GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5620

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.)
  1. —– —– —— ———

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]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5620.txt · Last modified: 2009/08/18 22:50 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki