doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 1067 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5620.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5620.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..83a2a78
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5620.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1067 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                    O. Kolkman, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 5620                                           IAB
+Category: Informational                                      August 2009
+
+
+                      RFC Editor Model (Version 1)
+
+Abstract
+
+   The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out
+   by various persons or entities.  The RFC Editor model presented in
+   this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
+   four functions: The RFC Series Editor, the Independent Submission
+   Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher.  It also
+   introduces the RFC Series Advisory Group and an (optional)
+   Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board.  The model outlined
+   here is intended to increase flexibility and operational support
+   options, provide for the orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and
+   ensure the continuity of the RFC series, while maintaining RFC
+   quality and timely processing, ensuring document accessibility,
+   reducing costs, and increasing cost transparency.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
+   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
+   and restrictions with respect to this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction ....................................................3
+   2. IAOC Implementation .............................................4
+      2.1. Expenses for the RFC Editor ................................4
+   3. RFC Editor Model ................................................5
+      3.1. RFC Series Editor ..........................................6
+      3.2. Independent Submission Editor ..............................8
+      3.3. RFC Production Center ......................................9
+      3.4. RFC Publisher .............................................11
+   4. Committees .....................................................11
+      4.1. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) ..........................11
+           4.1.1. Charter ............................................11
+           4.1.2. Membership .........................................12
+           4.1.3. Disagreements among RFC Editor Entities ............13
+      4.2. Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board .............14
+   5. IANA Considerations ............................................14
+   6. Security Considerations ........................................14
+   7. Acknowledgments ................................................15
+   8. References .....................................................16
+      8.1. Normative References ......................................16
+      8.2. Informative References.....................................16
+   Appendix A. 2009 Selection Process ................................17
+      A.1. Ad Hoc Advisory Committee(s) ..............................17
+      A.2. The IAB Selection Process of an RFC Series Editor
+           and/or an Independent Submission Editor ...................17
+           A.2.1. Nominations and Eligibility ........................17
+           A.2.2. Committees in 2009 .................................18
+           A.2.3. Selection ..........................................18
+           A.2.4. Care of Personal Information........................18
+           A.2.5. Term of Office and Selection Time Frame ............19
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned
+   with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor
+   succession, maintaining RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility.
+   The IAB is also sensitive to the concerns of the IETF Administrative
+   Oversight Committee (IAOC) about providing the necessary services in
+   a cost-effective and efficient manner.
+
+   The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844 [1].
+   Section 3.1 of RFC 4844 defines "RFC Editor":
+
+ | 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.
+
+   RFC 4844 makes no attempt to explore the internal organization of the
+   RFC Editor.  However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor
+   organizational structure.  In discussion with the Internet community,
+   the IAB considered changes that increase flexibility and operational
+   support options, provide for the orderly succession of the RFC
+   Editor, and ensure the continuity of the RFC series, while
+   maintaining RFC quality and timely processing, ensuring document
+   accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost transparency.  The
+   model set forth below is the result of those discussions, and
+   examines the internal organization of the RFC Editor, while remaining
+   consistent with RFC 4844.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+   Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC
+   Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo
+   provides a model for internal organization.  This memo introduces the
+   term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the
+   organizational components.
+
+   While the IAB approved the initial version of this RFC Editor model
+   on October 1, 2008, the model has received clarifications since.  It
+   should be noted that the publication of the document as an RFC does
+   not cast the model in stone, as the primary purpose of this document,
+   throughout the publication process, is to encourage normal community
+   review in order to ascertain consensus to work to this model as a
+   first step.  The document, and the resulting structures, will be
+   modified as needed through normal procedures.  The IAB will continue
+   to monitor discussions within the community about potential
+   adjustments to the RFC Editor model and recognizes that the process
+   described in this document may need to be adjusted to align with any
+   changes that result from such discussions, hence the version number
+   in the title.
+
+   In particular, the document will be reviewed after the various
+   transition periods and mechanisms specified in this version are
+   completed.
+
+2.  IAOC Implementation
+
+   The model is constructed in such a way that it allows for all these
+   functions to be implemented jointly or under separate contractual
+   arrangements.  In fact, a bidder could put together a proposal that
+   includes one or more subcontractors.  The reporting structure will
+   depend on the manner that the contracts are awarded, and they are
+   subject to change over time.  As a result, the model describes only
+   responsibilities, procedures, and process.  The exact implementation
+   is a responsibility of the IAOC.
+
+2.1.  Expenses for the RFC Editor
+
+   The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses.  They
+   are part of the IASA budget.  Today, these expenses are part of the
+   RFC Editor contract with the University of Southern California's
+   Information Sciences Institute.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+3.  RFC Editor Model
+
+   The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series
+   into the following components:
+
+   o  RFC Series Editor ("RSE").
+
+   o  Independent Submission Editor ("ISE").
+
+   o  RFC Production Center.
+
+   o  RFC Publisher.
+
+   The RFC Series production and process under this structure is
+   schematically represented by the figure below.  (The figure does not
+   depict oversight and escalation relations.)
+
+              ------     -----     ------     ---------
+   Stream    |      |   |     |   |      |   |Community|
+   Pro-      | IETF |   | IAB |   | IRTF |   |   at    |
+   ducers    |      |   |     |   |      |   |  Large  |
+              --^---     --^--     ---^--     ----^----
+                |          |          |           |
+                |          |          |           |             -------
+                |          |          |           |            | Indep.|
+              --v---    ---v---    ---v--     ----v------      | Stream|
+   Stream    |      |   |     |   |      |   |Independent|     | Edi-  |
+   Appro-    | IESG |   | IAB |   | IRSG |   |Submission |.....| torial|
+   vers      |      |   |     |   |      |   |  Editor   |     | Board |
+              ----^-    ---^---   ----^---    ----^------       -------
+                  |        |          |           |
+                  |        |          |           |             -------
+                  |        |          |           |            | RFC   |
+    ------      --v--------v----------v-----------v-----       | Series|
+   |      |    |                                        |      | Adv.  |
+   | IANA | <->|        RFC Production Center           <---.  | Group |
+   |      |    |                                        |   |   -------
+    ------      -----------------^----------------------    |     |
+                                 |                          |     |
+                                 |                    ------v-------
+                           ------v---------          |              |
+                          |                |         |  RFC Series  |
+                          |  RFC Publisher |<------->|    Editor    |
+                          |                |         |              |
+                           ----------------           --------------
+
+           Figure 1: Ordinary RFC Series production and process
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+   In this model, documents are produced and approved through multiple
+   document streams.  The four that now exist are described in [1].
+   Documents from these streams are edited and processed by the
+   Production Center and published by the Publisher.  The RFC Series
+   Editor will exercise executive-level management over many of the
+   activities of the RFC Publisher and the RFC Production Center (which
+   can be seen as back-office functions) and will be the entity that:
+
+   o  Faces the community.
+
+   o  Works with the IAOC for contractual responsibilities.
+
+   o  In collaboration with the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG),
+      identifies and leads community discussion of important issues and
+      opportunities facing the RFC Series.
+
+   while the IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility.  More
+   details about the collaboration with the RSAG and the IAB
+   responsibilities can be found in Section 4.1.
+
+   The RSE does not have the authority to hire or fire RFC Editor
+   contractors or personnel (see Section 4.1.3).
+
+3.1.  RFC Series Editor
+
+   The RFC Series Editor is an individual who may have assistants and
+   who will regularly be provided support from an advisory group (see
+   Section 4.1).  The RSE is responsible for:
+
+   1.  Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series continuity;
+
+   2.  Exercising executive-level management over the implementation of
+       policies, processes, and procedures established to ensure the
+       quality and consistency for the RFC Series.  The RFC Series
+       Editor will work with the RSAG, and, where appropriate, the IAB
+       and IAOC to develop new policy and see that contractual
+       agreements are met;
+
+   3.  Taking proposed changes to the community, and working with the
+       IAB so that the IAB can ensure that there is sufficient community
+       review before significant policies or policy changes are adopted;
+
+   4.  Coordinating with the IAB and/or IAOC and, together with the IAB
+       and/or IAOC, participating in reviews of the RFC Publisher, RFC
+       Production Center, and Independent Submission Editor functions to
+       ensure the above-mentioned continuity;
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+   5.  Developing, maintaining, and publishing the RFC Style Manual for
+       use by authors, editors, the stream managers, the RFC Production
+       Center, and the RFC Publisher;
+
+   6.  Managing the RFC errata process;
+
+   7.  Liaising with the IAB;
+
+   8.  Overseeing consistency of RFCs with the RFC Series and RFC Style
+       Manual.
+
+   There are many potential issues with respect to RFC Series
+   continuity.  To name a few: look and feel of the series, indexing
+   methodologies, accessibility of the publications, IPR and copyright
+   issues, and formatting issues.  After identifying the appropriate
+   steps to address such issues, the implementation of those steps
+   resides mostly with the RFC production and publishing functions.
+   Since the IAOC maintains oversight of the implementation, the RFC
+   Series Editor is expected to be invited and to participate in reviews
+   of that implementation.
+
+   The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional with the
+   following qualifications:
+
+   1.  Strong understanding of the IETF and RFC process.
+
+   2.  Executive management experience suitable to managing the
+       requirements outlined elsewhere in this document and the many
+       aspects of this role, and to coordinating the overall RFC Editor
+       process.
+
+   3.  Good understanding of the English language and technical
+       terminology related to the Internet.
+
+   4.  Good communication skills.
+
+   5.  Experience with editorial processes.
+
+   6.  Independent worker.
+
+   7.  Experience as an RFC author desired.
+
+   There are alternative selection methods for selecting the individual
+   to serve as the RFC Series Editor:
+
+   The first alternative involves a Request for Proposal (RFP) process
+   run by the IAOC.  The IAOC would seek a person with the listed
+   qualifications in a broadly distributed RFP.  The winner would be
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+   selected by the IAOC in consultation with the IAB, and then, the IAOC
+   would contract for the services.  Contract terms, including length of
+   contract, extensions, and renewals, shall be as provided in the RFP.
+   The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available.  Fees and expenses
+   to support the administrative operation of the RFC Series Editor
+   would be part of the awarded contract and be part of the IASA budget.
+
+   The second alternative involves a nomination and confirmation
+   process.  Candidates are nominated, and then an individual with the
+   listed qualifications is selected by the Internet community and
+   confirmed by the IAB.  An approach similar to the one used by the IAB
+   to select an IAOC member every other year (as described in
+   Appendix A) will be used.  Once the selection is made, a contract
+   will be negotiated between the person selected and the IAOC,
+   following the general model above.  Financial compensation and
+   expenses to support the administrative operation of the RFC Series
+   Editor selected in this manner would be part of the IASA budget.
+
+   Based on an Request for Information (RFI) issued by the IAOC in
+   December 2008, the IAOC recommended that the second alternative is
+   chosen for the selection cycle to be completed in 2009.
+
+3.2.  Independent Submission Editor
+
+   The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have
+   assistants and who is responsible for:
+
+   1.  Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission
+       stream.
+
+   2.  Reviewing, approving, and processing Independent Submissions.
+
+   3.  Forwarding to the Production Center the Internet-Drafts that have
+       been accepted for publication as RFCs in the Independent
+       Submission Stream.
+
+   4.  Reviewing and approving RFC errata in Independent Submissions.
+
+   5.  Coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies
+       as specified by the IAB and RSE.
+
+   6.  Providing statistics and documentation as requested by the RSE
+       and/or IAOC.
+
+   The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the
+   following qualifications are desired:
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+   1.  Technical competence, i.e., broad technical experience and
+       perspective across the whole range of Internet technologies and
+       applications, and specifically, the ability to work effectively
+       with portions of that spectrum in which no personal expertise
+       exists.
+
+   2.  Thorough familiarity with the RFC series.
+
+   3.  An ability to define and constitute advisory and document review
+       arrangements.  If those arrangements include an Editorial Board
+       similar to the current one or some equivalent arrangement, assess
+       the technical competence of potential Editorial Board members.
+
+   4.  Good standing in the technical community, in and beyond the IETF.
+
+   5.  Demonstrated editorial skills, good command of the English
+       language, and demonstrated history of being able to work
+       effectively with technical documents and materials created by
+       others.
+
+   6.  The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment with
+       divided authority and responsibility similar to that described in
+       this document.
+
+   The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an advisory
+   board (see Section 4.2) and may form a team to perform the activities
+   needed to fulfill their responsibilities.
+
+   The individual with the listed qualifications will be selected by the
+   IAB after input is collected from the community.  An approach similar
+   to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year
+   (as described in Appendix A) should be used.  While the ISE itself is
+   considered a volunteer function, the IAB considers maintaining the
+   Independent Submission stream within the RFC Series part of the IAB's
+   supported activities, and will include the expenses made for the
+   support of the ISE in its IASA-supported budget.
+
+3.3.  RFC Production Center
+
+   RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor
+   responsibilities include:
+
+   1.   Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style
+        Manual;
+
+   2.   Creating records of edits performed on documents;
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+   3.   Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact
+        and seeking necessary clarification;
+
+   4.   Engaging in dialogue with authors, document shepherds, IANA,
+        and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed;
+
+   5.   Creating records of dialogue with document authors;
+
+   6.   Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;
+
+   7.   Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed;
+
+   8.   Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry
+        actions;
+
+   9.   Assigning RFC numbers;
+
+   10.  Establishing publication readiness of each document through
+        communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA and/or
+        stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series
+        Editor;
+
+   11.  Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher;
+
+   12.  Forwarding records of edits and author dialogue to the RFC
+        Publisher so these can be preserved;
+
+   13.  Liaising with IESG and IAB.
+
+   The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected by the IAOC
+   through an RFP process.  The IAOC will seek a bidder who, among other
+   things, is able to provide a professional, quality, timely, and cost-
+   effective service against the established style and production
+   guidelines.  Contract terms, including length of contract, extensions
+   and renewals, shall be as defined in an RFP.  The opportunity to bid
+   shall be broadly available.
+
+   As described in Section 3.1, this model allows the IAOC to recommend
+   the RSE position to be selected through an RFP process.  In that
+   case, the model also allows combining the RFC Production Center bid
+   with the RSE bid.  For 2009, the recommendation was made that the RSE
+   is selected through an IAB-led selection process.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+3.4.  RFC Publisher
+
+   The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:
+
+   1.  Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.
+
+   2.  Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata.
+
+   3.  Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.
+
+   4.  Providing backups.
+
+   5.  Providing storage and preservation of records.
+
+   6.  Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.
+
+   All these activities will be done under general supervision of the
+   RSE and need some level of coordination with various submission
+   streams and the RSE.
+
+   Implementation of the RFC Publisher function can be pursued in two
+   different ways.  The choice between these alternatives will be based
+   on an RFI issued by the IAOC in January 2009.
+
+   The first alternative is to modify the IETF Secretariat contract to
+   include these services.  Expenses to support these services would be
+   part of the revised contract.
+
+   The second alternative is a separate vendor selected by the IAOC
+   through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the
+   RFC Series Editor.  Expenses to support these services would be part
+   of the awarded contract.
+
+4.  Committees
+
+4.1.  RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
+
+4.1.1.  Charter
+
+   The purpose of the RSAG is to provide expert, informed guidance
+   (chiefly, to the RSE) in matters affecting the RFC Series operation
+   and development.  Such matters include, but are not limited to,
+   issues in operation of the RFC model components, and consideration of
+   additional RFC streams, to give a sense of the range of topics
+   covered.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+   The RSAG is chartered by the IAB.  As such, it operates independently
+   of the IAB to fulfill that charter, and provides periodic reports to
+   the IAB via the RSE.
+
+   The group provides guidance to the RSE, who in turn addresses
+   immediate operational issues or opportunities with the ISE,
+   Production Center, or Publisher.  In cases where these issues have
+   contractual side-effects, the RSE provides guidance to the IETF
+   Administrative Director (IAD).  The RSAG also serves to provide
+   advice to the RSE on longer-term, larger-scale developments for the
+   RFC Series.  This informs the proposals the RSE takes to the
+   community for discussion, and the IAD/IAOC as proposals for
+   implementation.
+
+   The RSAG will assist the RSE in identifying and leading community
+   discussion of important issues and opportunities facing the RFC
+   Series.  The IAB retains its oversight role and is responsible for
+   ensuring that adequate community discussion has been held on any such
+   significant topics.
+
+4.1.2.  Membership
+
+   The RSAG full members are all at-large members, selected for their
+   experience and interest in the RFC Series, to provide consistency and
+   constancy of the RFC Series interpretation over time; the members do
+   not represent a particular RFC stream or any organizations.  In
+   particular, there is no requirement or expectation that RSAG members
+   will be IAB members.  The RSAG members are proposed by the Series
+   Editor in consultation with the sitting RSAG members, and then
+   confirmed and formally appointed by the IAB.  In addition to these
+   full members, each RFC stream approver will appoint a liaison to the
+   RSAG to provide context specific to their stream.  The liaisons do
+   not have to be members of the stream approval bodies.  Initially,
+   there will be no IAOC or IAB liaison for their oversight role;
+   however, as experience is gained, the IAOC, IAB, or RSAG may request
+   such liaisons.
+
+   The RSAG does not select or appoint the RSE, or any other component
+   of the RFC Editor model, although it acts as an important resource
+   for informing any selection process.
+
+   It is envisioned that the RSAG will be composed of appointed full
+   members serving staggered 3 year terms, plus the RSE.  The full
+   members will serve at the pleasure of the IAB -- appointed by the
+   IAB, and if necessary, removed by the IAB.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+   In order to provide continuity and to assist with a smooth transition
+   of the RFC Editor function, the members of the existing RFC Editor
+   Editorial Board who are willing to do so are asked to serve as an
+   interim RSAG, effective as of the time of approval of this document.
+   Within one year from the time the RFC Editor function transitions to
+   the new model and after consideration of the operation of the new
+   model in practice, the interim RSAG and RSE will formulate
+   recommendations to the IAB about this model, regarding the regular
+   composition, size, and selection process for the permanent RSAG in
+   particular.
+
+4.1.3.  Disagreements among RFC Editor Entities
+
+   If during the execution of their activities, a disagreement arises
+   over an implementation decision made by one of the entities in the
+   model, any relevant party should first request a review and
+   reconsideration of the decision.  If that party still disagrees after
+   the reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or,
+   especially if the RSE is involved, that party may ask the IAB Chair
+   (for a technical or procedural matter) or IAD (for an administrative
+   or contractual one) to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in the
+   discussions, although neither is obligated to do so.  All parties
+   should work informally and in good faith to reach a mutually
+   agreeable conclusion.
+
+   If such a conclusion is not possible through those informal
+   processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC Series
+   Advisory Group.  The RSAG may choose to offer advice to the RSE or
+   more general advice to the parties involved and may ask the RSE to
+   defer a decision until it formulates its advice.  However, 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; those decisions are final.
+
+   RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the
+   process and evaluation of whether current policies are appropriately
+   implemented in the decision or need adjustment.  In particular, it
+   should be noted that final decisions about the technical content of
+   individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream
+   approvers for those documents, as shown in the illustration in
+   Figure 1.
+
+   If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual
+   consequences, the Series Editor must identify the issue to the IAOC
+   and, if the RSAG has provided advice, forward that advice as well.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+   After the IAOC has notified the IAB, the IAD as guided by the IAOC,
+   with advice provided by the Series Editor, has the responsibility to
+   resolve these contractual issues.
+
+   If informal agreements cannot be reached and formal RSAG review
+   and/or RSE or stream approver decisions are required, the RSE must
+   identify the issues involved to the community and report them to the
+   IAB in its oversight capacity.  The RSE and IAB shall mutually
+   develop a satisfactory mechanism for this type of reporting when and
+   if it is necessary.
+
+   IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are expected
+   to inform future changes to Series policies including possible
+   updates to this document.
+
+4.2.  Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board
+
+   Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board for the
+   review of Independent Submission stream documents.  This board is
+   expected to evolve in what we will call the Independent Submission
+   Stream Editorial Board.  This volunteer Editorial Board will exist at
+   the pleasure of the ISE, and the members serve at the pleasure of the
+   ISE.  The existence of this board is simply noted within this model,
+   and additional discussion of such is considered out of scope of this
+   document.
+
+5.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor
+   structure, and it places the responsibility for coordination of
+   registry value assignments with the RFC Production Center.  The IAOC
+   will facilitate the establishment of the relationship between the RFC
+   Production Center 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.
+
+6.  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
+   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
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+   (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 IAOC should take these security considerations into account
+   during the implementation of this RFC Editor model.
+
+7.  Acknowledgments
+
+   The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on
+   mail lists.  The first iteration of the text on which this document
+   is based was drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ray
+   Pelletier.  In addition to the members of the IAOC and IAB in
+   conjunction with those roles, major and minor contributions were made
+   by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy
+   Ginoza, Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman,
+   John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim Schaad.
+
+   The IAOC members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were
+   (in alphabetical order): Fred Baker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Ole
+   Jacobsen, Ed Juskevicius, Olaf Kolkman, Ray Pelletier (non-voting),
+   Lynn St. Amour, and Jonne Soininen.  In addition, Marshall Eubanks
+   was serving as the IAOC Scribe.
+
+   The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved
+   were (in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo,
+   Stuart Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry
+   Leiba, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran,
+   Dave Thaler, and Lixia Zhang.  In addition, the IAB included two ex-
+   officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive
+   Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.
+
+   The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in
+   alphabetical order): Marcelo Bagnulo, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart
+   Cheshire, Vijay Gill, Russ Housley, John Klensin, Olaf Kolkman,
+   Gregory Lebovitz, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Jon
+   Peterson, and Dave Thaler.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+8.  References
+
+8.1.  Normative References
+
+   [1]  Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC Series and
+        RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
+
+8.2.  Informative References
+
+   [2]  Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, "The IETF Administrative Oversight
+        Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process",
+        BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+Appendix A.  2009 Selection Process
+
+   In 2009, the IAB is responsible for the selection of the RFC Series
+   Editor and for the selection of the Independent Submission Editor.
+   The IAOC selects the RFC Production Center and the RFC Publisher from
+   vendors that choose to submit a proposal.  The IAOC procurement
+   process is not described in this document.
+
+   The selection process for the ISE and RSE is taken from [2] but
+   modified to allow for subject-matter experts to advise the IAB, to
+   take into account that the community with interest in the RFC series
+   extends beyond the IETF community.
+
+A.1.  Ad Hoc Advisory Committee(s)
+
+   It is expected that the IAB and IAOC will, during the various stages
+   of the bidding process, establish one or more ad hoc advisory
+   committees to assist them in the selection of the various functions.
+   The names of the members of the committees, who do not need to be IAB
+   members or IETF participants, will be made public through the IAB and
+   IAOC minutes and possibly other mechanisms as well.
+
+   Members of these committees are expected to have an understanding of
+   the RFC series and related processes, and of procedures and interests
+   of the various streams.
+
+   Members of the subcommittees will be privy to confidential material
+   and are expected to honor confidentiality.  Because they are subject
+   to confidential material, they are recused from bidding on any of the
+   functions for which financial compensation is offered.
+
+   The IAB and IAOC bear the responsibility for the selections of the
+   candidates for defined functions.  The committees provide advice and
+   recommendations but are not expected to act as nomination or
+   selection committees.
+
+A.2.  The IAB Selection Process of an RFC Series Editor and/or an
+      Independent Submission Editor
+
+A.2.1.  Nominations and Eligibility
+
+   The IAB will be making a broad public call for nominations.  The
+   public call will specify the manner by which nominations will be
+   accepted and the means by which the list of nominees will be
+   published.  Self-nominations are permitted.  Along with the name and
+   contact information for each candidate, details about the candidate's
+   background and qualifications for the position should be attached to
+   the nomination.
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 17]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+   People that served on the ad-hoc advisory committee(s) mentioned
+   above are not eligible.  There are no further limitations.
+   Specifically, nominees do not have to be actively contributing to the
+   IETF and active participation as a working group chair, an IETF
+   Nominating Committee member, or an IAB or IESG member is not a
+   limitation.
+
+   IAB members who accept a nomination for an IAB-selected position will
+   recuse themselves from IAB selection discussions.
+
+A.2.2.  Committees in 2009
+
+   During the 2009 selection process, a committee assisted the IAOC/IAB
+   in creating the job descriptions and statements of work.  This
+   committee may also assist in assessing the bids made to the IAOC for
+   the Production Center and the RFC Publisher.  Another committee, the
+   Ad Hoc Committee for Selection of Editorial Functions, assists the
+   IAB in the assessment of the RFC Series Editor and the Independent
+   Submission Editor candidates.
+
+A.2.3.  Selection
+
+   The IAB will publish the list of nominated persons prior to making a
+   decision, allowing time for the community to pass any relevant
+   comments to the IAB.  When established, the advisory committee will
+   be asked to provide a motivated shortlist.  The IAB will review the
+   nomination material, any submitted comments, the shortlist from the
+   advisory committee, and make its selection.
+
+   It is noted that the community mentioned above is the community with
+   an interest in RFCs and the RFC Editor's functioning; the IETF
+   community is only a part of that community.
+
+   The main intent is to select the superior candidate, taking the
+   continuity of the series into account.
+
+A.2.4.  Care of Personal Information
+
+   The following procedures will be used by the IAB in managing
+   candidates' personal information:
+
+   o  The candidate's name will be published, with all other candidate
+      names, at the close of the nominations period.
+
+   o  Except as noted above, all information provided to the IAB during
+      this process will be kept as confidential to the IAB and, when
+      established, the advisory committee.
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 18]
+
+RFC 5620              RFC Editor Model (Version 1)           August 2009
+
+
+A.2.5.  Term of Office and Selection Time Frame
+
+   Subject to further negotiations and in the interest of providing
+   stability, terms of office are expected to be five years with no
+   restrictions on renewals and with provision for shorter actual
+   contracts and intermediate reviews.  In addition, an effort should be
+   made so that terms of office for the RSE, ISE, and RFC Production
+   Center do not terminate concurrently.
+
+   The selection timeframe for 2009 is roughly:
+
+      June - IAB calls for nominations for ISE and RSE positions;
+
+      July - A Committee conducts interviews;
+
+      Mid-August - Committee recommends individuals to IAB for ISE and
+      RSE positions;
+
+      Second half of September - IAB appoints ISE and RSE, subject to
+      successful negotiations of agreement with IAOC;
+
+      Mid-October - Memorandums of understanding (MOUs) executed with
+      IAD, ISE for expenses, RSE for stipend and expenses;
+
+      Mid-October - Transition begins;
+
+      January 2010 - Contract begins.
+
+   The timeline for future selections is subject to recommendation from
+   the RSAG and review by the IAB.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)
+
+   EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
+
+
+   Internet Architecture Board
+
+   EMail: iab@iab.org
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kolkman & IAB                Informational                     [Page 19]
+