RFC Series Policy Definition and Implementation
Mozilla
stpeter@stpeter.im
Internet
Internet-Draft
This document describes updated processes for defining and
implementing policies regarding the RFC Series as a whole and thus
specifies version 3 of RFC Editor Model. As specified here,
the model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
two high-level tasks. Policy definition is the
responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG),
which produces policy proposals that are subject to approval
by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). Policy implementation
is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center
(RPC), under the ultimate authority of the IETF Administration
Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC).
This document obsoletes RFC 8728.
The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series
dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications,
including general contributions from the Internet research and
engineering community as well as standards documents. As described
in , RFCs have been published continually since 1969.
The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor
function are described in and updated here.
The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs
have changed significantly over the years. Most recently, in 2009
defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1) and in 2012
defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), since
modified slightly in 2020 by .
This document reflects experience gained with version 1 and
version 2 of the Model, and therefore describes version 3 of
the Model (see Section 7 for a summary of the changes) while
remaining consistent with .
More specifically, in order to ensure sustainable maintenance
and support of the RFC series based on the principles of expert
implementation, clear management and direction, and appropriate
community input , this document divides the
responsibilities for the RFC Series into two high-level tasks:
Policy definition governing the Series as a whole. This is
the responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which
produces policy proposals that are subject to approval by the
RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).
Policy implementation through publication of documents in the
Series. This is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production
Center (RPC), under the ultimate authority of the IETF
Administration Limited Liability Company (LLC) .
This document obsoletes RFC 8728.
Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model specified a structure
consisting of the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and
the RFC Publisher, with oversight provided by the RFC Series Oversight
Committee (RSOC) on behalf of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).
Discussion within the RFCED-Future Program has led in the direction
of a more consensus-oriented framework (similar in some respects to
the structure of technical work within the IETF or IRTF) that retains
roles for specialized expertise in document editing and publication.
Policy definition happens within the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG),
which produces policy proposals that are subject to approval by the
RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), after which such policies are
formally established through publication in the Editorial Stream
within the RFC Series. The RSWG is an open working group (as described
below) that seeks input and participation through a public process
from a wide range of persons who have an interest in the RFC Series.
The RSAB consists of appointed members who represent the various RFC
streams as well as an expert in technical publishing, the
RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE).
Policy implementation is performed by the RFC Production Center (RPC),
under the ultimate authority of the IETF Administration Limited Liability
Company (IETF LLC).
In short:
The RSWG proposes policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole, with
input from the community, the RSAB, and the RSCE.
The RSAB considers those proposals and approves them, returns them to
the RSWG for further consideration, or declines to publish them, as
appropriate.
If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the Editorial
Stream and thus define the policies to be followed by the RSWG, RSAB,
RSCE, and RPC.
The RSCE provides expert advice to the RPC and RSAB on how to implement
established policies on an ongoing and operational basis, which can include
raising issues or initiating proposed policy changes within the RSWG.
The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in its
day-to-day editing and publication of RFCs from other streams.
If issues arise with the implementation of particular policies, the RPC
brings those issues to the RSAB, which interprets the policies and provides
interim guidance to the RPC, informing the RSWG of those interpretations.
This model is designed to ensure public processes and definition documents,
clear responsibilities and mechanisms for updates and changes to policies
governing the RFC Series as a whole, and operational implementation of the
RFC Series, thus meeting the requirements specified in Section 4 of .
The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.
Policies governing the RFC series as a whole are defined in the open
through proposals that are generated by and discussed within the RFC
Series Working Group (RSWG) and then approved by the RFC Series Approval
Board (RSAB).
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include but
are not necessarily limited to document formats, processes for
publication and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of
the RFC series.
NOTE: There is discussion within the RFCED-Future Program
regarding the appropriate name for this entity; provisionally
“RFC Series Working Group” (RSWG) is used here, but the name
might change in future versions of this document.
The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) shall formulate proposals
regarding policies that govern the RFC series. The intent is
that the RSWG operate in a way similar to working groups in the
IETF and research groups in the IRTF. Therefore, all RSWG meetings
shall be open to any participant, and all RSWG contributions
shall be subject to intellectual property policies, which must be
consistent with those of the IETF as specified in BCP 78
and BCP 79 .
The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation
informally described in .
When the RSWG is formed, all discussions shall take place on an
open email discussion list. Subsequently, the RSWG may decide by rough
consensus to also use additional tooling (e.g., GitHub as specified in
), forms of communication (e.g., in-person or online
meetings), and working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they
are consistent with .
All interested persons are welcome to participate in the RSWG
(subject to anti-harassment policies as described below). This
includes participants in the IETF and IRTF, IAB and IESG members,
individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, authors of RFCs
and Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to authors RFCs, and
the like. The IETF LLC Board members, staff, and the IETF Executive
Director are invited to participate as community members in the RSWG
to the extent permitted by any relevant IETF LLC policies. Members
of the RSAB are also expected to participate actively.
The RSWG shall have two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the
other appointed by the IAB. When the RSWG is formed, the chair
appointed by the IESG shall serve for a term of one (1) year and
the chair appointed by the IAB shall serve for a term of two (2)
years; thereafter, chairs shall serve for a term of two (2)
years, with no term limits on renewal. The appointing bodies shall
determine their own processes for making these appointments, such
as provision for an open nominations period. Community members who
have concerns about the performance of an RSWG chair should direct
their feedback to the relevant appointing body. Each appointing
body shall have the power to replace its appointed chair at its
discretion at any time, with the replacement serving the remainder
of the original chair’s term.
It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus
within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision making,
for instance regarding acceptance of new proposals and advancement of
proposals to the RSAB.
Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the roles and
responsibilities of the chairs, the general guidance provided in
Section 6.1 of should be considered appropriate.
NOTE: This section is intended to address
ISSUE #9,
ISSUE #14,
ISSUE #16,
ISSUE #28,
ISSUE #29,
ISSUE #41,
ISSUE #44,
ISSUE #55,
ISSUE #68,
ISSUE #72, and
ISSUE #80.
The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) shall act as the approving body
for proposals generated within the RSWG. The only policy-making role
of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by the RSWG; it shall
have no independent authority to formulate policy on its own. It is
expected that the RSAB will respect the rough consensus of the
RSWG wherever possible, without ceding its review function.
The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows:
One delegate representing the IETF stream, appointed by the IESG
One delegate representing the IAB stream, appointed by the IAB
One delegate representing the IRTF stream, appointed by the IRTF Chair
The Independent Submissions Editor
The RFC Series Consulting Editor
For the avoidance of doubt, the RSAB shall continue to operate in the
case of any vacancies; however, such vacancies should be filled with all
due speed.
The appointing bodies shall determine their own processes for appointing
delegates, such as provision for an open nominations period. If it becomes
necessary to replace such a delegate for any reason, then for the sake of
continuity the appointing body should name a new delegate to complete the
former delegate’s term.
To ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
include the IETF Executive Director as a non-voting member since
the IETF LLC is ultimately responsible for implementation of policies
governing the RFC Series. The RSAB may at its discretion include
additional non-voting members, for instance a liaison from the RPC.
Whenever a new stream is created, the document that
creates the stream shall specify if a voting member representing
that stream shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules
and processes related to that representative (e.g., whether the
representative is a member of the body responsible for the stream
or an appointed delegate thereof). In effect, the RSCE is the voting
member representing the Editorial Stream.
The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using
a method to be determined by the RSAB. If the chair position is
vacated during the chair’s term, the RSAB should choose a new chair
from among its members.
The RSAB is expected to operate via email, in-person meetings,
teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling it deems
necessary.
The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including
minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions.
The RSAB shall announce plans and agendas for their meetings on the
RFC Editor website and by email to the RSWG at least a week before
such meetings. The meetings shall be open for public attendance and
the RSAB may consider allowing open participation. If the RSAB needs
to discuss a confidential matter in executive session, that part of
the meeting shall be private to the RSAB, but must be noted on the
agenda, and must be documented in the minutes with as much detail as
confidentiality requirements permit.
NOTE: This section is intended to address
ISSUE #9,
ISSUE #38,
ISSUE #50,
ISSUE #53,
ISSUE #71, and
ISSUE #82.
The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to the
RFC series are defined and evolved. The general expectation is that all
interested parties will participate in the RSWG, and that only under
extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold “CONCERN”
positions as described below.
Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWG
participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work together
in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to achieve rough
consensus (see ). In particular, RSWG members are
encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously, and RSAB members are
encouraged to clearly express their concerns early in the process and
to be responsive to the community. All parties are encouraged to respect
the value of each stream and the long-term health and viability of
the RFC series.
This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation. RSAB
members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,
authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an ongoing
basis, so that when the time comes to consider a proposal, there should
be no surprises. Appointing bodies are expected to establish whatever
processes they deem appropriate to facilitate this goal.
The following process shall be used to formulate or modify processes
related to the RFC series:
An individual participant in the RSWG generates a proposal in the
form of an Internet-Draft, which is submitted in full conformance
with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 .
If (following procedures for rough consensus) the chairs determine
that there is sufficient interest in the proposal, the RSWG may
adopt the proposal as a draft proposal of the RSWG, in much the
same way a working group of the IETF or research group of the IRTF
would (see ).
The RSWG shall then further develop the proposal. Members of the
RSAB are expected to participate in discussion relating to such
proposals so that they are fully aware of proposals early in the
policy definition process and so that any issues or concerns that
they have will be raised during the development of the proposal
(not be left until the RSAB review period). The RSWG chairs
are also expected to participate as individuals.
At some point, if the RSWG chairs believe there may be rough
consensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a last call
for comment within the working group.
After a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG chairs will
determine whether rough consensus for the proposal exists (taking
their own feedback as individuals into account along with feedback
from other participants). If comments have been received and
substantial changes have been made, additional last calls may be
necessary.
Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue a
community call for comments as further described below. If
substantial comments have been received, the RSWG will again consider
those comments and make revisions as they see fit. At this same time,
the RSAB will also consider the proposal.
If substantial changes have been made, additional community calls
for comment should be issued by the RSAB, and again comments considered
by the RSWG.
Once all comments have been addressed, the RSWG chairs will submit
the proposal to the RSAB for its consideration.
Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will then poll among
its members regarding the proposal. Positions may be as follows:
“YES”: the proposal should be approved
“CONCERN”: the proposal raises substantial concerns that must be
addressed
“RECUSE”: the person holding the position has a conflict of
interest
Any RSAB member holding a “CONCERN” position must explain their concern
to the community in detail. The explanation might or might not be actionable.
A CONCERN may be made for two reasons:
The proposal represents a serious problem for the stream or group
that a particular member represents.
The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause serious harm
to the overall series, including harm to the long term health and
viability of the series.
Because RSAB members should have been participating in discussions
within the RSWG, no position of CONCERN should ever come as a surprise
to the RSWG.
If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
Again, all RSAB members are expected to participate.
A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved. If
substantial changes have been made in order to address CONCERN
positions, an additional call for community input might be needed.
If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions remain,
a formal vote of the RSAB is taken. If a majority of RSAB members
vote to approve, the proposal is approved. Otherwise, it is
returned to the RSWG. In the case of a tie, the proposal is
approved.
When a proposal is approved, a notification is sent to the community,
and the document enters the queue for publication as an RFC within
the Editorial Stream.
NOTE: This section is intended to address
ISSUE #45 and
ISSUE #69.
When a community call for comment is made, the RSAB sends a notice containing:
A subject line beginning with ‘Call for Comment:’
A clear, concise summary of the proposal
A URL for the proposal document
Any commentary or questions for the community that the RSAB deems necessary
(using their usual decision-making procedures)
Clear instructions on how to provide public comments
A deadline for comments
Notices will always be sent to the rfc-interest mailing list. The RSAB and
RSWG should also send notices to other communities that may be interested
in or impacted by a proposal as they see fit, following policies for those
communities as appropriate. Notices are also to be made available and archived
on the rfc-editor.org web site. In addition, other communication channels can
be established for notices (e.g., using an RSS feed or social media).
A comment period will not last less than two weeks. Comments will be publicly
archived on the rfc-editor.org web site.
NOTE: This section is intended to address
ISSUE #67.
Appeals of RSWG decisions shall be made to the RSAB. Decisions of the
RSWG can be appealed only on grounds of failure to follow the correct
process. Appeals should be made within 30 days of any action, or in
the case of failure to act, of notice having been given to the RSWG.
The RSAB will then decide if the process was followed and will direct
the RSWG chairs as to what procedural actions are required.
Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB and should be made
within thirty (30) days of public notice of the relevant RSAB decision
(typically, when minutes are posted). The IAB shall decide whether a
process failure occurred and what if any corrective action should take
place.
NOTE: This section is intended to address
ISSUE #16 and
ISSUE #36.
The IETF anti-harassment policy also applies to the RSWG and RSAB,
which strive to create and maintain an environment in which people
of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency,
and respect. Participants are expected to behave according to
professional standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace
behavior. See also , , and .
Publication of RFCs shall is handled by the RFC Production Center
(RPC).
A few general considerations apply:
The general roles and responsibilities of the RPC are defined by
RFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by the
RSWG, RSAB, or RSCE).
The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and has a duty to
consult with them under specific circumstances, such as those
relating to disagreements between authors and the RPC.
The RPC is contractually overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that
it performs in accordance with contracts in place.
All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance
targets, are between the RPC and IETF LLC.
The RPC shall report regularly to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG, and
broader community regarding its activities and any key risks or
issues affecting it.
In the event that the RPC is required to make a decision without
consultation that would normally deserve consultation, or makes a
decision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify the
RSAB.
This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
IETF LLC and the RPC; for example, the work of the RPC could be
performed by a separate corporate entity under contract to the
IETF LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or
the IETF LLC could engage with independent contractors for some or
all aspects of such work. The exact relationship is a matter for
the IETF LLC to determine.
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the
engagement of the RPC. Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority over
negotiating performance targets for the RPC and also has responsibility
for ensuring that those targets are adhered to. The IETF LLC is empowered
to appoint a manager or to convene a committee to complete these
activities.
If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the
performance of the RPC, they can request that the IETF LLC look into
the matter. Even if the IETF LLC opts to delegate this activity, concerns
should be raised with the IETF LLC. The IETF LLC is ultimately responsible
to the community via the mechanisms outlined in its charter.
Under and consistent with the high-level policies defined for the RFC
Series in general or particular streams, the RPC shall define more
particular policies regarding matters related to the editorial preparation
and final publication and dissemination of RFCs. Examples include:
Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards to which
RFCs must adhere (see and the
style guide web page).
Policies regarding the file formats that are accepted as input to the
editing and publication process.
Policies regarding the final structure and layout of published documents.
In the context of the XML vocabulary (), such policies could
include matters such as the exact XML elements and attributes used to
capture the semantic content of RFCs. More generally, such policies
could address the readability and presentation of information in RFCs.
RPC responsibilities include the following:
Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style Guide.
Creating and preserving records of edits performed on documents.
Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact
and seeking necessary clarification.
Engaging in dialogue with authors, document shepherds, IANA, or
stream-specific contacts when clarification is needed.
Creating and preserving records of dialogue with document authors.
Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed.
Participating in the creation of new Editorial Stream RFCs that
impact the RPC, at least in an advisory capacity.
Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans.
Consulting with the community on its plans.
Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC.
Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC
performance by the IETF LLC.
Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of
IANA-performed protocol registry actions.
Assigning RFC numbers.
Establishing publication readiness of each document through
communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA, or
stream-specific contacts, and, if needed, with the RSAB and RSCE.
Liaising with stream managers and other representatives of the
streams as needed.
Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.
Providing an on-line system to submit RFC Errata.
Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.
Providing backups.
Providing storage and preservation of records.
Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.
During the process of editorial preparation and publication, disagreements
can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the RPC. Where an existing
policy clearly applies, typically such disagreements are handled in a
straightforward manner through direct consultation between the authors and
the RPC, sometimes in collaboration with other individuals such as a document
shepherd, IETF working group chair, IRSG research group chair, or IETF Area
Director.
However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies, or if the
interpretation of an existing policy is unclear, the parties may need to
consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB, IESG, IRSG, or
stream manager) to help achieve a resolution. The following points are
intended to provide more particular guidance.
If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, the
RPC should consult with the relevant stream manager to help achieve a
resolution, if needed also conferring with a per-stream body such as the
IESG or IRSG.
If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should consult
with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.
If the disagreement raises a new issue that is not covered by an existing
policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation between the RPC and
other relevant individuals and bodies (as described above), the issue
should be brought to the RSWG in order to formulate a new policy. However,
in the interest of time the disagreement may be resolved as the parties
best see fit while the RSWG formulates a more general policy.
NOTE: This section is intended to address
ISSUE #6 and
ISSUE #59.
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. This
section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such
activities.
NOTE: This section is intended to address
ISSUE #25,
ISSUE #57,
ISSUE #61,
ISSUE #62, and
ISSUE #63,
Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and
under the final authority of the IETF LLC.
The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work)
for the RPC and manages the vendor selection process. The work
definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into
account the needs of stream managers as well as community input.
The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center
and other RFC-related services is as follows:
The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps
necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing, and the
contracting procedures.
The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will
consist of the IETF Executive Director and other
members selected by the IETF LLC in consultation with the
stream managers. The committee shall select a chair from
among its members.
The selection committee selects the vendor, subject to the
successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC. In
the event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter shall be
referred to the selection committee for further action.
The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They
have been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.
The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding
to support the RSCE, the RFC Production Center, and the Independent
Stream.
The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor
budget (and the authority to deny it). All relevant parties must work
within the IETF LLC budgetary process.
NOTE: Discussion continues within the RFCED-Future Program regarding
the appropriate title for an expert in technical publication processes.
Reflecting provisional agreement, this document refers to the
individual as the “RFC Series Consulting Editor” (“RSCE”).
The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a senior technical
publishing professional who will apply their deep knowledge of
technical publishing processes to the RFC series.
The primary responsibilities of the RSCE are as follows:
Serve as a voting member on the RSAB
Identify problems with the RFC publication process and
opportunities for improvement
Provide expert advice regarding policy proposals within the RSWG
If requested, provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC
Matters on which the RSCE might be consulted could include the
following (see also Section 4 of ):
Editing, processing, and publication of RFCs
Publication formats for the RFC Series
Changes to the RFC style guide
Series-wide guidelines regarding document content and quality
Web presence for the RFC Series
Copyright matters related to the RFC Series
Archiving, indexing, and accessibility of RFCs
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the
engagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and the timely
filling of any vacancy. Therefore, whether the RSCE role is structured
as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC
to determine.
NOTE: This section is intended to address
ISSUE #12,
ISSUE #24, and
ISSUE #55.
The IETF LLC will form a selection committee, including members
from the community, that will be responsible for making a
recommendation to the IETF LLC for the RSCE role. The selection
committee will take into account the
role definition
as well as any other information that the committee deems
necessary or helpful in making its decision. The IETF LLC is
responsible for contracting or employment of the RSCE.
Periodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the RSCE,
including a call for confidential input from the community. The IETF LLC
will produce a draft performance evaluation for the RSAB (not including
the RSCE), which will provide feedback to the IETF LLC.
This document creates the Editorial Stream as separate space for
publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related
information regarding the RFC Series as a whole.
Any and all future documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the
RSAB shall be published in the Editorial Stream. Documents pubished
in the Editorial Stream shall have a status of Informational. The
Editorial Stream is not authorized to publish RFCs that are Standards
Track or Best Current Practice, since such RFCs are reserved to the
IETF Stream .
The Editorial Stream will be used only to specify and update policies,
procedures, guidelies, rules, and related information regarding the
RFC Series as a whole; no other use of the Editorial Stream is authorized
by this memo and no other streams are so authorized. This policy may be
changed only by agreement of the IAB, IESG, and IETF LLC.
The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams are
outside the scope of this document.
NOTE: This section is intended to address
ISSUE #22,
ISSUE #35,
ISSUE #63, and
ISSUE #73.
The same security considerations as those in 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.
The IETF LLC should take these security considerations into account
during the implementation and enforcement of any relevant contracts.
This document places responsibility for coordination of registry
value assignments with the RPC. The IETF LLC facilitates management
of the relationship between the RPC 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.
IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures
This document describes the guidelines and procedures for formation and operation of IETF working groups. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees
The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a self-consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at the time of publication. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust
The IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are designed to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to retain as many rights as possible. This memo details the IETF policies on rights in Contributions to the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo obsoletes RFCs 3978 and 4748 and, with BCP 79 and RFC 5377, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC Editor Model (Version 1)
IAB
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. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC Editor Model (Version 2)
IAB
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. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
IETF Guidelines for Conduct
This document provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction in the Internet Engineering Task Force. The guidelines recognize the diversity of IETF participants, emphasize the value of mutual respect, and stress the broad applicability of our work.This document is an updated version of the guidelines for conduct originally published in RFC 3184.
On Consensus and Humming in the IETF
The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work through a consensus process, taking into account the different views among IETF participants and coming to (at least rough) consensus on technical matters. In particular, the IETF is supposed not to be run by a "majority rule" philosophy. This is why we engage in rituals like "humming" instead of voting. However, more and more of our actions are now indistinguishable from voting, and quite often we are letting the majority win the day without consideration of minority concerns. This document explains some features of rough consensus, what is not rough consensus, how we have gotten away from it, how we might think about it differently, and the things we can do in order to really achieve rough consensus.Note: This document is quite consciously being put forward as Informational. It does not propose to change any IETF processes and is therefore not a BCP. It is simply a collection of principles, hopefully around which the IETF can come to (at least rough) consensus.
RFC Style Guide
This document describes the fundamental and unique style conventions and editorial policies currently in use for the RFC Series. It captures the RFC Editor's basic requirements and offers guidance regarding the style and structure of an RFC. Additional guidance is captured on a website that reflects the experimental nature of that guidance and prepares it for future inclusion in the RFC Style Guide. This document obsoletes RFC 2223, "Instructions to RFC Authors".
IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures
IETF Participants must not engage in harassment while at IETF meetings, virtual meetings, or social events or while participating in mailing lists. This document lays out procedures for managing and enforcing this policy.This document updates RFC 2418 by defining new working group guidelines and procedures. This document updates RFC 7437 by allowing the Ombudsteam to form a recall petition without further signatories.
RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title page header, standard boilerplates, and copyright/IPR statements. This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source of RFC creation and review. This document obsoletes RFC 5741, moving detailed content to an IAB web page and preparing for more flexible output formats.
The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary
This document defines the "xml2rfc" version 3 vocabulary: an XML-based language used for writing RFCs and Internet-Drafts. It is heavily derived from the version 2 vocabulary that is also under discussion. This document obsoletes the v2 grammar described in RFC 7749.
Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as early as possible in the development process. The policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR holders. This document sets out the IETF policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This document updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 5378, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This document also obsoletes RFCs 3979 and 4879.
Fifty Years of RFCs
This RFC marks the fiftieth anniversary for the RFC Series. It includes both retrospective material from individuals involved at key inflection points as well as a review of the current state of affairs. It concludes with thoughts on possibilities for the next fifty years for the Series. This document updates the perspectives offered in RFCs 2555 and 5540.
Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0
The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) was originally established in 2005. In the years since then, the needs of the IETF evolved in ways that required changes to its administrative structure. The purpose of this RFC is to document and describe the IETF Administrative Support Activity, version 2.0 (IASA 2.0). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administration LLC Board (IETF LLC Board), the IETF Executive Director, and the Internet Society in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IETF LLC Board.This document obsoletes RFC 4071, RFC 4333, and RFC 7691.
Update to the IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF Administration LLC
The IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures are described in RFC 7776.The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has been replaced by the IETF Administration LLC, and the IETF Administrative Director has been replaced by the IETF LLC Executive Director. This document updates RFC 7776 to amend these terms.RFC 7776 contained updates to RFC 7437. RFC 8713 has incorporated those updates, so this document also updates RFC 7776 to remove those updates.
RFC Editor Model (Version 2)
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 Administration Limited Liability Company and the RSOC. This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", documented in RFC 5620; and obsoletes RFC 6635 to replace all references to the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) and related structures with those defined by the IASA 2.0 Model.
The RFC Series and RFC Editor
This document describes the framework for an RFC Series and an RFC Editor function that incorporate the principles of organized community involvement and accountability that has become necessary as the Internet technical community has grown, thereby enabling the RFC Series to continue to fulfill its mandate. This document obsoletes RFC 4844.
Independent Submission Editor Model
This document describes the function and responsibilities of the RFC Independent Submission Editor (ISE). The Independent Submission stream is one of the stream producers that create draft RFCs, with the ISE as its stream approver. The ISE is overall responsible for activities within the Independent Submission stream, working with draft editors and reviewers, and interacts with the RFC Production Center and Publisher, and the RFC Series Editor (RSE). The ISE is appointed by the IAB, and also interacts with the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (LLC).This version obsoletes RFC 6548 to replace all references to the Internet Administrative Support Activity (IASA) and related structures with those defined by the IASA 2.0 structure.
Working Group GitHub Usage Guidance
This document provides a set of guidelines for working groups that choose to use GitHub for their work.
NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Because this document (if approved) will be the
first RFC in the Editorial Series, please apply the changes in this
section to its boilerplate if directed to do so by the IAB.
This document specifies the following text for the “Status of This Memo”
section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes to this
boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy Definition process
specified in this document.
Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational,
the first paragraph of the “Status of This Memo” section shall be
as specified in Appendix A.2.1 of .
The second paragraph of the “Status of This Memo” section shall be
as follows:
“This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition process.
It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working Group approved by
the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents are not candidates for any
level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
The third paragraph of the “Status of This Memo” section shall be
as specified in Section 3.5 of RFC 7841.
The RSWG and RSAB together provide a public process by which
policies for the RFC Series can be defined. It is expected that
these bodies will therefore cover many of the responsibilities
of the RFC Series Editor function as defined by . For
example, representation to the IETF (Section 2.1.2.1 of
is no longer necessary because IETF participants can get involved
in the RSWG, because the IETF has a delegate on the RSAB, and
because the RPC provides reports directly to the community.
In practice the RFC Production Center (RPC) and RFC Publisher roles
have been performed by the same entity and this practice is expected
to continue; therefore this document dispenses with the distinction
and refers only to the RPC.
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and responsibility
between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy and somewhat opaque.
To overcome some of these issues, this document dispenses with the RSOC.
This document incorporates some text directly from and also
makes the following updates:
This document creates the Editorial Stream.
Future changes to policies governing the RFC Series as a whole now
occur through documents defined by the RSWG, approved by the RSAB,
and published in the Editorial Stream.
As described above, several responsibilities previously assigned to
the “RFC Editor function” are now performed by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC,
and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). These include aspects of
operational oversight (Section 3.3 of ), policy oversight
(Section 3.4 of ), the editing, processing, and
publication of documents (Section 4.2 of ), and
series-wide guidelines and rules (Section 4.4 of ).
In addition, some details regarding these responsibilities have been
modified to accord with the new framework defined in this document.
Portions of this document were borrowed from ,
, , , and earlier proposals
submitted within the RFCED-Future Program by Martin Thomson,
Brian Carpenter, and Michael StJohns. Thanks to the chairs of
the Program, Eliot Lear and Brian Rosen, for their leadership
and assistance. Thanks also for feedback and proposed text to
Jari Arkko,
Sarah Banks,
Scott Bradner,
Carsten Bormann,
Nevil Brownlee,
Ben Campbell,
Jay Daley,
Martin Duerst,
Lars Eggert,
Adrian Farrel,
Stephen Farrell,
Sandy Ginoza,
Bron Gondwana,
Joel Halpern,
Wes Hardaker,
Bob Hinden,
Russ Housley,
Christian Huitema,
Ole Jacobsen,
John Klensin,
Mirja Kuehlewind,
Ted Lemon,
John Levine,
Lucy Lynch,
Andrew Malis,
Larry Masinter,
S. Moonesamy,
Mark Nottingham,
Tommy Pauly,
Colin Perkins,
Julian Reschke,
Eric Rescorla,
Adam Roach,
Alice Russo,
Doug Royer,
Rich Salz,
Tim Wicinski,
and Nico Williams.