Internet DRAFT - draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb
draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb
RFC Editor Futures M. StJohns
Internet-Draft NthPermutation Security LLC
Intended status: Informational 24 August 2020
Expires: 25 February 2021
An Editorial Board-based Management Structure for the RFC Series
draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb-00
Abstract
This document describes a revised model for the management, evolution
and improvement of the RFC Series led by an RFC Series Editor (RSE)
assisted by an RFC Series Editorial Board (RSEB). The model removes
the IAB and its appointed RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) from
direct control of the RFC Series and the RFC Series Editor, replacing
them on the publication evolution side with the RSEB, and on the
financial and personnel management side with the IETF Administration
Limited Liability Company or its board as appropriate (LLC).
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 25 February 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Management August 2020
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The RFC Series Editorial Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Role of the RSEB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Composition of the RSEB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Independent Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3. Stream Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.4. At-Large Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. RFC Series Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Other Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Contract Monitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Selection of the RSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. RSE Search Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Approval by the RSEB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Engagement Model for the RSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Operation of the RSEB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. The Editorial Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
This document is submitted in response to the request by the chairs
of the RFC Series Future Development Program for proposals for the
revision for the RFC Series model.
This document should be read primarily as a proposal for the
replacement of section 3 and appropriate revisions to section 4 of
[RFC8728]. Specifically, this removes from the IAB (and its
delegates) primary responsibility for both the evolution and
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Management August 2020
management of the RFC Series and for the oversight of the contractual
or employed resources supporting the RFC Series. Those resources are
the RFC Series Editor (RSE), the RFC Production Center (RPC), and, if
any, other task-specific contracts related to the RFC Series. In
general, any task previously assigned to the RSOC or the IAB in
whatever section shall devolve on the RSEB, LLC or the RSE as
appropriate. Additional word-smithing will be required to review the
merged documents for consistency, and such disconnects should not be
read to be intentional at this time.
In the 50+ years of its existence, the RFC Series been under the
direct control of the IAB only in the last 10 years, and only in the
last few years has the IETF community directly, through the RSE LLC
contract, had a mechanism to exert contractual control over the RSE.
The IAB's role was originally conceived as technical in nature, but
has gradually ended up, perhaps to our detriment, deeper in
administrivia and policy. Considering that in view of the IAB's
recent missteps with respect to the RSE, it should not come as a
surprise that the author believes that the IAB is the incorrect place
to home either part of the management of the RFC Series.
This document proposes a model which creates an RFC Series Editorial
Board (RSEB) as the proper home for the evolution and sustainment of
the RFC Series. However, unlike the current model, the RSEB has no
oversight or management responsibility with respect to the RSE,
vesting that instead in the contract holder or employer of the RSE.
In this initial iteration the contract holder/employer shall be the
IETF LLC. As described here, the RSEB becomes another organization
at the top level of the IETF community along with the IAB, IESG and
LLC.
This document also creates a new stream, the Editorial Stream, under
the control of the RSEB and for the publication of documents that
create, direct, modify or describe functions specific to the RFC
Series System.
Lastly, this document from time to time refers to an RFC Series
Organization (RSO). That term is used only as a short-hand to refer
to the RSE, the RSEB and any contracted-for resources involved in the
production of RFCs and should not be taken as creating an actual
organization.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Management August 2020
2. The RFC Series Editorial Board
2.1. Role of the RSEB
The RSEB is a policy and strategy board within the general umbrella
of the IETF organization. Its primary role is to provide advice to
the RSE on the evolution of the RFC Series, and to approve such
documents for publication within the Editorial stream as may be
necessary to accomplish that evolution.
The composition of the RSEB was chosen to explicitly enfranchise more
members of the RFC Series community than just the IAB. It contains
direct representation for all of the current RFC publication streams,
and includes at-large members selected by the community through the
Nomcom process to directly represent the community.
The RSEB is meant to be tightly focused on the RFC Series as the
structure for enabling world-class publishing of Internet Standards,
technical and research proposals, and the minutia of the IETF
operating procedures. The RSEB may suggest to the RSE topics for
their consideration, and may request that the RSE add those topics to
tasks approved under the RSE's work agreement. The RSE, RSEB and LLC
should occasionally meet together to review current tasking.
Note: As the RSEB has no contractual relationship with the RSE, the
RSEB does not exercise any form of work direction over the RSE nor
does it have any role in evaluating the RSE's performance. The
individuals of the RSEB may provide commentary to the LLC or the CM
on their perception of the RSE's performance, but those comments
should not be given any more weight than comments from other
community members. The RSE and RSEB are co-equal partners and
collegues. If any member of the RSEB has an issue with the RSE's job
performance the appropriate approach is providing their concerns to
the LLC board or the RSE's CM.
For avoidance of doubt: The LLC has no oversight or management role
with respect to the strategic development of the RFC Series. The
funding of the RSE, RPC and other tasks within the RSO does not
expand the LLC's current administrative remit to oversight of the RFC
Series.
2.2. Composition of the RSEB
The RSEB consists of the RSE, the ISE, three stream managers who
represent their streams, and three at-large members.
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Management August 2020
2.2.1. RFC Series Editor
The RSE role is described in [RFC8728], and this document is in
general agreement with that description. The RSE role is conceived
as a funded position for a senior subject matter expert in the field
of technical publication, with primary responsibility for the smooth
functioning of the operation and evolution of the RFC Series. See
section 2.1.6 of that RFC for a detailed list of qualifications.
The RSE is the Editor in Chief of the RFC Series, and
responsibilities and authorities commensurate with that role. In
particular, the RSE will be responsible for the authoring,
improvement and upkeep of documents that describe the RFC Series
processes and its look and feel (e.g. RFC Style Guide, XML
vocabulary, publication process), as well as working with volunteers
and contractors to ensure tools exist to support those processes.
The LLC may also, with the RSE's agreement, designate the RSE as
Contract Monitor for one or more RSO contracts.
2.2.2. Independent Series Editor
The ISE role is described within [RFC6548] and this document does not
modify the responsibilities described there, nor the process for
selecting the ISE. However, the ISE gains an additional
responsibility with the formation of the RSEB.
The ISE serves as the vice-chair of the RSEB, and, if the RSE role is
vacant, serves as acting chair of the RSEB and acting Editor in Chief
of the RFC Series.
If the ISE role is vacant, the responsibilities and authorities
delegated to the ISE devolve onto the RSE. If both roles are vacant,
the remainder of the RSEB shall select one of its number to act as
RSE and ISE until one or the other of the roles is filled.
2.2.3. Stream Managers
Stream managers are selected from the membership of the IESG, the IAB
and the IRSG as their body's representative to the RSEB as stream
managers for their respective streams. The chairs of the respective
bodies should not serve as stream managers as their chair duties are
unlikely to allow them sufficient time to focus on the needs of the
RFC Series.
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Management August 2020
Stream managers must be reappointed by their bodies annually and will
notify the RSE of their selections upon the conclusion of the First
IETF meeting of the year. Any stream manager may be replaced by
their body with 30 days notice, or upon the stream manager leaving
their position on the respective body.
While the selection of the stream manager is completely within the
purview of the owning body, the member chosen should have some
background with the RFC system beyond publishing an RFC, or should
have equivalent background in other publication systems.
Stream managers represent their body to the RSEB and, as such, are
expected to coordinate with them on other than trivial actions taken
by the RSEB.
2.2.4. At-Large Members
Two At-Large members of the RSEB shall be nominated by the Nomcom and
confirmed by the ISOC Board of Trustees. The initial members shall
be selected to serve for 2 and 4 years respectively. Subsequent
members shall serve for a nominal term of 3 years and may be
reappointed for a maximum of three terms. Those terms shall end at
the conclusion of the First IETF meeting of the year in which their
term expires.
One At-Large member shall be selected by the ISOC Board of Trustees
(BOT) and shall serve for a term of three years. IETF-appointed
members of the ISOC board are not eligible to serve as the ISOC At-
Large member of the RSEB. An RSEB member who is appointed to the
ISOC board by the IETF and accepts the appointment is considered to
have resigned from the RSEB. The term of this member runs from the
date of appointment.
Consistent with the normal requirements for other Nomcom selected
positions, an At-Large member of the RSEB shall not serve in any
other Nomcom selected position.
The RSEB is responsible for writing and updating the position
description used by the Nomcom to select the at-large members. This
description shall also be provided to the ISOC BOT for assistance in
selecting their member.
For the initial selection process, the position description shall be
written collaboratively by the ISE and the stream managers with
community input, but should generally describe someone with interests
or experience in technical publication. As the scope of the RSO is
intended to extend beyond the IETF's interests, the Nomcom is highly
encouraged (as it has done with the LLC board) to consider for
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Management August 2020
selection to the the RSEB those who are not currently participants
within the IETF community, but who might bring in needed publication
expertise.
The Nomcom is expected to explicitly seek out the input of the RSEB
members with respect to any RSEB member that is being considered for
appointment or reappointment. The Nomcom should also consult the
record of the RSEB during its deliberations with respect to
candidates for reappointment. This is in addition to the usual call
for community input.
3. RFC Series Resources
3.1. RFC Production Center
The general model of the RFC Production and Publication (RPC) system
is as described in sections 2.2 and 2.3 of [RFC8728] and this
document does not change that model except to note that the
relationship of the RSE to the RPC is subject to the contractual
language between the LLC and the RSE. The LLC may chose to place the
RSE in a directive position over the RPC as a Contract Monitor, or it
may place the RSE in an advisory role with respect to the RPC. If
the RSE is designated as CM for the RPC, then there must be specific
contractual language spelling out the RSE's responsibilities and
authorities wit respect to the RPC. The exact relationship is
subject to negotiation between the RSE, the LLC and the RPC.
3.2. Other Contracts
The RSE may recommend the outsourcing of specific tasks related to
the RFC Series production and development. A current example of this
might be hiring an XML expert to assist with the V3 XML2RFC language.
The RSE will create a budget, a Request for Proposal (RFP) and a
draft Statement of Work, and shall provide them to the LLC for
initial approval prior to sending the task out for bid.
Upon receipt of the bids, the RSEB shall review the proposals and
indicate their preference for one or two of the responses along with
their reasoning. The LLC, as the contracting entity, will do its due
diligence and, if acceptable, shall issue a contract for those tasks.
The interaction of the RSEB with the contract ends with the
submission of the selection material to the LLC.
Whether the RSE should act as contract monitor for any short-term
contracted tasks is left to be resolved on a case by case basis.
Notwithstanding this section, the LLC has full authority to choose
CM's as appropriate to the LLC's needs.
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Management August 2020
3.3. Contract Monitors
The contracting entity (i.e., the LLC) may select an individual to
act as a contract monitor (CM) for any given RSO resource. As the CM
role is, or should be, one of a fiduciary for the contracting entity,
the delegation of authority and responsibility from the contracting
entity to the CM must be written, contractually binding, and
acceptable (as to the role, not the individual) to the contractor.
The delegation of authority and responsibility shall be a public
document accessible to the community.
As a fiduciary, this document anticipates that any CMs will generally
be either contractors or employees of the LLC and not unpaid
volunteers from the community.
For avoidance of doubt:
* The ISE SHALL NOT be a CM for the RSE.
* The RSE SHALL NOT be a CM for the ISE.
* The RSE MAY be a CM for the RPC
* The RSE MAY be a CM for any task contracts.
* No other member of the RSEB may be a CM for any RSO contract.
* Hiring and firing decisions or contract termination or renewal
decisions SHALL NOT be made by the CM.
* The RSE is not "just a contractor", but a senior member of the
community. Any delegation from the LLC to a CM SHALL be limited
to the minimum functions necessary. See the last paragraph of
Section 2.1 for a brief comment on the limits of the LLC's role.
4. Selection of the RSE
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Management August 2020
4.1. RSE Search Committee
In the event of a vacancy or pending vacancy in the RSE, the RSEB
shall select and convene a search committee consisting of the ISE (as
an advisor), one of the stream managers, and one of the at-large
members. Those three shall select a search committee chairman from
set of solicited volunteers who shall not currently be serving on any
of the IETF boards (e.g., IAB, IESG, LLC, Trust, IRSG, RSEB) and who
shall have specific experience and contacts in the technical
publication space. In addition, if appropriate, the search committee
may engage the assistance of an outgoing or previous RSE to aid in
the search as a second advisor to the committee.
Note: A hired search firm or principal may be the best approach to
finding good quality candidates.
The search committee is responsible for creating the RFP and
Statement of Work (SOW) documentation to fill the position of RSE,
and for seeking the approval for the search to proceed from the LLC
board. Any proposed SOW is expected to consistent with the documents
that set out the roles and responsibilities of the RSE. Upon
publication of the RFP, the search committee is expected to make an
active search for viable candidates and is expected to reach out to
other technical publication organizations for leads on candidates.
If the existing RSE continues to remain a good fit for the community
at the end of an existing contract, the appropriate action is to
negotiate a renewal of the engagement terms rather than opening up a
search. The decision as to which approach to take lies with the LLC.
4.2. Approval by the RSEB
Once the search committee has found one or more appropriate
candidates, the full RSEB shall vote on acceptance, rejection and
preference with respect to each of the candidates. The results of
that vote along with any recommendations or comments shall be sent to
the LLC for its action. The general goal is for the RSEB to approve
all well qualified candidates, and to leave the LLC the flexibility
to resolve the balance between contractual needs, funding and scope.
In the event the LLC declines to engage any of the candidates, the
search committee will restart its process and attempt to find other
viable candidates. In the result of a failure, the RSEB shall meet
with the LLC, IAB and IESG to determine a path forward.
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Management August 2020
4.3. Engagement Model for the RSE
Consistent with the description in section 2.1 of [RFC8728], the RSE
is a senior-level subject matter expert within the realm of technical
publication. And consistent with past experience, the RSE role as
currently scoped requires approximately 50% of a full time equivalent
to service that function. That suggests that the appropriate
engagement model for the RSE is either as an independent contractor,
or as a board employee.
While it is ultimately the LLC's decision, the RSE should be engaged
via either a personal services contract or an employment contract for
a given term. Engagement as an at-will employee would not be
appropriate for a senior-level resource with these strategic
responsibilities and would not provide any measure of consistency and
continuity over the RFC Series.
5. Operation of the RSEB
Within the constraints of the following items, the RSEB shall set its
own form of operation:
* The RSEB meets at least annually in public session during an IETF
meeting (if physical) or alternately, in the week prior to or
after a virtual meeting (if schedule time is tight during IETF
week). This will allow the RSEB to hear community input and
concerns in a formalized session, and to discuss planned work and
work in progress.
* All meetings of the RSEB SHALL be open and complete proceedings
shall be published, with the sole exception of proceedings
directly related to the search process for a RSE or the selection
of other sub-contractors. The intent is that the should be no
closed or partially closed deliberations by the RSEB excepting
those searches.
* The RSE and ISE act as chair and vice chair respectively, and the
RSEB shall not override that model except as provided above.
* The RSEB SHALL act via recorded vote with a majority vote of all
members being required for most actions. The voting record shall
be public except for votes related to searches.
* A quorum of the RSEB consists of a majority of the members which
includes at least one stream manager member, one at-large member
and either the chair or vice-chair. The RSEB shall document any
actions for which only a quorum majority is sufficient vice a
majority of the whole membership.
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Management August 2020
* The RSEB shall encourage community input for any documents
produced, however, similar to documents produced by the IAB, the
RSEB is not required to determine community consensus prior to
publication of their documents. Given the initial configuration
of the RSEB, at least one stream manager member and one At-Large
member will need to give their consent for any document to be
published.
* [RFC8728] sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.4 (substituting RSEB for RSOC or
IAB) describes the general interaction between the community and
the RFC series and this section does not purport to modify that
interaction, only clarify that the community has delegated certain
responsibilities to the RSE and RSEB, similar to the way the
community has delegated responsibilities to the IAB, IESG and LLC.
Once the RSEB is chartered, the charter may only be revoked by a 2/3
vote of the IAB, IESG and LLC members voting individually and such
vote may not be proposed more than once annually.
6. The Editorial Stream
The Editorial Stream (ES) is created as the designated stream for
publication of documents that describe, develop, amend, or explain
the RFC Series, the roles, responsibilities and authorities of the
RSO elements, and the general engagement model between the RSO and
the IETF and broader community. The content of the ES shall be
limited to just those topics. The RSEB shall approve by 2/3s
majority vote most publications in that stream. The exception is
that the RSE has the right of publication of documents authored by
the RSE as commentary or analysis of the RFC Series and its progress.
The RSE may publish those without RSEB approval, but the RSEB may
require a note be added to the abstract indicating any issues agreed
to by a majority of the RSEB.
While the RSEB bears sole authority to approve publications in that
stream, the RSEB (or the RSE acting on behalf of the RSEB) is
expected to solicit community input and involvement for the
improvement of documents that affect long-term evolution of the
series, or documents that affect how and when any stream approved
document is published.
7. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Brian Carpenter, Bob Hinden, Scott Bradner and John Klensin
for reading and commenting on the first draft of this document.
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Series Management August 2020
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations
There are no security considerations.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC6548] Brownlee, N., Ed. and IAB, "Independent Submission Editor
Model", RFC 6548, DOI 10.17487/RFC6548, June 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6548>.
[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>.
Author's Address
Michael StJohns
NthPermutation Security LLC
Germantown, MD 20874
United States of America
Email: msj@nthpermutation.com
StJohns Expires 25 February 2021 [Page 12]
