<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- automatically generated by xml2rfc v1.34pre3 on 2009-12-15T11:43:14Z -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">


<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no" ?>
<rfc submissionType="IAB"
     obsoletes="5620"
     ipr="trust200902" 
     category="info"
     number="6635"
     >

  <front>
    <title>RFC Editor Model (Version 2)</title>

    <author initials="O." surname="Kolkman" fullname="Olaf M. Kolkman" role="editor">
      <organization></organization>
      <address><email>olaf@nlnetlabs.nl</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author initials="J.M." surname="Halpern" fullname="Joel M. Halpern" role="editor">
        <organization>Ericsson</organization>
        <address><email>joel.halpern@ericsson.com</email></address>
    </author>

    <author  surname="IAB" fullname="Internet Architecture Board">
      <organization></organization>
      <address><email>iab@iab.org</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date month="June" year="2012" />

    <keyword>RFC</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>
        The RFC Editor
        model described in this document divides the responsibilities
        for the RFC Series into three functions: the RFC Series Editor,
        the RFC Production Center,
        and the RFC Publisher.  Internet Architecture Board 
(IAB) oversight via the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) is
described, 
as is the relationship between the IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC.
This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
documented in RFC 5620, and obsoletes that document.  
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <!-- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  -->
  <middle>

    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>
        The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is
        concerned with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series,
        orderly RFC Editor succession, 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.
      </t>
      <t>
   The contemporary RFC Editor model <xref target="RFC5620"/> was
first approved in October 2008, and our understanding of the model
has evolved with our experience since. During the implementation
of version 1 of the model <xref target="RFC5620"/>, it was quickly
realized that the role of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) and the  
   oversight responsibilities needed to be structured differently. In
   order to gain experience with "running code", a transitional RSE
   was hired who analyzed the managerial environment and provided
   recommendations. This was followed by the appointment of an acting
RSE, who ably managed the series while work was
undertaken to select and hire a permanent RSE.
This version of the model is based on the recommendations
of both temporary RFC Series Editors
   and the extensive discussion in the IETF community, on
the rfc-interest list, and within the IAB. As such, this document
obsoletes <xref target="RFC5620"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
   This document, and the resulting structures,
   will be modified as needed through normal procedures.  The RSE, and
the IAB, through the RFC Oversight Committee (see <xref target="RSOC"/>), will
continue to monitor discussions  
   within the community about potential
   adjustments to the RFC Editor model and recognize 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.
      </t>
   <t>
   The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered
        responsibility as defined in <xref target="RFC2850"/> and
        <xref target="RFC4071"/>. 
   </t>
      <section title="The RFC Editor Function">
      <t>
        The RFC Series is described in <xref target="RFC4844"/>.  Its
        Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor":
      </t>
      <t>
        
        <list style="empty">
<t>
     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".</t>

<t>     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.</t>
        </list>
      </t>
      <t>
        RFC 4844 does not explore the internal organization
        of the RFC Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the
        RFC Editor organizational structure. There have been several
iterations on efforts to improve and clarify this structure.  These
have been led by the IAB, in consultation with the community and many
leadership bodies within the community.  This first resulted in the
publication of <xref target="RFC5620"/> and then in further
discussions leading to this document.  Some of the details on
this evolution can be found below.  In undertaking this evolution,
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,
        maintaining timely processing, ensuring document
        accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost
        transparency. The model set forth below describes the internal
organization of 
        the RFC Editor, while remaining consistent with RFC 4844.
      </t>
      <t>
        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 defines the term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series
        Editor" for one of the organizational components.
      </t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="RFC Editor Model">
      <t>
        The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for
        the RFC Series into the following components:
      </t>
      <t>
        <list style="symbols">
          <t>RFC Series Editor (RSE)</t>
          <t>RFC Production Center</t>
          <t>RFC Publisher</t>
        </list>
      </t>
      <t>
        The structure and relationship of the components of the
RFC Series production and process is
        schematically represented by the figure below. The picture does not
        depict oversight and escalation relations.  It does include
the streams and their managers (which are not part of the RFC Series
Editor, the RFC Production Center, or Publisher facilities) in order to more
fully show the context in which the RFC Series Editor operates.
      </t>
      <t>
<figure anchor="model-figure">
<artwork>
<![CDATA[


                                      +-------------+
                                      |             |
                       +--------------+     IAB     <------------+
                       |              |             |            |
                       |              |=============|            |
                       |              |             |            |
                       |              |     RSOC    <------------+
                       |              |             |            |
                       |              +-------+-----+      +-----+-----+
                       |                      |            |           |
                       |          +...........|.........+  | Community |
                       |          .           |         .  |    at     |
                       |          .   +-------V-----+   .  |   Large   |
                       |          .   |             |   .  |           |
                       |          .   |     RFC     |   .  +-----+-----+
                       |          .   |    Series   |   .        |
                       |          .   |    Editor   <------------+
                       |          .   |             |   .
                       |          .   +-+---------+-+   .
                       |          .     |         |     .
+-------------+  +-----V-------+  .  +--V--+   +--V--+  .     +-----+
|             |  |             |  .  |     |   |     |  .     |     |
| Independent |  | Independent |  .  | RFC |   |     |  .     |  E  |
|   Authors   +--> Submission  +----->     |   |     |  .     |  n  |
|             |  |   Editor    |  .  |  P  |   |     |  .     |  d  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  r  |   | RFC |  .     |     |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  o  |   |     |  .     |  U  |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  d  |   |  P  |  .     |  s  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  u  |   |  u  |  .     |  e  |
|     IAB     +-->     IAB     +----->  c  |   |  b  |  .     |  r  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  t  |   |  l  |  .     |  s  |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  i  +--->  i  +-------->     |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  o  |   |  s  |  .     |  &  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  n  |   |  h  |  .     |     |
|    IRTF     +-->     IRSG    +---->|     |   |  e  |  .     |  R  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  C  |   |  r  |  .     |  e  |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  e  |   |     |  .     |  a  |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  |  n  |   |     |  .     |  d  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  t  |   |     |  .     |  e  |
|    IETF     +-->    IESG     +----->  e  |   |     |  .     |  r  |
|             |  |             |  .  |  r  |   |     |  .     |  s  |
+-------------+  +-------------+  .  +-----+   +-----+  .     +-----+ 
                                  .                     .
                                  +..... RFC Editor ....+
]]>
            Structure of RFC Series Production and Process
</artwork>
</figure>
      </t>
      <t>
        In this model, documents are produced and approved through
        multiple document streams.  The stream manager for each stream
        is responsible for the content of that stream.  
        The four streams that now exist are described in <xref target="RFC4844" />. 
        The RFC Editor function is responsible for the packaging and
        distribution of the documents.  As such,  documents from these
        streams are 
        edited and processed by the Production Center and published by
        the Publisher.  The RFC Series Editor will exercise
        strategic leadership and  management over the activities of the
        RFC Publisher and the RFC Production Center (both of which can
        be seen as back-office functions) and will be the entity that:
      </t>
      <t>
        <list style="symbols">
          <t>Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function
within the IETF and externally.</t>
          <t>Leads the community in the design of improvements to
the RFC Series.</t>
          <t>Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution
of improvements in the RFC Editor production and access processes.</t>
          <t> Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web
site, which is operated and maintained by the RFC Publisher.</t>
          <t>Is responsible for developing consensus versions of
          vision and policy documents.  These documents will be
          reviewed by the RFC Series Oversight Committee (<xref
          target="RSOC"/>) and subject to its approval before final
          publication.  
      </t>
        </list>
      </t>
      <t>These responsibilities are defined below, although the
specific work items under them are a matter for the actual employment
contract and its Statement of Work (SOW).</t>
      <t>
        The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered
        responsibility as defined in <xref target="RFC2850"/> and
        <xref target="RFC4071"/>.  More details on the
        oversight by the IAB via the RFC Series Oversight Committee 
        (RSOC) can be found in <xref target="RSOC"/>.  For example,
        the RSE does not have the direct authority to 
        hire or fire RFC Editor
        contractors or personnel. 
      </t>
      
      
      <section anchor="RSE" title="RFC Series Editor">
        <t>
          The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall
responsibility 
for the quality, continuity, and evolution of the RFC Series.  
        </t>

        <t>The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the 
        IAOC. The IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the
        RSOC, which it appoints.</t>
        
       <t>The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the IAOC and
the stream managers.</t>

        <section anchor="ExecManage" title="Strategic Leadership and
Management of the Publication and Production Functions">
        <t> With respect to the RFC Publisher and Production Center functions, the RSE
      provides input to the IASA budget, SOWs, and manages
      vendor selection processes.  The RSE performs annual reviews of
      the RFC Production Center and Publisher function, which are then provided to
      the RSOC, the IASA, and the community.  Normally, private
      financial details would not be included in a public version
      unless the IAOC concludes it is necessary to make such
      information public.
      </t>

      <t>The RSE is responsible for the performance of the RFC Production
Center and Publisher.  The RSE is responsible for issues that go
beyond the RFC Production Center or Publisher functions, such as cross-stream
coordination of priorities.  Issues that require changes to the budget
or contracts shall be brought to the attention of the IAD by the RSE.</t>

      <t>The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and 
      structures that will allow for continuity of the RFC
      Series in the face of changes in contracts and
personnel. </t>

      <t>Vendor selection for the RFC Production Center and Publisher functions
is done in cooperation 
with the streams and under final authority of the IASA.  Details on
this process can be found in <xref target="vendorsel"/>.</t>

        </section>

        <section anchor="SeriesRep" title="Representation of the RFC
Series">
        <t>The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series.
This representation is important both internally, relative to the
IETF, and externally.</t>
        <section anchor="IETFRep" title="Representation to the IETF">
        <t>The RSE is the primary point of contact to the IETF on
matters relating to the RFC Series in general, or policy matters
relating to specific documents.  
Issues of practical details in the processing of specific documents
are generally worked through directly with the RFC Production Center
staff.</t>

        <t>This includes providing suitable reports to the community
at large, providing email contact for policy questions and inputs, and
enabling and participating in suitable on-line forums for discussion
of issues related to the RFC Series.</t>

        <t>Due to the history and nature of the interaction between
the RSE and the IETF, certain principles, described in the following
subsections,  must be understood and
adhered to by the RSE in his or her interactions with the community.  These
apply to the representation function, as well as to the leadership the
RSE provides for production and series development.</t>

        <section title="Volunteerism">
           <t>The vast majority of Internet technical community work
is led, initiated, and done by community volunteers, including
oversight, policy making, and direct production of, for example, many
software tools.  The RSE, while not a volunteer, is dependent 
upon these volunteer participants.  Also, the spirit of the community 
is heavily focused on and draws from these volunteers.  As such, the
RSE needs to support the vitality and effectiveness of
volunteer participation.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="Policy Authority">
    <t>All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the
broader Internet community.  The RSE is responsible for identifying
materially concerned interest groups within the Internet community and
reaching out to them.  Those interest groups include at least the IETF
community, the IRTF community, the network research community, and the
network operations community.  Other interest groups might also be
materially interested.</t> 

    <t>The RSE must consult with the community on policy issues.  The
RSE works with the community to achieve policy that meets the overall
quality, continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is charged with
meeting.  As described in  <xref target="RSOC"/>, the RSE reports the
results of such interactions to the RSOC, including a description of
the outreach efforts and the specific recommendations on policy.  This
enables the RSOC to provide the oversight the IAB is required to
apply, as well as to confirm that the Internet community has been
properly consulted and considered in making policy.</t>
        </section>

        </section>

        <section anchor="ExtRep" title="External Representation">
        <t>From time to time, individuals or organizations external to
the IETF need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series.  The
RSE, or the RSE's designate, serves this role.</t>

        <t>Over time, the RSE should determine what, if any, means
should be employed to increase end-user awareness of the series,
to reinforce the stature of the series, and to provide the contact
point for outside parties seeking information on the series or the
Editor.</t>
        </section>
        </section>

        <section anchor="ProdDev" title="Development of RFC Production
and Publication">
          <t>Closely related to providing strategic leadership and
management to the 
RFC Production Center and Publisher functions is the need to develop and
improve those functions.  The RSE is responsible for ensuring that
such ongoing development takes place.</t>
          <t>This effort must include the dimensions of document
quality, timeliness of production, and accessibility of results.  It
must also specifically take into account issues raised by the IETF
community, including all the streams feeding into the RFC Editor function.</t>
        </section>


        <section anchor="SeriesDev" title="Development of the RFC
Series"> 
           <t>In order to develop the RFC Series, the RSE
   is expected to develop a relationship with the Internet technical
   community.  The Editor is expected to engage with the Internet
   technical community in a process of articulating and refining a
   vision for the series and its continuous evolution.  The RSE is also
   expected to engage other users of the RFC Series, in
   particular, the consumers of these documents, such as those
   people who use them to specify products, write code, test
   behaviors, or other related activities.</t> 

  <t>Concretely:
   <list style="hanging">
      <t>The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on
      series evolution among the series' stream participants and the
      broader Internet technical community.</t>

      <t>In time, the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision
 for the RFC Series, including examining:
         <list style="symbols">
         <t>The RFC Series, as it continues to
         evolve.  The RSE is expected to take a broad view and 
         look for the best ways to evolve the series for the
         benefit of the entire Internet community.  As such, the
         RSE may even consider evolution 
         beyond the historical 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis;
         and</t>

         <t>Its publication-technical environment, by looking
         at whether it should be slowly changing in terms
         of publishing and archiving techniques -- particularly
         to better serve the communities that
         produce and depend on the RFC Series.  For example, all of 
         those communities
         have been slowly changing to include a significant population of
multi-lingual individuals 
         or non-native speakers of English.  Another example is that
         some of these constituencies also have shifted to include significant groups whose primary
         focus is on the constraints and consequences of network
         engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering
         issues themselves.</t>
      </list>
      </t>


   </list>
   </t>

   <t>For this type of responsibility, the RSE cooperates closely with the
  community, and operates under oversight of the RSOC: thus, ultimately, under
  oversight of the IAB.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="Workload" title="Workload">
        <t>
On average, the job is expected to take half of
a full-time equivalent position (FTE, thus approx 20 hrs per week),
with the workload per week nearing full time during IETF weeks.  In addition, 
the job is expected to take more than 20 hours per week in the first few months
of the engagement and when involved in special projects.
        </t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="Qualifications" title="Qualifications">
        <t>
          The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional. 
          The following qualifications are desired:
          <list style="numbers">
            <t> Strategic leadership and management experience
            fulfilling the requirements outlined in this document, the
            many aspects of this role, and the coordination of the
            overall RFC Editor process.</t>
            <t>Good understanding of the English language and technical
            terminology related to the Internet.</t>
            <t>Good communication skills.</t>
            <t>Experience with editorial processes.</t>
            <t>Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and
RFC process.</t> 
            <t>Independent worker.</t>
            <t>Willingness to, and availability for, travel.</t>
            <t>The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and
matrixed environment with divided authority and responsibility similar
to that described in this document.</t>
            <t>Experience with and ability to participate in, and
            manage, activities by email and teleconferences, not just
            face-to-face interactions.</t>
            <t>Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the
            management of entire operations.</t>
            <t>Experience as an RFC author.</t>
          </list>
        </t>
      </section>
      <section title="Conflict of Interest">
        <t>The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of
   conflict of interest or judgment in performing these roles.  
   As such, the RSE is barred from having any ownership, advisory, or 
   other relationship to the vendors executing the RFC Publisher or
   Production Center functions except as specified elsewhere in this
   document. 
   If necessary, an exception can be made after public disclosure of
   those relationships and with the explicit permission of the IAB and
   IAOC.</t>
      </section>

      </section>

      <section anchor="production" title="RFC Production Center">
        <t>
          The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid contractor, and the
          contractor's responsibilities include the following:
        </t>
        <t>
        <list style="numbers">
          <t>Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the
          RFC Style Manual, under the direction of the RSE;</t>
          <t>Creating records of edits performed on documents;</t>

          <t>Identifying where editorial changes might have technical
          impact and seeking necessary clarification;</t>

          <t>Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds,
          IANA, and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is
          needed;
          </t>
          <t>Creating records of dialog with document authors;</t>
          <t>Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;</t>
          <t>Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as
needed;</t>
          <t>Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC
        Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external
        reviews of the RFC Editor function initiated by the IAB or IAOC;</t>
          <t> Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of 
        IANA-performed protocol registry actions;</t>
          <t>Assigning RFC numbers;</t>
          <t> 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; </t>
          <t>Forwarding documents that are ready for publication to the RFC
          Publisher;</t>
          <t>Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC
          Publisher so these can be preserved;</t>
          <t>Liaising with the streams as needed.</t>
        </list>
      </t>
    <t>All these activities will be done under the general direction,
    but not day-to-day management,  of
    the RSE and need some level of coordination with various
    submission streams and the RSE. </t>
      <t>
      The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through
      an IASA Request for Proposal (RFP) process as described in <xref target="vendorsel"/>.
      </t>  
    </section>

    <section title="RFC Publisher">
      <t>
        The RFC Publisher responsibilities include the following:
      </t>
    <t>
    <list style="numbers">
      <t>Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.</t>
      <t>Providing an on-line system to submit RFC Errata.</t>
      <t>Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.</t>
      <t>Providing backups.</t>
      <t>Providing storage and preservation of records.</t>
      <t>Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.</t>
    </list>
    </t>
    <t>All these activities will be done under the general direction,
    but not day-to-day management,  of
    the RSE and need some level of coordination with various
    submission streams and the RSE. </t>
      <t>
      The RFC Publisher  contractor is to be selected through
      an IASA RFP process as described in <xref target="vendorsel"/>.
      </t>
    </section>
  </section>  
  <section title="Committees">
    <section title="RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)" anchor="RSOC">
    <t>The IAB is responsible for the oversight of the RFC Series and
    acts as a body for final conflict resolution, including the
    process described in <xref target="dispute"/>.</t>

    <t>In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the NomCom
    appointment cycle <xref target="RFC3777"/> and assure that oversight includes suitable
    subject matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group that implements
    oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC).</t>

    <t>The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: in general,
    it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision
    documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the
    community.  While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due
    diligence in its supervision of the RSOC,  the RSOC should be
    allowed the latitude to do its job without undue interference
    from the IAB.  Therefore, it is expected that the IAB
    will accord RSOC reports and recommendations the benefit of
    the doubt.</t>

   <t>For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and firing),
   the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but the final decision is
   the responsibility of the IAB.  For instance the RSOC would do the following:

   <list style="symbols">
     <t>perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of 
     these reviews to the IAB.</t>

     <t> manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate
      appointment (in other words, select the RSE subject to IAB
      approval).</t>
   </list>
   </t>

   <t>RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of
interest and behave accordingly.</t>

   <t>For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, the RSOC
will propose a budget for the search process. It will work with
IASA to refine that budget and develop remuneration
criteria and an employment agreement or contracting plans,
as appropriate.
   </t>

   <t>The RSOC will be responsible for ensuring that the RFC Series is run in
   a transparent and accountable manner.</t>

   <t>The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order.</t>

   <t>The initial RSOC was charged with designing and executing a
solicitation, search, and selection process for the first
actual (not transitional or "acting") RSE appointment. That
process involved iteration on this and
related documents and evaluation of various strategies and
options.   During the creation of this document, it was expected that the RSOC
would describe the process it ultimately selected to the community.
The RSOC did involve the
community in interim considerations when that was likely to
be of value. Following completion of the selection process,
the RSOC will determine the best way to share information
learned and experience gained with the community and 
determine how to best preserve that information for future
use.
    </t>

   <section anchor="RSOCCompose" title="RSOC Composition">

   <t>
   The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB 
   retaining final responsibility.  The IAB will delegate authority and
   responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE
   relationships evolve.  The RSOC will include people who are not
   current IAB members.  Currently, this is aligned with the IAB
   program structure.   The IAB will designate the
   membership of the RSOC with the following goals: preserving effective
   stability; keeping it small enough to be effective, and keeping it large enough
   to provide general Internet community expertise, specific IETF
   expertise, publication expertise, and stream expertise.  Members
   serve at the pleasure of the IAB and are expected to bring a balance
   between short- and long-term perspectives.  Specific input about, and
   recommendations of, members will be sought from the streams, the
   IASA, and the RSE.</t>
   <t>In addition to the members from outside of the IAB appointed to
the RSOC, IAB members may participate as full members of the RSOC.
Under most circumstances, there will be a specific individual IAB
member appointed by the IAB as the program lead, who will be a full
member of the RSOC.  This member's role is distinct from any RSOC-internal organizational roles, such as would be created by the RSOC choosing to appoint a
chair from among its members.  Other IAB members may choose to be full
members of the RSOC, with the consent of the IAB.  This consent is
primarily concerned with avoiding overpopulating the RSOC and
providing it with relatively stable membership, which will
work best if it is not too large a committee.</t>

   <t>The IAOC will appoint an individual to serve as its liaison to
   the RSOC.  The RSE and the IAOC Liaison will serve as
   non-voting ex officio members of the RSOC.  Either or both can be
   excluded from its discussions if necessary.</t>
   </section>
     
      </section>
    
    </section>

    <section title="Administrative Implementation">
      <t>
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a
responsibility of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC, 
<xref target="RFC4071"/>) in cooperation with the RFC Series Editor.
The authority structure is described in Figure 2 below.
      </t>
<t>
<figure anchor="auth-figure">
<artwork>
<![CDATA[

                +----------------+       +----------------+
                |                |       |                |
                |      IAB       |       |     IAOC       |
                |                |       |                |
                +==========+-----+       +-+--------------+
                |          |               .            
                |   RSOC   |               .            
                |          |               .            
                +----+-----+               .            
                     |                     .            
                     |                     .            
                     |   ...................            
                     |   .                 .            
            +--------V---V----+            .                     
            |                 |            .  
            |       RFC       |            .  
            |      Series     |            .  
            |      Editor     |            .  
            |                 |            .  
            +--------+--------+            .  
                     |                     .
                     |        .................
                     |        .               .
                     +--+----------------+    .
                        |     .          |    .
                        |     .          |    .
                    +---V-----V--+    +--V----V---+
                    |    RFC     |    |    RFC    |
                    | Production |    | Publisher |
                    |   Center   |    |           |
                    +------------+    +-----------+

                  Authority Structure of the RFC Series

                      Legend:

                      -------    IAB RFC Series Oversight
                      .......    IAOC Contract/Budget Oversight
]]>
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>

      <section anchor="vendorsel" title="Vendor Selection for the
Production and Publisher Functions">

      <t>As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation
      with the streams and under the final authority of the IAOC.</t>

      <t>The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and
      participates in the IASA vendor selection process.
      The work definition is created within the IASA budget and
      takes into account the stream managers and community input.</t>

      <t>The process to select and contract for an RFC Production
      Center, RFC Publisher, and other RFC-related services, is as
      follows: </t>

      <t>
        <list style="symbols">
          <t>The IAOC establishes the contract process, including the
steps necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the
contracting procedures.
          </t>
          <t>The IAOC establishes the Selection Committee, which will
consist of the RSE, the IAD, and other members selected by the RSOC
and the IAOC.  The Committee shall be chaired by the RSE.</t>
          <t>The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to
the successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IAOC.  In the
event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be referred
to the Selection Committee for further action.</t>
          <t>The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher
either through the IASA RFP process or, at the Committee's option,
the Committee may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC Publisher
services, subject to negotiations in accordance with the IASA
procedures. </t>
        </list>
      </t>
      </section>
      
      <section title="Budget">
        <t> 
          The expenses discussed in this document are not new
          expenses.  They have been and remain part of the 
          IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA, 
          <xref target="RFC4071"/>) budget. 
        </t>
        <t>The RFC Series portion of the IASA budget shall include
entries for the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, and the RFC
Publisher.  The IASA budget shall also include entries for the
streams, including the independent stream.</t>
         <t>The IAOC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC
Editor budget (and the authority to deny it).  The RSE must work
within the IAOC budgetary process.</t>
         <t>The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor function to
operate within those budgets.  If production needs change, the RSE is
responsible for working with the Production Center, and where
appropriate, other RFC Editor component institutions, relevant
streams, and/or the RSOC to determine what
the correct response should be.  If they agree that a budgetary change
is needed, that decision needs to be taken to the IAD and the IAOC.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="dispute" title="Disagreements among Entities Related to the RFC Editor">

        <t>The RFC Series Editor and the RFC Production Center and Publisher 
facilities work with the various streams to produce RFCs. 
Disagreements may arise between these entities 
during the execution of the RFC Editor 
operations. In particular, different streams may disagree with each 
other, or disagree with the RFC Editor function. Potentially, even the 
RSOC or the IAOC could find themselves in disagreement with some 
aspect of the RFC Editor operations.  Note that disagreements between
an author and the RFC Production Center are not cross-entity issues, and
they are to be resolved by the RSE, in accordance with the rest of this
document. 
        </t>
        <t>
If such cross-entity disagreements arise, the community would 
generally hope that they can be resolved politely and directly. 
However, this is not always possible. At that point, any relevant 
party would first formally request a review and reconsideration of the 
decision. If the party still disagrees after the reconsideration, that 
party may ask the RSE to decide or, especially if the RSE is involved, 
the party may ask the IAB Chair (for a technical or procedural matter) 
to mediate or appoint a mediator to aid in the discussions, although 
he or she not is obligated to do so. All parties should work 
informally and in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable
conclusion.  As noted below, any such issues that involve contractual
matters must be brought to the attention of the IAOC.  If the IAB Chair
is asked to assist in resolving the matter, the Chair may ask for
advice or seek assistance from anyone the Chair deems helpful.  The
Chair may also alert any appropriate individuals or organizations to
the existence of the issue.
        </t>

        <t>
          If such a conclusion is not possible through the above less formal
          processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC
          Series Oversight Committee. The RSOC 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
          RSE is expected to make whatever decisions are
          needed to ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Editor
          function; those decisions are final.
        </t>

        <t>
          The RSE may make final decisions unilaterally only to assure
          the functioning of the process, and only while there is an
          evaluation of current policies to determine whether they 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 from which those documents originate, as shown in the illustration
in <xref target="model-figure"/>.


        </t>

        <t>
          If informal agreements cannot be reached, then formal RSOC
          review and decision making may be required.  If so, the
          RSE must present the issues involved to the community
          so that the community is aware of the situation.  The RSE
          will then report the issue to the RSOC for formal resolution
          by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its oversight
          capacity.
        </t>
        <t>
          IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are
          expected to inform future changes to RFC Series policies,
          including possible updates to this document.
        </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Issues with Contractual Impact"> 
        <t>
          If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future
          contractual consequences, it falls under <xref target="RFC4071"> BCP 101</xref> and IASA; 
          thus, the RSE must identify
          the issue and provide his or her advice to the IAOC; additionally, 
          if the RSOC has provided advice,
          forward that advice as well. The IAOC must notify the RSOC
          and IAB regarding the action it concludes is required to
          resolve the issue based on its applicable procedures and
          provisions in the relevant contracts. 
        </t>
        </section>
  </section>
  
  <section title="IANA Considerations">
    <t>
      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.
    </t>
    <t>
      This document does not create a new registry nor does it
      register any values in existing registries, and no IANA action
      is required.
    </t>

  </section>
  <section title="Security Considerations">
    <t>
      The same security considerations as those in <xref target="RFC4844" /> 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, originals that are not
      machine readable) need to be secured against any kind of data
      storage failure. 
    </t>
    <t>
     The IAOC should take these security considerations into
     account during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC
     Editor component contracts. 
    </t>
  </section>

  <section title="Acknowledgments">
    <t>
      The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and
      on mailing lists. The first iteration of the text on which this
      document is based was first written 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 Russo, Joel M. Halpern,
      Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim
      Schaad.
    </t>
    <t>
      The IAOC members at the time this RFC Editor model was approved
      were (in alphabetical order):
        Bernard Aboba (ex officio),
        Eric Burger,
        Dave Crocker,
        Marshall Eubanks,
        Bob Hinden,
        Russ Housley (ex officio),
        Ole Jacobsen,
        Ray Pelletier (non-voting), and
        Lynn St. Amour (ex officio).
    </t>
    <t>
      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.
    </t>
    <t>
      The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in alphabetical order):
      Bernard Aboba,
      Ross Callon,
      Alissa Cooper,
      Spencer Dawkins,
      Joel Halpern,
      Russ Housley,
      David Kessens,
      Olaf Kolkman,
      Danny McPherson,
      Jon Peterson, 
      Andrei Robachevsky, 
      Dave Thaler, and
      Hannes Tschofenig.
    In addition, at the time of approval, the IAB included two
ex officio members: Mary Barnes who was serving as the IAB Executive
Director, and Lars Eggert, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.
    </t>

  </section>



</middle>

<back>

    <references title='Normative References'>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4844"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4071"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2850"?>

    </references>

    <references title='Informative References'>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5620"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3777"?>
    </references>

</back>

</rfc>