wdiff rfc5620.original rfc5620.txt

Network Working Group O. Kolkman (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Kolkman, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5620 IAB
Intended status:
Category: Informational June 8, 2009
Expires: December 10, August 2009

RFC Editor Model (Version 1)
draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-07

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

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."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 10, 2009.

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.

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, maintaining
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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ....................................................3
2. IAOC Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .............................................4
2.1. Expenses for the RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ................................4
3. RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ................................................5
3.1. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ..........................................6
3.2. Independent Submission Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ..............................8
3.3. RFC Production Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ......................................9
3.4. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .............................................11
4. Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .....................................................11
4.1. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ..........................11
4.1.1. Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ............................................11
4.1.2. Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .........................................12
4.1.3. Disagreements Among among RFC Editor Entities . . . . . . . 13 ............13
4.2. Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board . . . . . . 14 .............14
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Considerations ............................................14
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Considerations ........................................14
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Acknowledgments ................................................15
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 .....................................................16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ......................................16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 References.....................................16
Appendix A. 2009 Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ................................17
A.1. Ad-hoc advisory committee(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Ad Hoc Advisory Committee(s) ..............................17
A.2. The IAB Selection Process of an RFC Series Editor
and/or an Independent Submission Editor . . . . . . . . . 17 ...................17
A.2.1. Nominations and Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ........................17
A.2.2. Committees in 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 .................................18
A.2.3. Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ..........................................18
A.2.4. Care of Personal Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Information........................18
A.2.5. Term of Office and Selection Time Frame . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Internet Draft editing details . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B.1. Section 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B.2. Section 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B.3. Section 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
B.4. section 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
B.5. section 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
B.6. section 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
B.7. section 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ............19

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 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, provides provide for the orderly succession of the RFC
Editor, and ensures ensure the continuity of the RFC series, while
maintaining RFC quality, maintaining 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.

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 procession, 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.

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 production and Process process under this structure is
schematically represented by the figure below (the picture below. (The figure does not
depict oversight and escalation relations). 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.

Figure 1 process
In this model model, documents are produced and approved through multiple
document streams. The four that now exist are described in
[RFC4844]. [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 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), 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 (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 (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 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 above-mentioned continuity;
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
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 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 (as described in
Appendix A 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 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 draft to the Production Center the Internet-Drafts that have
been accepted for publication as RFCs in the Independent
Submission Stream to the
RFC Production Center. Stream.

4. Reviewing and approving Independent Submissions RFC errata. 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:

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
(as described in Appendix A 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;
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 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 3.1, this model allows the IAOC to recommend
the RSE position to be selected through an RFP process. In that case
case, the model also allows combining the RFC Production Center bid
with the RSE bid. For 2009 2009, the recommendation was made that the RSE
is selected through an IAB-led selection process.

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 December 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 service 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.

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 side-effects, the RSE provides guidance to the IAD. IETF
Administrative Director (IAD). The RSAG also serves to provide
advice to the RSE on longer-term, larger-
scale 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 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
however, as experience is gained, the IAOC, IAB, or RSAG may request
for such.
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.

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, in particular regarding the regular
composition, size, and selection process for the permanent RSAG in
particular.

4.1.3. Disagreements Among 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.

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 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 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
(such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, non-
machine readable
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. Acknowledgements 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 first drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ray
Pelletier. In addition to the members of the IAOC and IAB in
conjuction
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, 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.

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.

Appendix A. 2009 Selection Process

In 2009 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 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) 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 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 honour honor confidentiality. Because they are subject
to confidential material 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.

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 being 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 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
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 the IETF
community is only a part of that community.

The main intent is to select the superior candidate, taking
considerations of 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.

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 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

Mid-August - Committee recommends individuals to IAB for ISE and
RSE positions;

Second half of September - IAB appoints ISE, ISE and RSE RSE, subject to
successful negotiations of agreement with IAOC;

Mid October

Mid-October - MOUs Memorandums of understanding (MOUs) executed with
IAD, ISE for expenses, RSE for stipend and expenses;

Mid October

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.

Appendix B. Internet Draft editing details

[This appendix is to be removed at publication]

$Id: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.xml 56 2009-06-08 12:44:44Z olaf $

B.1. Section 00->01

Added Sandy and Alice to the acknowledgement section, they were
accidentally omitted

Added Appendix A so that the selection mechanism is explicitly
documented. The selection mechanism documents the use of an advisory
committee and is explicit about the fact that the community expands
beyond the IETF community.

Modified the RFC Editor Function name to "RFC Series Editor" in order
to minimize confusion between the collective of functions (RFC
Editor) and the function (Series Editor).

Added wording for specifying the technical competence needed by the
indep.subm.editor as suggested by JCK

Clarified the responsibilities of the production function in
Section 3.3

Enumerated qualifications of the RFC Editor

B.2. Section 01->02

Various nits corrected

Inconsistency in the use of RFC Production house and RFC Production
fixed: RFC Production Center used as term
Oversight over RFC consistency with the style manual has been made
explicit.

Clarified that the Independent Submission Stream Editors budget is
independent from the IETF/IASA.

Improved the language that clarified that the RFC Series editors and
Independent Submission Stream editor do not necessarily need to work
without assistants, while they bear the responsibility.

B.3. Section 02->03

Added Joel to the acknowledgements

Added the Advisory committee charter as a FYI

Added editorial skill and command of English as a requirement for the
ISE

In the responsibilities for the RFC series: Change "Participate in"
to "Provide input in" for IAOC Review. This makes the text more
implementation neutral.

Typo: Model is consistent with RFC4844 instead of 4884

Added "Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission
stream" as an explicit responsibility for the ISE.

B.4. section 03->04

[omitted by accident]

B.5. section 04->05

Introduced the concept of the RFC Series Advisory Group and reworked
the text to take this into account. This also caused the renaming of
the advisory group to an explicit "Independent Submission Stream
Editorial Board".

Rewrote the appeal process to take the RSAG into account

In Appendix A.2.5: Extended the appointment period to 3 years

B.6. section 05->06

This version documents decisions made by the IAB during prior to
approval during its April 27-28 retreat
Addressed some nits

Rewritten details of dispute resolution. Also stopped using the
words appeal or dispute resolution as they have a specific meaning in
the standards process

The ISE's expenses are covered from the IASA budget.

The envisioned size of the RSAG is changed from 6 to un-specified,
the RSAG is allowed to advice on the size later

Rewrote/clarified requirements for RSE and ISE function

B.7. section 06->07

Fixed nits

Addressed some IAB concerns that were accidentally omitted in version
06

Authors' Addresses

Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)

EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl

Internet Architecture Board

EMail: iab@iab.org