,
either in the form of minutes, blog posts, or other easily found
community reports, for the sake of individuals and organizational
entities who cannot actively participate, and to support a historic
record of discussions and decisions. The meetings themselves should
always support remote participation.
This program should be led by a chair and a co-chair, selected from
the community. The chair/co-chair roles are responsible for general
outreach, whereas the IAB Program Lead will act as the liaison to the
IAB. In all cases, a clear Conflict of Interest statement should be
made by both chairs, and the IAB Program Lead must be neutral in all
decisions.
Individuals chosen by the IAB, IESG, and the IRSG from among their
memberships and with an eye towards program continuity, and the
Independent Submissions Editor, are strongly encouraged to
participate in this program, as recommendations will be made that
impact all document streams.
The program should be modeled closely on an IETF working group
[BCP25], using a mailing list to validate consensus among the
participants, and adhering to the IETF Note Well [BCP78] [BCP79].
Decisions are expected to be made using rough consensus; consensus
will be called by the chairs, and any appeals will be handled by the
IAB.[RFC7282].
The program may choose to create one or more design teams to focus on
specific aspects of the questions being raised; this model should
definitely be supported if the community decides it to be useful.
The scope of work for this group includes:
* Clearly defining the guiding principles that will drive any
further decisions and discussions.
* Determining the full scope of responsibilities and authority
within the RFC Editor, in particular focusing on the RFC Series
Editor. What is the actual driving problem?
* Considering and proposing business and administrative requirements
to support any proposed changes (e.g., who decides on budget).
Flanagan Expires 23 May 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Model Process November 2019
* Soliciting input from organizations that are expected to be
directly impacted by any changes to the RFC Editor model.
A note about the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC), also a
program of the IAB: the RSOC should continue to oversee day-to-day
running of the RFC Editor, and be available to assist with any
immediate, tactical questions, as well as acting as the search
committee for any of the roles defined by the new program. RSOC
members are encouraged to participate in the new program, and equally
encouraged to request subject matter expertise from participants in
this program on matters of job descriptions, statements of work, and
any other areas impacted by changes in the RFC Editor model as
recommended by this program.
Similarly, members of the IAB and the IESG are welcome to participate
as individuals, but should not be in any leadership role within the
program (the IAB liaison role should not be considered a leadership
role; liaisons are important to communication and transparency). The
IAB will ultimately act as the point of appeal (if necessary).
4. Timeline
* IETF 106: community discussion, complete proposal
* November 2019: IAB to announce new program, open a community-wide
call for volunteers for the chair and co-chair roles
* December 2019: IAB to create a new mailing list, select chairs,
and solicit membership.
* No later than IETF 107: Program to have its initial meeting
(interim meetings are also encouraged)
* No later than IETF 108: First draft(s) of defining principles;
iterate on improvements
* No later than IETF 109: First draft(s) of recommendations
regarding any changes in the RFC Editor model
5. Informative References
[DESIGN] IETF, "On Design Teams",
<https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/design-
teams/>.
[IAB-PROGRAM]
IAB, "IAB Programs",
<https://www.iab.org/activities/programs/>.
Flanagan Expires 23 May 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Model Process November 2019
[IETF-LIAISONS]
IETF, "Liaisons", <https://www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/>.
[REFEDS] REFEDS, "REFEDS", <https://refeds.org>.
[RSEME] IAB, "Community Process for RSE Model Evolution (rseme)",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/rseme/about/>.
[BCP25] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the
Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934,
October 2004.
Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, March 2016.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp25>
[BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, 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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>.
[RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF",
RFC 7282, DOI 10.17487/RFC7282, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7282>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
With many thanks to the individuals who attended the virtual calls
and who engaged constructively on the mailing lists.
Author's Address
Heather Flanagan
RFC Editor
Email: rse@rfc-editor.org
URI: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220
Flanagan Expires 23 May 2020 [Page 7]
