Internet DRAFT - draft-carpenter-rfc-principles
draft-carpenter-rfc-principles
Network Working Group B. E. Carpenter
Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational 18 May 2020
Expires: 19 November 2020
Principles of the Request for Comments Series
draft-carpenter-rfc-principles-01
Abstract
This document discusses the underlying principles of the Internet
technical community's Request for Comments document 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 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 19 November 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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. 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.
Carpenter Expires 19 November 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Principles May 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Proposed Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. The RFC Series as a Whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. The RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
This document was written as background material for ongoing
discussions about the role of the Request for Comments (RFC) Series
Editor (the RSE). This version is purely personal opinion, but with
some community comments incorporated. The author welcomes further
comments, best sent to the mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
if they concern the RFC Series in general, or to the mailing list
rfced-future@iab.org if they concern the role of the RSE
specifically.
The RFC Series has a 50 year history, too long to summarise here, so
the reader is assumed to be familiar with [RFC8700]. However, the
Series does not appear to have a documented set of principles or a
full charter. This will make the obvious first task of the future
RSE -- developing a strategy for the Series -- hard, if not
impossible. The goal of this document is to outline what those
principles might be, for community debate. Once the principles are
clear, the next step could be to draft a full charter based on them,
also for community debate. Alternatively, the principles could be
incorporated in a revision of [RFC8729].
This document does not aim to provide a problem statement or gap
analysis, and technical matters such as RFC formatting are completely
out of scope. Matters concerning the IETF standards process, and how
it uses the Series, are also out of scope. Some problems in the
standards process are problems in how the IETF uses the RFC Series,
not problems in the Series itself. (Interested readers can find
comments on that topic in [I-D.carpenter-request-for-comments].)
The document starts with a review of existing background material
that touches on principles of the Series, and then offers a set of
proposed principles for debate.
Carpenter Expires 19 November 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Principles May 2020
2. Background
The RFC Editor web site states the following:
The RFC series contains technical and organizational documents
about the Internet, including the specifications and policy
documents produced by four streams: the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), the
Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and Independent Submissions.
This says little about underlying principles. Instead, consider the
original guidance from the author of the first RFC:
I present here some of the tentative agreements reached and some of
the open questions encountered. Very little of what is here is firm
and reactions are expected.
[RFC0001], Steve Crocker, 7 April 1969.
More recently, Steve wrote this in [RFC8700]:
The basic ground rules were that anyone could say anything and
that nothing was official. And to emphasize the point, I used
Bill Duvall's suggestion and labeled the notes "Request for
Comments".
Partly as a result of this starting point, the tradition has always
been that RFCs may be used rather freely, including reproduction in
their entirety and translation into other languages. In more recent
years, the IETF has asserted change control over its own documents,
even when published as RFCs, by virtue of the IETF Trust's legal
conditions. This raises the issue of who owns the copyright. Some
RFCs are considered to have been placed in the public domain as a
result of being part of government funded projects. Copyright in
some others presumably belongs to their authors, or to those authors'
employers. To the extent legally possible, the copyright in the RFC
Series currently belongs to the IETF Trust in addition to the
authors.
For completeness, note that each RFC stream has its own policy on
copyright and change control issues, not discussed in detail here.
In any case, the question of copyright is not the same as asking who
"owns" the RFC Series in an overall ethical and societal sense. It
is easy to establish who does _not_ own the Series:
1. The IETF does not own it, because the Series preceded the IETF by
17 years.
Carpenter Expires 19 November 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Principles May 2020
2. Therefore the IESG does not own it.
3. As noted, the IETF Trust only has limited intellectual property
rights in some (but not all) RFCs.
4. At some point in history, both ARPA (who funded the ARPAnet) and
USC/ISI (who provided RFC editing under contract) could have made
a claim. But that faded when a paid RFC Editor was directly
contracted by ISOC.
5. ISOC could perhaps make a claim, having funded the Series for
many years now. ISOC has a broad purpose which certainly
empowers it to support the RFC Series, but that does not imply
control or ownership.
6. The IETF LLC, technically a subsidiary of ISOC, therefore does
not own the Series either, although it does channel the contracts
and money formerly handled directly by ISOC.
7. Finally, the Internet Architecture Board could make a claim based
on its charter [RFC2850], which states that:
The RFC series constitutes the archival publication channel
for Internet Standards and for other contributions by the
Internet research and engineering community. RFCs are available
free of charge to anyone via the Internet. The IAB must approve
the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the
general policy followed by the RFC Editor.
This text makes it clear that the RFC Series is much broader in
scope than the IETF, and limits the IAB's authority to matters of
general policy.
A reasonable conclusion from the above is that none of the I*
organisations (IETF Trust, IETF LLC, IETF, IESG, IAB or ISOC) can
claim exclusivity of ownership or control over the RFC Series.
Despite the limited authority granted by its own charter, the IAB has
published various RFCs about the Series as a whole. I quote here
from two in particular.
Firstly, [RFC8729] states as follows:
Carpenter Expires 19 November 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Principles May 2020
The 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.
...
The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor,
acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC
Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the
RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition,
the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in
discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving
RFCs.
...
The IAB monitors the effectiveness of the policies in force and their
implementation to ensure that the RFC Editor activity meets the
editorial management and document publication needs as referenced in
this document. In the event of serious non-conformance, the IAB,
either on its own initiative or at the request of the IETF
Administration LLC Board, may require the IETF Executive Director to
vary or terminate and renegotiate the arrangements for the RFC Editor
activity.
A second document clarifies that RFC Series Editor has considerable
independence (in addition to the obvious independence of the
Independent Series Editor). To quote from [RFC8728]:
Carpenter Expires 19 November 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Principles May 2020
The RFC Editor function is responsible for
the packaging and distribution of the documents. As such, documents
from these streams are edited and processed by the Production Center
and published by the Publisher. The RFC Series Editor will exercise
strategic leadership and management over the activities of the RFC
Publisher and the RFC Production Center (both of which can be seen as
back-office functions) and will be the entity that:
* Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function within the
IETF and externally.
* Leads the community in the design of improvements to the RFC
Series.
* Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of
improvements in the RFC Editor production and access processes.
* Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web site,
which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher.
* Is responsible for developing consensus versions of vision and
policy documents. These documents will be reviewed by the RFC
Series Oversight Committee (Section 3.1) and subject to its
approval before final publication.
3. Proposed Principles
This section, in particular, needs community review. Some of it is
adapted from existing documents.
3.1. The RFC Series as a Whole
1. The RFC Series is the archival series that documents Internet
technical specifications, descriptions, and commentaries,
including general contributions from the Internet research and
engineering community, as well as standards documents. It also
includes some organisational documents from the same community.
* "Archival" means that the documents must be available for the
indefinite future in a form that is trusted by all parties.
In particular there must be no doubt as to the precise
original text and diagrams, regardless of the format in which
the documents are stored or displayed. Errors or omissions
detected after publication, and subsequent modifications or
extensions of the document content, do not change the archived
document itself.
Carpenter Expires 19 November 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Principles May 2020
2. All RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the Internet.
They may be freely translated in their entirety into any
language.
3. Request for Comments means Request for Comments.
* There is an inherent modesty in calling our documents
"requests for comments". We get things wrong, we want
comments, we want errata, we want operational feedback, and we
want to go round that loop again. This property is a useful
counter-balance to any occurrence of groupthink in the
community.
4. RFCs come from various streams, i.e. originating organisations.
* Each stream has its own policy on change control, copyright,
and patents, with the IETF Trust generally acting as a
repository for intellectual property rights that are not
retained by the authors.
* Each stream has full control of the technical content of its
documents.
* The RFC Editor team has control of editorial matters, subject
to review by the relevant stream and the document authors. In
particular, a badly written document may be returned to its
stream for improvements if an abnormal amount of copy-editing
is required.
* If an individual member of the RFC Editor team has personal
comments on the technical content of a draft RFC, they must be
handled in person, using the appropriate mechanism of the
stream concerned, not as an RFC Editor matter.
* If the RFC Editor team believes that a draft RFC contains a
serious technical flaw, which the stream declines to change,
the RFC Editor cannot block the document indefinitely. Note
that there is more discussion of such disagreements in
Section 4.3 of [RFC8728].
* New streams may in principle be created, subject to community
agreement and guidelines to be defined.
* Defunct streams may be closed, subject to community agreement.
5. The RFC Series is community property and must operate on behalf
of the community as a whole.
Carpenter Expires 19 November 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Principles May 2020
* The exact definition of the relevant community is open for
debate. One definition is: the IETF, the IRTF, the IAB and
the many other people who have contributed to, or made use of,
the RFC Series over the last fifty years. In particular, many
users of the RFC series, ranging for example from junior
hardware or software engineers to senior executives overseeing
procurement decisions, will never participate directly in the
IETF or IRTF.
6. Major decisions about the future of the RFC Series should be
taken by a rough consensus of this very broad community.
* How to reach out to this community and judge its consensus is
an open question. The mechanism needs to be open to all
interested parties, but with a well-defined process and checks
and balances. Although the community is broader than the
IETF, the IETF Working Group rough consensus process may be
the best model.
3.2. The RFC Series Editor
1. The RFC Series Editor is an independent professional editor,
serving a much wider community than just the IETF. Given the
economic and social importance of the Internet, this is a serious
responsibility. Similar roles might be executive leadership
positions at a technical or academic publisher.
Five responsibilities adapted from [RFC8728] apply:
* Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function within
the IETF, IRTF and externally.
* Leads the community in the design of improvements to the RFC
Series.
* Is responsible for developing vision and policy documents, and
establishing community consensus for them.
* Is responsible for planning and overseeing the execution of
improvements in the RFC Editor production and access
processes, in collaboration with IETF LLC as appropriate.
* Is responsible for the content of the RFC Editor web site,
which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher.
Carpenter Expires 19 November 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Principles May 2020
2. The RFC Series Editor, while paid to serve the community, is a
member of the same professional peer group as IAB members, IESG
members, IETF and IRTF group chairs, and other experienced
members of the technical community, each with their own distinct
professional skills.
3. The position of RFC Series Editor answers to the community as a
whole.
* The grant of authority in the IAB charter should be reviewed
in this light.
4. Conclusion
In summary, the RFC Series exists for the Internet community as a
whole, must retain its independence, openness and autonomy, and must
continue to be managed by a senior professional editor.
5. Security Considerations
Security issues are discussed in all recent RFCs. This uniformity
illustrates the coherence of the RFC Series and the way it has been
used to ensure a degree of order in the chaotic world of Internet
design, implementation and deployment.
An assumption in our community is that all actors act in good faith,
subject of course to normal human failures. As far as possible, the
RFC Editor regime needs to be immune to malicious acts of any kind.
For that reason, it is important that appropriate organisational
checks and balances are in place.
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of the IANA.
7. Acknowledgements
Important comments were received from Carsten Bormann, Nevil
Brownlee, Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Joel Halpern, John Klensin,
Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly, Eric Rescorla, Adam Roach, Mike
StJohns, Martin Thomson, and others.
8. References
Carpenter Expires 19 November 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Principles May 2020
[I-D.carpenter-request-for-comments]
Carpenter, B., "Request for Comments", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-carpenter-request-for-comments-01,
19 June 2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
carpenter-request-for-comments-01>.
[RFC0001] Crocker, S., "Host Software", RFC 1, DOI 10.17487/RFC0001,
April 1969, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1>.
[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>.
[RFC8700] Flanagan, H., Ed., "Fifty Years of RFCs", RFC 8700,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8700, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8700>.
[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>.
[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>.
Appendix A. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
draft-carpenter-rfc-principles-01, 2020-05-18:
* Numerous updates following initial community comments.
draft-carpenter-rfc-principles-00, 2020-05-09:
* Initial version (some content based on draft-carpenter-request-
for-comments-01).
Author's Address
Brian Carpenter
School of Computer Science
University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland 1142
New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Carpenter Expires 19 November 2020 [Page 10]
