💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc8729.txt captured on 2021-12-04 at 18:04:22.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) R. Housley, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8729
Obsoletes: 4844 L. Daigle, Ed.
Category: Informational February 2020
ISSN: 2070-1721
The RFC Series and RFC Editor
Abstract
This document describes the framework for an RFC Series and an RFC
Editor function that incorporate the principles of organized
community involvement and accountability that has become necessary as
the Internet technical community has grown, thereby enabling the RFC
Series to continue to fulfill its mandate. This document obsoletes
RFC 4844.
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/rfc8729.
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. RFC Series Mission
3. Roles and Responsibilities
3.1. RFC Editor
3.2. IAB
3.3. Operational Oversight
3.4. Policy Oversight
4. Framework
4.1. Document Approval
4.1.1. Definition
4.1.2. Operational Implementation
4.1.3. Process Change
4.1.4. Existing Approval Process Documents
4.2. Editing, Processing, and Publication of Documents
4.2.1. Definition
4.2.2. Operational Implementation
4.2.3. Process Change
4.2.4. Existing Process Documents
4.3. Archiving, Indexing, and Accessibility
4.3.1. Definition
4.3.2. Operational Implementation
4.3.3. Process Change
4.3.4. Existing Process Documents
4.4. Series-Wide Guidelines and Rules
4.4.1. Definition
4.4.2. Operational Implementation
4.4.3. Process Change
4.4.4. Existing Process Documents
5. RFC Streams
5.1. RFC Approval Processes
5.1.1. IETF Document Stream
5.1.2. IAB Document Stream
5.1.3. IRTF Document Stream
5.1.4. Independent Submission Stream
5.2. RFC Technical Publication Requirements
5.2.1. IETF Documents
5.2.2. IAB Documents
5.2.3. IRTF Documents
5.2.4. Independent Submissions
6. Security Considerations
7. Changes Since RFC 4844
8. Informative References
Appendix A. A Retrospective of IAB Charters and RFC Editor
A.1. 1992
A.2. 1994
A.3. 2000
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The first Request for Comments (RFC) document was published in April
of 1969 as part of the effort to design and build what we now know of
as the Internet. Since then, the RFC Series has been the archival
series dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications,
including both general contributions from the Internet research and
engineering community as well as standards documents.
As described in the history of the first 30 years of RFCs
([RFC2555]), the RFC Series was created for the purpose of capturing
the research and engineering thought that underlie the design of
(what we now know of as) the Internet. As the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) was formalized to carry out the discussion and
documentation of Internet standards, IETF documents have become a
large part (but not the entirety) of the RFC Series.
As the IETF has grown up and celebrated its own 30 years of history,
its requirements for archival publication of its output have changed
and become more rigorous. Perhaps most significantly, the IETF must
be able to define (based on its own open consensus discussion
processes and leadership directions) and implement adjustments to its
publication processes.
At the same time, the Internet engineering and research community as
a whole has grown and come to require more openness and
accountability in all organizations supporting it. More than ever,
this community needs an RFC Series that is supported (operationally
and in terms of its principles) such that there is a balance of:
* expert implementation;
* clear management and direction -- for operations and evolution
across the whole RFC Series (whether originating in the IETF or
not); and
* appropriate community input into and review of activities.
In the past, there has been confusion and therefore sometimes tension
over where and how to address RFC issues that are particular to
contributing groups (e.g., the IETF, the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB), or independent individuals). It was not always clear where
there should be community involvement versus RFC Editor control;
depending on the issue, there might be more or less involvement from
the IAB, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), or the
community at large. There are similar issues with handling RFC
Series-wide issues -- where to discuss and resolve them in a way that
is balanced across the whole series.
For example, there have been discussions about Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) for IETF-generated documents, but it's not clear when or
how to abstract the portions of those discussions that are relevant
to the rest of the RFC Series. Discussions of labeling (of RFCs in
general, IETF documents in particular, or some combination thereof)
generally must be applied to the whole RFC Series or not at all.
Without an agreed-on framework for managing the RFC Series, it is
difficult to have those discussions in a non-polarized fashion --
either the IETF dictating the reality of the rest of the RFC Series,
or the RFC Series imposing undue restrictions on documents from the
IETF.
As part of its charter (see Appendix A), the IAB has a responsibility
for the RFC Editor. Acknowledging the IETF's needs and the general
Internet engineering and research community's evolving needs, the IAB
supports a future for the RFC Series that continues to meet its
original mandate of providing the archival series for the technical
research and engineering documentation that describes the Internet.
With this document, the IAB provides the framework for the RFC Series
and an RFC Editor function with the specific purpose of ensuring that
the RFC Series is maintained and supported in ways that are
consistent with the stated purpose of the RFC Series and the
realities of today's Internet research and engineering community.
The framework describes the existing "streams" of RFCs, draws a
roadmap of existing process documents already defining the
implementation, and provides clear direction of how to evolve this
framework and its supporting pieces through discussion and future
document revision.
Specifically, this document provides a brief charter for the RFC
Series, describes the role of the RFC Editor, the IAB, and the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA) in a framework for managing
the RFC Series, and discusses the streams of input to the RFC Series
from the various constituencies it serves.
2. RFC Series Mission
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.
3. Roles and Responsibilities
As this document sets out the framework for supporting the RFC Series
mission, this section reviews the updated roles and responsibilities
of the entities that have had, and will have, involvement in
continued support of the mission.
3.1. RFC Editor
Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC
Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now
requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are RFC
Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be
multiple organizations working together to undertake the work
required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without
attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them,
this document refers to this collection of experts and organizations
as the "RFC Editor".
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.
3.2. IAB
In this model, the role of the IAB is to ensure that the RFC Series
mission is being appropriately fulfilled for the whole community for
which it was created. The IAB does not, organizationally, have
comprehensive publishing or editorial expertise. Therefore, the role
of the IAB is focused on ensuring that principles are met, the
appropriate bodies and communities are duly informed and consulted,
and the RFC Editor has what it needs in order to execute on the
material that is in their mandate.
It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of the
RFC Editor and to approve the general policy followed by the RFC
Editor.
3.3. Operational Oversight
The IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC), as part
of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA), is responsible
for administrative and financial matters for the IETF, the IAB, and
the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) [RFC8711]. The IASA is
tasked with providing the funding for the RFC Editor. The IASA,
through the IETF Executive Director, provides contractual and
financial oversight of the RFC Editor. Additionally, as described in
Section 3.1 of [RFC8728], the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC),
acting with authority delegated from the IAB, is responsible for
ensuring that the RFC Series is run in a transparent and accountable
manner, including design and execution of the RFC Series Editor
selection process.
The IETF Executive Director works with the IAB to identify suitable
persons or entities to fulfill the mandate of the RFC Production
Center and the RFC Publisher roles as defined in [RFC8728].
The IETF Executive Director establishes appropriate contractual
agreements with the selected persons or entities to carry out the
work that will satisfy the technical publication requirements defined
for the various RFC input streams (see Section 5.2). The IETF
Executive Director may define additional operational requirements and
policies for management purposes to meet the requirements defined by
the various communities.
The IETF Administration LLC Board approves a budget for operation of
the RFC Editor activity, and the IETF Executive Director establishes
and manages the necessary operational agreements for the RFC Editor
activity.
3.4. Policy Oversight
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.
4. Framework
With the RFC Series mission outlined above, this document describes a
framework for supporting
* the operational implementation of the RFC Series,
based on
* public process and definition documents,
for which there are
* clear responsibilities and mechanisms for update and change.
Generally speaking, the RFC Editor is responsible for the operational
implementation of the RFC Series. As outlined in Section 3.3, the
IETF Executive Director provides the oversight of this operational
role.
The process and definition documents are detailed below, including
responsibility for the individual process documents (maintenance and
update). The RFC Editor works with the appropriate community to
ensure that the process documents reflect current requirements. The
IAB is charged with the role of verifying that appropriate community
input has been sought and that any changes appropriately account for
community requirements.
There are three categories of activity, and a fourth category of
series-wide rules and guidelines, described for implementing the RFC
Series to support its mission:
* Approval of documents.
* Editing, processing, and publication of documents.
* Archiving and indexing the documents and making them accessible.
* Series rules and guidelines.
4.1. Document Approval
The RFC Series mission implicitly requires that documents be reviewed
and approved for acceptance into the series.
4.1.1. Definition
Section 5.1 describes the different streams of documents that are put
to the RFC Editor for publication as RFCs today. While there may be
general policies for approval of documents as RFCs (to ensure the
coherence of the RFC Series), there are also policies defined for the
approval of documents in each stream. Generally speaking, there is a
different approving body for each stream. The current definitions
are catalogued in Section 5.1.
4.1.2. Operational Implementation
Each stream has its own documented approval process. The RFC Editor
is responsible for the approval of documents in one of the streams
(Independent Submission stream, see Section 5.1.4) and works with the
other approving bodies to ensure smooth passage of approved documents
into the next phases, ultimately to publication and archiving as an
RFC.
4.1.3. Process Change
From time to time, it may be necessary to change the approval
processes for any given stream, or even add or remove streams. This
may occur when the RFC Editor, the IAB, the body responsible for a
given stream of documents, or the community determines that there are
issues to be resolved in general for RFC approval or for per-stream
approval processes.
In this framework, the general approach is that the IAB will work
with the RFC Editor and other parties to get community input, and it
will verify that any changes appropriately account for community
requirements.
4.1.4. Existing Approval Process Documents
The existing documents describing the approval processes for each
stream are detailed in Section 5.1.
4.2. Editing, Processing, and Publication of Documents
Producing and maintaining a coherent, well-edited document series
requires specialized skills and subject matter expertise. This is
the domain of the RFC Editor. Nevertheless, the community served by
the RFC Series and the communities served by the individual streams
of RFCs have requirements that help define the nature of the series.
4.2.1. Definition
General and stream-specific requirements for the RFC Series are
documented in community-approved documents (catalogued in Section 5.2
below).
Any specific interfaces, numbers, or concrete values required to make
the requirements operational are the subject of agreements between
the IASA and the RFC Editor (e.g., contracts, statements of work,
service level agreements, etc).
4.2.2. Operational Implementation
The RFC Editor is responsible for ensuring that editing, processing,
and publication of RFCs are carried out in a way that is consistent
with the requirements laid out in the appropriate documents. The RFC
Editor works with the IASA to provide regular reporting and feedback
on these operations.
4.2.3. Process Change
From time to time, it may be necessary to change the requirements for
any given stream, or the RFC Series in general. This may occur when
the RFC Editor, the IAB, the approval body for a given stream of
documents, or the community determines that there are issues to be
resolved in general for RFCs or for per-stream requirements.
In this model, the general approach is that the IAB will work with
the RFC Editor to get community input, and it will approve changes by
validating appropriate consideration of community requirements.
4.2.4. Existing Process Documents
Documents describing existing requirements for the streams are
detailed in Section 5.2.
4.3. Archiving, Indexing, and Accessibility
The activities of archiving, indexing, and making accessible the RFC
Series can be informed by specific subject matter expertise in
general document series editing. It is also important that they are
informed by requirements from the whole community. As long as the
RFC Series is to remain coherent, there should be uniform archiving
and indexing of RFCs across all streams and a common method of
accessing the resulting documents.
4.3.1. Definition
In principle, there should be a community consensus document
describing the archiving, indexing, and accessibility requirements
for the RFC Series. In practice, we continue with the archive as
built by the capable RFC Editors since the series' inception.
Any specific concrete requirements for the archive, index, and
accessibility operations are the subject of agreements between the
IASA and the RFC Editor (e.g., contracts, statements of work, service
level agreements, etc).
4.3.2. Operational Implementation
The RFC Editor is responsible for ensuring that the RFC archive and
index are maintained appropriately and that the resulting documents
are made available to anybody wishing to access them via the
Internet. The RFC Editor works with the IASA for regular reporting
and feedback.
4.3.3. Process Change
Should there be a community move to propose changes to the
requirements for the RFC archive and index or accessibility, the IAB
will work with the RFC Editor to get community input, and it will
approve changes by validating appropriate consideration of community
requirements.
4.3.4. Existing Process Documents
There are no applicable process documents.
4.4. Series-Wide Guidelines and Rules
The RFC Series style and content can be shaped by subject matter
expertise in document series editing. They are also informed by
requirements by the using community. As long as the RFC Series is to
remain coherent, there should be uniform style and content for RFCs
across all streams. This includes, but is not limited to, acceptable
language, use of references, and copyright rules.
4.4.1. Definition
In principle, there should be a community consensus document (or set
of documents) describing the content requirements for the RFC Series.
In practice, some do exist, though some need reviewing and more may
be needed over time.
4.4.2. Operational Implementation
The RFC Editor is responsible for ensuring that the RFC Series
guidelines are upheld within the RFC Series.
4.4.3. Process Change
When additions or changes are needed to series-wide definitions, the
IAB will work with the RFC Editor and stream stakeholders to get
community input and review. The IAB will approve changes by
validating appropriate consideration of community requirements.
4.4.4. Existing Process Documents
Existing series-wide rules and guidelines documents include:
* RFC Style Guide [RFC7322],
* The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs [RFC7997],
* Copyright and intellectual property rules [RFC5378],
* Normative references [RFC3967] [RFC4897], [RFC8067].
5. RFC Streams
Various contributors provide input to the RFC Series. These
contributors come from several different communities, each with its
own defined process for approving documents that will be published by
the RFC Editor. This is nothing new; however, over time the various
communities and document requirements have grown and separated. In
order to promote harmony in discussing the collective set of
requirements, it is useful to recognize each in their own space --
and they are referred to here as "streams".
Note that by identifying separate streams, there is no intention of
dividing them or undermining their management as one series. Rather,
the opposite is true -- by clarifying the constituent parts, it is
easier to make them work together without the friction that sometimes
arises when discussing various requirements.
The subsections below identify the streams that exist today. There
is no immediate expectation of new streams being created, and it is
preferable that new streams NOT be created. Creation of streams and
all policies surrounding general changes to the RFC Series are
discussed above in Section 4.
5.1. RFC Approval Processes
Processes for approval of documents (or requirements) for each stream
are defined by the community that defines the stream. The IAB is
charged with the role of verifying that appropriate community input
has been sought and that the changes are consistent with the RFC
Series mission and this overall framework.
The RFC Editor is expected to publish all documents passed to it
after appropriate review and approval in one of the identified
streams.
5.1.1. IETF Document Stream
The IETF document stream includes IETF WG documents as well as
"individual submissions" sponsored by an IESG area director. Any
document being published as part of the IETF standards process must
follow this stream -- no other stream can approve Standards-Track
RFCs or Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs.
Approval of documents in the IETF stream is defined by
* the IETF standards process [RFC2026] (and its successors).
* the IESG process for sponsoring individual submissions [SPONSOR].
Changes to the approval process for this stream are made by updating
the IETF standards process documents.
5.1.2. IAB Document Stream
The IAB defines the processes by which it approves documents in its
stream. Consistent with the above, any documents that the IAB wishes
to publish as part of the IETF Standards Track (Standards or BCPs)
are subject to the approval processes referred to in Section 5.1.1.
The review and approval process for documents in the IAB stream is
described in
* the IAB process for review and approval of its documents
[RFC4845].
5.1.3. IRTF Document Stream
The IRTF is chartered as an activity of the IAB. With the approval
of the IAB, the IRTF may publish and update a process for publication
of its own, non-IETF Standards-Track, documents.
The review and approval process for documents in the IRTF stream is
described in
* IRTF Research Group RFCs [RFC5743].
5.1.4. Independent Submission Stream
The RFC Series has always served a broader Internet technical
community than the IETF. The "Independent Submission" stream is
defined to provide review and (possible) approval of documents that
are outside the scope of the streams identified above.
Generally speaking, approval of documents in this stream falls under
the purview of the RFC Editor, and the RFC Editor seeks input to its
review from the IESG.
The process for reviewing and approving documents in the Independent
Submission stream is defined by
* Procedures for Rights Handling in the RFC Independent Submission
Stream [RFC5744],
* Independent Submission Editor Model [RFC8730],
* Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor [RFC4846],
* The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures [RFC5742].
5.2. RFC Technical Publication Requirements
The Internet engineering and research community has not only grown,
it has become more diverse, and sometimes more demanding. The IETF,
as a standards-developing organization, has publication requirements
that extend beyond those of an academic journal. The IAB does not
have the same interdependence with IANA assignments as the IETF
stream does. Therefore, there is the need to both codify the
publishing requirements of each stream, and endeavor to harmonize
them to the extent that is reasonable.
Therefore, it is expected that the community of effort behind each
document stream will outline their technical publication
requirements.
As part of the RFC Editor oversight, the IAB must agree that the
requirements are consistent with and implementable as part of the RFC
Editor activity.
5.2.1. IETF Documents
The requirements for this stream are defined in [RFC4714].
5.2.2. IAB Documents
Although they were developed for the IETF standards process, the IAB
has identified applicable requirements in [RFC4714] for its stream.
In addition, procedures related to IPR for the IAB stream are
captured in [RFC5745].
If the IAB elects to define other requirements, they should deviate
minimally from those (in an effort to keep the collective technical
publication requirements reasonably managed by one technical
publisher).
5.2.3. IRTF Documents
The IRTF has identified applicable requirements in [RFC5743] for its
stream.
If the IRTF elects to define other requirements, they should deviate
minimally from those (in an effort to keep the collective technical
publication requirements reasonably managed by one technical
publisher).
5.2.4. Independent Submissions
Procedures and processes for the Independent Stream are described in
[RFC4846] and [RFC8730].
Although they were developed for the IETF standards process, the RFC
Editor has identified applicable requirements in [RFC4714] for the
Independent Submissions stream. In addition, procedures related to
IPR for the independent submissions stream are captured in [RFC5744].
If the RFC Editor elects to define other requirements, they should
deviate minimally from those (in an effort to keep the collective
technical publication requirements reasonably managed by one
technical publisher).
6. Security Considerations
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
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, non-
machine readable originals) need to be secured against failure of the
storage medium and other similar disasters.
7. Changes Since RFC 4844
Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 4 have been updated to align with the
restructuring of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Under the new structure, the IETF LLC performs the tasks related to
IASA that were previously assigned to the IETF Administrative
Director and to the Internet Society.
Many references were updated to point to the most recent documents.
Minor editorial changes were made to reflect 10 years of using the
framework provided in RFC 4884. For example, RFC 4844 said, "...
this document sets out a revised framework ...", and it is now more
appropriate to say, "... this document sets out the framework ...".
8. Informative References
[RFC1358] Chapin, L., "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB)", RFC 1358, DOI 10.17487/RFC1358, August 1992,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1358>.
[RFC1601] Huitema, C., "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB)", RFC 1601, DOI 10.17487/RFC1601, March 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1601>.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
[RFC2555] Editor, RFC. and et. al., "30 Years of RFCs", RFC 2555,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2555, April 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2555>.
[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>.
[RFC3967] Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track
Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower
Level", BCP 97, RFC 3967, DOI 10.17487/RFC3967, December
2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3967>.
[RFC4714] Mankin, A. and S. Hayes, "Requirements for IETF Technical
Publication Service", RFC 4714, DOI 10.17487/RFC4714,
October 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4714>.
[RFC4845] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "Process
for Publication of IAB RFCs", RFC 4845,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4845, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4845>.
[RFC4846] Klensin, J., Ed. and D. Thaler, Ed., "Independent
Submissions to the RFC Editor", RFC 4846,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4846, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4846>.
[RFC4897] Klensin, J. and S. Hartman, "Handling Normative References
to Standards-Track Documents", BCP 97, RFC 4897,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4897, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4897>.
[RFC5378] 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/rfc5378>.
[RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5742>.
[RFC5743] Falk, A., "Definition of an Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF) Document Stream", RFC 5743, DOI 10.17487/RFC5743,
December 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5743>.
[RFC5744] Braden, R. and J. Halpern, "Procedures for Rights Handling
in the RFC Independent Submission Stream", RFC 5744,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5744, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5744>.
[RFC5745] Malis, A., Ed. and IAB, "Procedures for Rights Handling in
the RFC IAB Stream", RFC 5745, DOI 10.17487/RFC5745,
December 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5745>.
[RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.
[RFC7997] Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in
RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7997>.
[RFC8067] Leiba, B., "Updating When Standards Track Documents May
Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level", BCP 97,
RFC 8067, DOI 10.17487/RFC8067, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8067>.
[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>.
[RFC8730] Brownlee, N., Ed. and R. Hinden, Ed., "Independent
Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8730>.
[SPONSOR] IESG, "Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents",
IESG Statement, March 2007,
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-
docs.html>.
Appendix A. A Retrospective of IAB Charters and RFC Editor
With this document, the IAB's role with respect to the RFC Series and
the RFC Editor is being adjusted to work more directly with the RFC
Editor and provide oversight to ensure the RFC Series mission
principles and communities' input are addressed appropriately.
This section provides an overview of the role of the IAB with respect
to the RFC Editor as it has been presented in IAB Charter RFCs dating
back to 1992. The point of this section is that the IAB's role has
historically been substantive -- whether it is supposed to be
directly responsible for the RFC Series' editorial management (circa
1992, Appendix A.1), or appointment of the RFC Editor organization
and approval of general policy (circa 2000, Appendix A.3).
A.1. 1992
[RFC1358] says:
| [The IAB's] responsibilities shall include:
| [...]
| (2) The editorial management and publication of the Request
| for Comments (RFC) document series, which constitutes the
| archival publication series for Internet Standards and
| related contributions by the Internet research and
| engineering community.
A.2. 1994
[RFC1601] says:
| [The IAB's] responsibilities under this charter include:
|
| (d) RFC Series and IANA
|
| The IAB is responsible for editorial management and publication
| of the Request for Comments (RFC) document series, and for
| administration of the various Internet assigned numbers.
Which it elaborates as:
| 2.4 RFC Series and Assigned Numbers
|
| The RFC Series constitutes the archival publication channel
| for Internet Standards and for other contributions by the
| Internet research and engineering community. The IAB
| shall select an RFC Editor, who shall be responsible for
| the editorial management and publication of the RFC Series.
A.3. 2000
The most recent IAB Charter [RFC2850] says:
| (d) RFC Series and IANA
|
| The RFC Editor executes editorial management and publication of
| the IETF "Request for Comment" (RFC) document series, which is
| the permanent document repository of the IETF. 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.
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
The IAB members at the time of approval of RFC 4844 were:
Bernard Aboba
Loa Andersson
Brian Carpenter
Leslie Daigle
Elwyn Davies
Kevin Fall
Olaf Kolkman
Kurtis Lindqvist
David Meyer
David Oran
Eric Rescorla
Dave Thaler
Lixia Zhang
The IAB members at the time of approval of this document were:
Jari Arkko
Alissa Cooper
Stephen Farrell
Wes Hardaker
Ted Hardie
Christian Huitema
Zhenbin Li
Erik Nordmark
Mark Nottingham
Melinda Shore
Jeff Tantsura
Martin Thomson
Brian Trammell
Authors' Addresses
Russ Housley (editor)
Email: housley@vigilsec.com
Leslie L. Daigle (editor)
Email: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com