Network Working Group G. Kowack, Ed. Internet-Draft Riveronce Expires: May 27, 2011 November 23, 2010 RFC Editor Model Version 2 draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-overview-00 Abstract The RFC Editor is a set of functions that accepts draft documents from the community, makes edits and other changes for clarity and formal correctness, and publishes and archives openly-accessible RFCs. Editorial services are provided by a Production Center, publication and access services by a 'Publisher'. The RFC Series Editor is responsible for ensure ongoing operations as well as development of the Editor function and the Series. 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 http://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 May 27, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 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 (http://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. 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 Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. The RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Flexible Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Internal Reporting Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4. RFC Editor Editorial Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. RFC Editor Core Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Contractor Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Appointment, Reporting, and Duration . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Series Editor Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. General Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4. Series Editor Professional Qualifications . . . . . . . . 11 5. Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1. RFC Editor Oversight Committee (REOC) . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2. RFC Series Advisory Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Resolution of Disagreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1. Disagreements between RFC Editor Components and Model Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.2. Series Editor Review of Inter-Stream Conflicts . . . . . . 14 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. RFC End-User Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 1. Background This memo presents version 2 of the RFC Editor model. Version 1 of the model was described in [RFC5620]. This version of the model is based on version 1 and on the experence of the Transitional RFC Series Editor (TRSE). This document brings together all previous documents on this subject, and is intended to be the basis for community discussion during this period. This document does not detail TRSE observations or motivations on which this specification is based. Those, and differences from RFC 5620, will be described in an upcoming document. 2. RFC Editor A block diagram of the RFC Editor, and major entities with which it interacts, is shown in Figure 1. Documents are created and approved by a number of "streams", which today includes the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) -- publications approved by the Interet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) -- publications approved by the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG), and the general Internet community -- publications approved by the Independent Submission Editor (ISE). The approved are edited for clarity and formal correctness by the RFC Production House and published as RFCs by the RFC Publisher. 2.1. The RFC Editor Model The RFC Editor serves the community via two sets of customers: o on the input side, the streams, o on the output side, readers of RFCs, including users of the RFC editor web site and access services. The RFC Editor divides into services and executive management. Today, RFC Editor services are provided by an: o RFC Publisher (RFC Pub), and o RFC Production Center (RPC). Executive management of the RFC Editor function is provided by the: o RFC Series Editor, with support from an Oversight Committee. Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 +--------------+ | | | IAB | | | +--V--------V--+ +.RFC Editor....|........|..........................+ . | | . +------------+ . +-----------V-+ +---V-------+ +-----------+ . | | . | RFC | | | | RFC | . | Community | . | Editor | | RFC | | Series | . | at <------> Oversight <--> Series <..> Advisory | . | Large | . | Committee | | Editor | | Group | . | | . | | | | | | . +------------+ . +-------------+ +-V-------V-+ +-----------+ . +...............+ | | +........+ . | | . +-----------+ +-------------+ . +----V--+ +V--------+ . +-----+ | Community | | Independent | . | RFC | | | . | E | | at +---> Submission +---> | | RFC | . | n | | Large | | Editor | . | P | | | . | d | | | | | . | r | | P | . | | +-----------+ +-------------+ . | o +-->| u +-----> U | +-----------+ +-------------+ . | d | | b | . | s | | | | | . | u | | l | . | e | | IAB +---> IAB +---> c | | i | . | r | | | | | . | t | | s | . | s | +-----------+ +-------------+ . | i | | h | . | | +-----------+ +-------------+ . | o | | e | . | & | | | | | . | n | | r | . | | | IRTF +---> IRSG +---> | | | . | R | | | | | . | C | | | . | e | +-----------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a | +-----------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d | | | | | . | t | | | . | e | | IETF +---> IESG +---> e | | | . | r | | | | | . | r | | | . | s | +-----------+ +-------------+ . +-------+ +---------+ . +-----+ . . +..........................+ The RFC Editor Structure In the figure above: o production flows are indicated by one-way, dashed, horizontal arrows ("+--->"), Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 o lines of coordination are indicated by two-way, dashed, horizontal arrows ("<-->"), o lines of advice are indicated by two-way, dotted, horizontal arrows ("<..>"), and o reporting lines are indicated by vertical, dashed arrows. 2.2. Flexible Implementation This memo uses the term 'function', following the practice established in [RFC4844], to indicate that a specific service may be flexibly implemented. For example, RFC Editor functions could be implemented under separate or joint contractual arrangements, and bidders may make proposals that could include one or more contractors. Determining the acceptability of various implementations is the responsibility of the RFC Series Editor and the IAOC, in consultation with the Policy Council. 2.3. Internal Reporting Structure RFC Editor internal reporting structure is subject to change over time depending, for example, on plans and the manner in which contracts are awarded. The Series Editor may make such changes, but only in coordination with the RFC Editor Oversight Committee, and, when contracts are affected, the IAOC To preclude conflicts of interest, the Series Editor must not be from an organization that provides RFC Editor services. The IAB may, however, override this provision in specific instances, but only after reviewing the matter with the REOC and IAOC and informing the community. 2.4. RFC Editor Editorial Practices The substantive technical content of individual documents is the exclusive responsibility of the submitting stream. 3. RFC Editor Core Services "Core services" are major and long-standing functions within the RFC Editor, as distinct from RFC Editor services which may be minor, developmental, or of limited duration. As of this date, the Core Services are provided by the RFC Publisher and RFC Production Center. 3.1. RFC Publisher The RFC Publisher is as described in RFC 5620, with the addition that the Publisher will need to allocate resources to interact with the Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 Series Editor. 3.2. RFC Production Center The RFC Production Center is as described in RFC 5620, with the addition that the Production Center will need to allocate resources to interact with the Series Editor. 3.3. Contractor Selection RFC Publisher and RFC Production Center contractors are recommended by the Series Editor and IAOC after an open RFP process, and approved by the IAB. The RSE and IAOC will seek bidders who, among other things, are able to provide a professional, quality, timely, and cost- effective service against the established style and production guidelines and adaptable to changes. Contract terms, including length of contract, extensions and renewals, shall be as defined in an RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available. 4. RFC Series Editor 4.1. Appointment, Reporting, and Duration The RFC Series Editor appointee is an individual. The Series Editor is designated by the IAB, and may be removed by the IAB, subject to contractual requirements. The Series Editor reports to the REOC (Section 5.1.3). The initial term of office is three years with no restrictions on renewals. Individual contract periods may be shorter due to practical constraints (e.g,. applicant availability), as determined by the IAB in cooperation with the IAOC. To maintain institutional memory, terms of office for the RSE, ISE, and RFC Production Center should be adjusted to minimize concurrent transitions. 4.2. Series Editor Responsibilities The Series Editor acts as a single point of responsibility to the community for the: o overall, ongoing operation of the RFC Editor, o refinement and development of RFC Editor processes and services, o maintenance of quality and advancement of the Series, Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 o representation of the Series to the community, and o representation of the Series to the rest of the world. The Series Editor is responsible for ensuring that the Editor policies are adhered to and developed in line with community interests. When policies are insufficient, the Series Editor initiates an RFC Editor policy review and development activity. 4.2.1. RFC Editor Operations RFC Editor operations include ongoing operations and longer-term review, planning and executive activities. RFC Editor ongoing operations consist of: o monitoring operations for compliance with policies and practices, and providing direction as necessary, o advising service provider management when existing policies appear to be insufficient, o handling complaints, exceptions, and unexpected events such as escalation procedures, and o organizing and leading meetings, including RFC Editor internet meetings, as well as coordination meetings (including, e.g., telechats) with the streams (production-side customers). Longer-term planning and executive activities include: o reviewing staff and contractor performance (including formal reviews) and providing feedback, including participatin in IAB- initiated reviews of the RFC Editor, o leading development of statistics and other performance measures, o reviewing contracts for update or renewal, preparing RFPs, and o reviewing bids and making recommendations. 4.2.2. Internal Processes and Services Development Internal process and services development looks for opportunities to: o improve RFC Editor services to improve quality, reduce costs, or improve service to customers, and Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 o new and modified services to output-side customers, e.g, improved RFC access tools. 4.2.3. Series Quality Maintenance and Advancement Series maintenance and advancement is comprised of: o ensuring and improving constancy of output, o improving the (editorial) quality of produced text, o innovations to improve efficiency, coordination, and transparency, including process experiments, o ensuring availability of the Series, including refinement of the community model of universal RFC access, and that the RFC Series is accessible via conventional means, such as electronic card catalogs, and ISSN numbers, which must be kept current, o improving access tools, including search tools, and. o consideration of support of formats for new access methods. 4.2.4. Represent the Series to the Community The RSE must: o provide all necessary points of contact and services to support policy inputs and questions from the community, including production-side and end-user customers, o take part in (or delegate attendance at) formal meetings, telechats, and other communications among entities (e.g., IESG and IAB), as well as general meetings such as the IETF, or retreats, as required, o provide consistent communication of the status and plans of the Editor, o liaise and work with the IAB so that the IAB may be confident there has been sufficient community review before significant policies or policy changes are adopted, and o engage all team members and the community with a spirit of common purpose, accomplishment, and teamwork. Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 4.2.5. Represent the Series to the Rest of the World. The Series Editor is the point of contact and presentation for those from outside the community. Increasing the stature of the Series reinforces other community initiatives. The Series Editor should: o be available to entities that seek representation of the series, including the press, and o be open to support low-cost high-impact opportunities to promote the series. 4.3. General Responsibilities The Series Editor is responsible for maintaining series continuity and quality, providing training to authors, and cooperating with the IAOC. 4.3.1. Continuity The RFC Editor has sustained operations for more than forty years. 4.3.1.1. Series Continuity Series continuity is the maintenance and development of the editorial character of the Series (e.g., look and feel, usage) in a way that preserves series constancy. That is, changes must be made in a deliberate, evolutionary way that respects long-standing editorial practices. Changes must be well-motivated. Changes will be made with input from editorial staff, and subject to community review. The RFC Series Style Manual is the primary vehicle for maintaining, and making changes to, editorial continuity. The Series Editor is responsible for preparing and maintaining the RFC Style Manual to describe clearly the grammar, style, usage, typography, punctuation, and spelling standards that will guide the drafting and editing of RFCs, so that all publications will appear in clear, concise technical prose. The primary audiences for the Style Manual are authors, editors, the stream managers, and the RFC Production Center. 4.3.1.2. Operational Continuity Operational continuity means consistent, uninterrupted RFC production. The RFC Series Procedures Manual is the primary document for maintaining operational continuity. If editorial services are disrupted, the RFC Series Editor, with the support of the IAOC, is responsible for promptly acquiring and Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 directing new resources to maintain RFC output. Service from new teams of editors or additional contractors may be acquired. The RSE must keep the RFC Editor Procedures Manual and Style Manual up to date to provide sufficient direction to alternate editors. The Series Editor must maintain sound understanding of those processes in order to direct new resources when required. Maintaining editorial output during a disruption is referred to as "exceptional continuity". 4.3.2. Quality For the RFC Editor quality is comprised of: o editorial quality - the quality of output text, o production service quality - as provided to the streams, and o RFC Archive accessibility and access services quality. 4.3.2.1. Policies and Practices RFC Editor functions follow documented policies and practices that have been reviewed by the community. Whenever procedural documentation is insufficient (e.g., fails to address an issue), the Series Editor is responsible for directing the relevant service provider (e.g., Production Center) and maintaining ongoing operations and updating policies and procedures in cooperation with the RFC Editor Oversight Committee and the community. The two primary documents that define the practices and procedures of the RFC Editor are the RFC Style Manual, and the RFC Procedures Manual. 4.3.2.2. Editorial Quality Editorial quality must meet the requirements of three groups: o authoritative community entities (e.g., the IETF Trust regarding IP notices), o authors and streams ("producer-side service quality"), and o re-distributors and end users of RFCs ("consumption-side quality") During 2010, it was determined that the community has only limted knowledge of the demographics of RFC end-users, how they use RFCs, or end-user requirements. To make informed decisions about quality, the RSE should seek to learn more about how RFC end-users may cluster, Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 10] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 and how each uses RFCs. 4.3.2.3. Production Quality In principle, the RFC Editor provides only one level of editing and support, which does not vary according to the needs of particular drafts. The RSE will explore whether an additional level of service is required. Available on authors' request, this service would give special attention, and possibly early review, to drafts thought to be particularly complex, extensive, or to have an especially critical audience. 4.3.2.4. Access Quality Access quality concerns the suitability, completeness, accuracy, and stability of tools for accessing the RFC Series. 4.3.3. Author Guidance and Training The RFC Production Center will continue to support tutorials for the community. 4.3.4. Coordination with the IAOC The Series Editor must support the IAOC on request regarding legal and financial matters. 4.4. Series Editor Professional Qualifications The RFC Series Editor provides general and editorial leadership of the RFC Editor, and meets the following qualifications: 1. experience as a executive with expertise in technical writing, technical publications, and technical series development, 2. experience with complex organizations with extensive group processes. The RSE must be skilled at participating in group processes, and getting value from them. The RSE must understand and appreciate delegation, 3. good understanding of the English language and technical terminology related to the Internet, 4. excellent skill at communication and, especially, listening, 5. independent worker, Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 11] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 6. prior experience with and understanding of the IETF, RFC processes, and the community, is desirable, and 7. experience as an RFC author is desirable. 5. Committees 5.1. RFC Editor Oversight Committee (REOC) 5.1.1. Duties The REOC has the following duties: o support the RSE in the process of community consultation, o support the RSE in developing new or modified policy proposals on an "advise and consent" model, o support the RSE in presenting general policy proposals for approval by the IAB, o receive and review regular progress reports from the RSE, o support the RSE in regular reporting to the community, o promptly bring any serious issues with the Series to the IAB's attention, o when required, participate with the IASA in the RFP and contracting process for components of the RFC Editor function, and o when required, act as the hiring committee for the RSE, in cooperation with the iAB and in liaison with IASA. 5.1.2. Membership The REOC will be a small committee, defined by the IAB. Terms will be two years renewable (with several one year terms initially, to stagger the renewals). The membership will have the following skills or backgrounds (members may satisfy more than one of these criteria): o substantive knowledge of technical writing and publications, o substantial experience at using RFC Editor services as a author or editor, Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 12] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 o none may be from current streams approving bodies, o there may be a non-voting IASA liaison member. The REOC will elect its chair among the regular (non-liaison) members. 5.1.3. The Series Editor and the REOC The RSE will report to the regular (non-liaison) membership of the REOC. 5.2. RFC Series Advisory Group The RSE may, but is not required to, appoint an RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) at his discretion, with no powers other than to advise the RSE. The Series Editor will publish the names of members of the Advisory Group. 6. Resolution of Disagreements 6.1. Disagreements between RFC Editor Components and Model Participants If during the execution of their activities, a disagreement arises over an implementation decision made by one of the participants in the model, any relevant party should first request a review and reconsideration of the decision with the other party or parties, and inform the RSE of such a request. All parties should work informally and in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion. If the parties resolve the issue, they should inform the RSE of the resolution and specify any procedural or other changes that it may entail. If one party still disagrees after the reconsideration, that party should ask the Series Editor to undertake a formal review. The RSE must inform and engage the REOC in their oversight capacity, and may call for a review committee including members of the REOC. The RSE and REOC should seek to reach rough consensus on the resolution of the matter. If there is a technical or procedural matter that concerns the IAB, or an administrative, legal, or financial issue that concerns the IAOC, the RSE may request the guidance or participation of either or both of those bodies. If the disagreement directly involves the RSE, the RSE may ask the IAB to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in the discussions. The REOC should be used in this capacity unless Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 13] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 there is good reason it should not (such as if the REOC itself is a party to the disagreement). 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. Such decisions must follow proper community- oriented practices as described in Section 4. RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the RFC Editor processes and evaluation of whether current policies are being implemented appropriately or need adjustment. As described in Section 4, final decisions about the technical content of individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream approvers for those documents. If a disagreement or decision has immediate or anticipated future contractual consequences, the Series Editor must identify the issue to the IAOC and, if the REOC has provided related advice, the RSE should forward that to the IAOC. 6.2. Series Editor Review of Inter-Stream Conflicts The streams are encouraged to resolve conflicts on their own. Any stream approver may request a Series Editor review of an inter-stream conflict at any time. Review by the Series Editor must include assembling a review committee of four disinterested REOC members plus the RSE, who will chair the committee. 7. IANA Considerations This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor structure, and it places the day-to-day coordination of registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center under the direction of the RSE. The IAOC will continue to facilitate the relationship between the RFC Editor 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. 8. 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 Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 14] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 prevent these published documents, and the index itself, 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, non- machine-readable originals) need to be secured against failure of the storage medium and other similar disasters. The RSE and IAOC should take these security considerations into account during the implementation of this RFC Editor model. 9. Acknowledgments [ed., TBD] 10. Normative References [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and IAB, "", 4844 RFC, July 2007. [RFC5620] Kolkman, O. and IAB, "RFC Series Editor Model (Version 1)", RFC 5620, August 2009. Appendix A. RFC End-User Groupings Work to date suggests that the end-user community may group into the following: o RFC implementers. This group intersects with working group participants. The latter is an unknown proportion of the former, o network operators (of RFC implementations), o academics, researchers and students, o marketers, and requirements writers, o policy-makers, and o re-distributors (e.g., mirror site operators) and publishers. Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 15] Internet-Draft RFC Editor Model Version 2 Overview November 2010 Author's Address Glenn Kowack (editor) Riveronce Email: glenn@riveronce.com Kowack Expires May 27, 2011 [Page 16]