Network Working Group                                    O. Kolkman, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5620                                           IAB
Category: Informational                                      August 2009
                      RFC Editor Model (Version 1)



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.

RFC Editorは、様々な人物またはエンティティによって行うことができる多数の機能を実行します。 RFCシリーズ編集者、独立服従エディタ、RFCプロダクションセンター、およびRFC出版社:この文書のRFC Editorのモデルは、4つの機能にRFCシリーズのための責任を分割します。また、RFCシリーズ諮問グループ(オプション)独立提出ストリーム編集委員会を紹介します。ここで概説するモデルは、RFCの品質とタイムリーな処理を維持するドキュメントのアクセシビリティを確保し、コストを削減し、向上させながら、柔軟性と運用サポートオプションを増やすRFCエディタの整然とした連続のために提供し、RFCシリーズの継続性を確保することを意図していますコストの透明性。

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.

著作権(C)2009 IETF信託とドキュメントの作成者として特定の人物。全著作権所有。

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 ( Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.

この文書では、BCP 78と、この文書(の発行日に有効なIETFドキュメントに関連IETFトラストの法律の規定に従うものとします。彼らは、この文書に関してあなたの権利と制限を説明するように、慎重にこれらの文書を確認してください。

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
1. Introduction
1. はじめに

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.

IABは、インターネット技術コミュニティを代表して、RFCシリーズの継続性を確保、秩序あるRFC Editorの承継、RFCの品質、およびRFCドキュメントのアクセシビリティの維持に関係しています。 IABはまた、費用対効果的かつ効率的な方法で、必要なサービスを提供についてIETF行政監視委員会(IAOC)の懸念に敏感です。

The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844 [1]. Section 3.1 of RFC 4844 defines "RFC Editor":

RFCシリーズの定義は、RFC 4844に記載されている[1]。 RFC 4844のセクション3.1には、「RFCエディタ」を定義しています。

| 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.

| 3.1。 RFCエディタ| |もともと、RFCの編集者として働く一人がありました|シリーズ(RFC編集者)。タスクが成長し、そして仕事になりました| | RFCがあるので、いくつかの専門家の組織的な活動が必要です編集者、またはRFC編集者団体。時間には、があるかもしれません|仕事を引き受けるために一緒に働く複数の組織| RFCシリーズで必要とされます。 |簡単のため、およびなし|、それらの間で役割が細分化されることがありますかを予測しようとしますこの文書では、専門家や組織のこのコレクションを指し| 「RFCエディタ」など。 | | | RFC Editorは、専門的な技術エディタとシリーズの編集者でありますRFCシリーズの使命をサポートするように作用します。このように、RFC |エディタが編集の管理を扱う実装であります| RFCシリーズ、定義されたプロセスに従ってインチまた、| | RFCエディタは、専門家や原動機として期待されています編集、出版、およびアーカイブのための政策についての議論| RFCの。

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.

RFC 4844は、RFCエディタの内部組織を探求する試みません。しかし、RFC 4844は、RFC Editorの組織構造の変化を想定しています。インターネットコミュニティとの議論では、IABは、ドキュメントのアクセシビリティを確保し、RFCの品質とタイムリーな処理を維持しながら、RFCエディタの整然とした連続を提供し、柔軟性と運用サポートのオプションを増やし、およびRFCシリーズの継続性を確保する変更を検討しコストを削減し、コストの透明性を高めます。以下に記載するモデルは、これらの議論の結果であり、RFC 4844と一致して維持しながら、RFCエディタの内部組織を検査します。

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.

RFC 4844は、このメモは、内部組織のためのモデルを提供するための責任の集合セットされる用語「RFCエディタ機能」または「RFC Editor」を使用することに注意してください。このメモは、組織の構成要素のいずれかの用語「RFCシリーズエディタ」または「シリーズ・エディタ」を紹介します。

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.

IABは、2008年10月1日にこのRFC Editorのモデルの初期バージョンを承認したが、このモデルは以来、明確化を受けています。 RFCとして文書の公開は公開プロセスを通じて、この文書の主な目的として、石にモデルを投げていないことに留意すべきで、このモデルに動作するようにコンセンサスを確認するために、通常のコミュニティのレビューを奨励することです最初のステップとして。通常の手順で必要に応じて文書、得られた構造は、変更されます。 IABはRFCエディタモデルに電位調整約コミュニティ内の議論を監視し続け、この文書に記載された方法は、そのような議論から生じるすべての変更に合わせて調整する必要があるかもしれないことを認識し、表題におけるしたがって、バージョン番号であろう。

In particular, the document will be reviewed after the various transition periods and mechanisms specified in this version are completed.


2. IAOC Implementation
2. IAOCの実装

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
2.1. RFC Editorの費用

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.

この文書で説明する費用は、新たな費用ではありません。彼らはIASA予算の一部です。今日では、これらの費用は、南カリフォルニアの情報科学研究所の大学とRFC Editorの契約の一部です。

3. RFC Editor Model
3. RFC Editorのモデル

The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into the following components:

RFC Editorのモデルは、次のコンポーネントへのRFCシリーズのための責任を分割します:

o RFC Series Editor ("RSE").

O RFCシリーズエディタ( "RSE")。

o Independent Submission Editor ("ISE").

O独立提出エディタ( "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.)

この構造の下RFCシリーズ製造プロセスを概略的に以下の図で表されています。 (図は、監督やエスカレーションの関係を示していません。)

              ------     -----     ------     ---------
   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


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:

このモデルでは、文書が生成され、複数のドキュメントの流れによって承認されました。今存在する[1]に記載された4つ。これらのストリームからの文書が編集され、処理されたプロダクションセンターと出版社によって出版されています。 RFCシリーズEditorはRFCの出版社と(バックオフィス機能として見ることができる)RFCプロダクションセンターの活動の多くの上に幹部レベルの管理を行使し、エンティティになります。

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.

O RFCシリーズ諮問グループ(RSAG)と共同で、識別し、RFCシリーズが直面する重要な課題と機会のコミュニティの議論をリードしています。

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.

IABとIAOCは彼らのチャーターの責任を維持しながら。 RSAGとIABの責任とのコラボレーションについての詳細は、4.1節に記載されています。

The RSE does not have the authority to hire or fire RFC Editor contractors or personnel (see Section 4.1.3).

RSEは雇うか、RFC Editorの請負業者や人員を(4.1.3項を参照)を発射する権限を持っていません。

3.1. RFC Series Editor
3.1. RFCシリーズ編集

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:

RFCシリーズEditorはアシスタントを持っており、定期的に諮問グループ(セクション4.1を参照)からの支援を提供されますがあり、個々のです。 RSEは責任があります:

1. Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series continuity;
1. RFCシリーズの継続のための適切な手順を特定します。

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;

2. RFCシリーズのための品質と一貫性を確保するために設立されたポリシー、プロセス、および手順の実施上のエグゼクティブレベルの管理を行使。 RFCシリーズEditorは、新しいポリシーを策定し、契約上の合意が満たされていることを確認するためにRSAGと協力、そして、適切な場合には、IABとIAOCます。

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;

4. IABおよび/またはIAOCと連携して、一緒にIABおよび/またはIAOCと、上記の継続性を確保するためにRFC出版社、RFCプロダクションセンター、独立提出エディタ機能のレビューに参加します。

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;
6. RFCのエラッタプロセスを管理します。
7. Liaising with the IAB;
7. IABと連携。

8. Overseeing consistency of RFCs with the RFC Series and RFC Style Manual.

8. RFCシリーズとRFCスタイルマニュアルでRFCの一貫性を監督。

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.

RFCシリーズの継続性に関して多くの潜在的な問題があります。少数を示すために:見て、シリーズ、インデックス方法論、出版物、知的財産権や著作権の問題、および書式設定の問題の接近を感じます。このような問題に対処するための適切な手順を特定した後、これらのステップの実装では、RFC産生およびパブリッシング機能を主に常駐します。 IAOCは、実装の監督を維持するので、RFCシリーズの編集者が招待されると、その実装のレビューに参加することが期待されています。

The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional with the following qualifications:


1. Strong understanding of the IETF and RFC process.
IETF RFCおよびプロセスの1.強力な理解。

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.

このドキュメントの他の場所で概説要件と、この役割の多くの側面を管理するのに適し、かつ全体的なRFC Editorのプロセスを調整する2.執行管理経験。

3. Good understanding of the English language and technical terminology related to the Internet.


4. Good communication skills.
5. Experience with editorial processes.
6. Independent worker.
7. Experience as an RFC author desired.

There are alternative selection methods for selecting the individual to serve as the RFC Series Editor:


The first alternative involves a Request for Proposal (RFP) process run by the IAOC. The IAOC would seek a person with the listed qualifications in a broadly distributed RFP. The winner would be selected by the IAOC in consultation with the IAB, and then, the IAOC would contract for the services. Contract terms, including length of contract, extensions, 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.

最初の選択肢はIAOCによって実行提案(RFP)プロセスの要求を含みます。 IAOCは広く分布RFPに記載されている資格を持つ人を求めます。勝者は、IABと協議してIAOCによって選択されるだろうし、その後、IAOCはサービスの契約です。 RFPに提供される契約、拡張、および更新の長さを含む契約条件は、しなければなりません。入札する機会が広く利用可能でなければなりません。 RFCシリーズ編集者の管理操作をサポートするための手数料および費用は受賞契約の一部であるとIASA予算の一部となります。

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
3.2. 独立提出エディタ

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:


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.

入力はコミュニティから収集された後にリストされた資格を持つ個人はIABによって選択されます。隔年IAOCメンバーを選択するためにIABによって使用されるものと同様のアプローチは、(付録Aに記載されているように)使用されるべきです。 ISE自体はボランティア機能とみなされている間、IABは、IABのサポート活動のRFCシリーズの一部の中に独立した提出の流れを維持考慮し、そのIASAでサポートされている予算でISEのサポートのために作られた費用が含まれます。

3.3. RFC Production Center
3.3. RFCプロダクションセンター

RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor responsibilities include:


1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style Manual;


2. Creating records of edits performed on documents;

3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact and seeking necessary clarification;


4. Engaging in dialogue with authors, document shepherds, IANA, and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed;


5. Creating records of dialogue with document authors;
6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;
7. Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed;

8. Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry actions;


9. Assigning RFC numbers;
9. RFC番号を割り当てます。

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.
13. IESGとIABと連携します。

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.

RFCプロダクションセンターの請負業者は、RFPプロセスを通じてIAOCによって選択されます。 IAOCは、とりわけ、確立したスタイルと生産ガイドラインに対する専門的、品質、タイムリー、かつ費用対効果の高いサービスを提供することができる、入札者を目指します。 RFPに定義されている契約、拡張機能や更新の長さを含む契約条件は、しなければなりません。入札する機会が広く利用可能でなければなりません。

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.

セクション3.1で説明したように、このモデルはIAOCはRFPプロセスを通じて選択するRSE位置を推薦することを可能にします。その場合には、モデルは、RSEの入札でRFCプロダクションセンターの入札を組み合わせることができます。 2009年については、勧告はRSEはIAB主導の選択プロセスによって選択されていることを行いました。

3.4. RFC Publisher
3.4. RFC出版社

The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:


1. Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.
2. Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata.
2. RFC正誤表を提出するオンライン・システムを提供します。
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.

RFC Publisherの機能の実装は、2つの異なる方法で追求することができます。これらの選択肢の間の選択は、2009年1月にIAOCによって発行されたRFIに基づいて行われます。

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. RFCシリーズ諮問グループ(RSAG)
4.1.1. Charter
4.1.1. チャーター

The purpose of the RSAG is to provide expert, informed guidance (chiefly, to the RSE) in matters affecting the RFC Series operation and development. Such matters include, but are not limited to, issues in operation of the RFC model components, and consideration of additional RFC streams, to give a sense of the range of topics covered.


The RSAG is chartered by the IAB. As such, it operates independently of the IAB to fulfill that charter, and provides periodic reports to the IAB via the RSE.


The group provides guidance to the RSE, who in turn addresses immediate operational issues or opportunities with the ISE, Production Center, or Publisher. In cases where these issues have contractual side-effects, 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.

グループは、順番にISE、プロダクション・センター、または出版社との直接の運用上の問題や機会に対処しRSEへのガイダンスを提供します。これらの問題は、契約上の副作用を持っている場合には、RSEは、IETF管理ディレクター(IAD)へのガイダンスを提供します。 RSAGまた、RFCシリーズのための長期的、大規模開発にRSEへのアドバイスを提供するのに役立ちます。これは、RSEは、議論のためのコミュニティにかかる提案を通知し、及び実施のための提言として、IAD / IAOC。

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.

RSAGは識別とRFCシリーズが直面する重要な課題と機会のコミュニティの議論をリードしてRSEを支援します。 IABは、その監督の役割を保持し、適切なコミュニティの議論は、このような重要なトピックに開催されていることを確実にする責任があります。

4.1.2. Membership
4.1.2. メンバーシップ

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.

RSAGフルメンバーが時間をかけて、RFCシリーズの解釈の一貫性と恒常を提供するために、で、大きなRFCシリーズでの経験と関心のために選択されたメンバー、すべてです。メンバーは、特定のRFCストリームまたは任意の組織を表すものではありません。特に、RSAG部材はIABのメンバーになることという要件や期待はありません。 RSAGメンバーが座っRSAGメンバーと協議のシリーズ編集者によって提案され、その後、確認と正式にIABによって任命されています。これらのフルメンバーに加えて、各RFCストリームの承認者は、そのストリームに特定のコンテキストを提供するために、RSAGにリエゾンを任命します。リエゾンは、ストリーム承認団体のメンバーである必要はありません。当初、彼らの監督の役割にはIAOCまたはIABの連絡もないでしょう。経験が得られるようしかし、IAOC、IAB、またはRSAGは、このようなリエゾンを要求することができます。

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.

RSAGが任命フル千鳥3年の任期を提供するメンバー、プラスRSEで構成されることが想定されます。正会員は、IABの喜びに役立つ - IABによって任命され、必要に応じて、IABによって除去します。

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.

ためには継続性を提供し、RFCエディタ機能の円滑な移行を支援するために、そうして喜んでいる既存のRFC Editorの編集委員会のメンバーは、承認の時のように、暫定RSAGとしての効果的なサービスを提供するように求められこのドキュメント。時から一年以内に新しいモデルへと実際には新モデルの動作を考慮した後RFCエディタ機能の移行、暫定RSAGとRSEが定期的組成、大きさについては、このモデルについてIABに勧告を策定します、特に永久RSAGためと選択プロセス。

4.1.3. Disagreements among RFC Editor Entities
4.1.3. RFC Editorのエンティティ間の意見の相違

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.

そのような結論は、これらの非公式のプロセスを経てできない場合は、問題は、RFCシリーズアドバイザリー・グループに登録する必要があります。 RSAGは、関係者へのRSE以上の一般的なアドバイスにアドバイスを提供することもできますし、それはそのアドバイスを策定するまで決定を延期するRSEを求めることができます。タイムリーな意思決定を議論、調停、および相互の合意によって到達することができない場合には、シリーズの編集者は、RFCエディタ機能の円滑な機能を確保するために必要なものは何でも決定することが期待されます。これらの決定は最終的なものです。

RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the process and evaluation of whether current policies are appropriately implemented in the decision or need adjustment. In particular, it should be noted that final decisions about the technical content of individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream approvers for those documents, as shown in the illustration in Figure 1.


If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual consequences, the Series Editor must identify the issue to the IAOC and, if the RSAG has provided advice, forward that advice as well.


After the IAOC has notified the IAB, the IAD as guided by the IAOC, with advice provided by the Series Editor, has the responsibility to resolve these contractual issues.


If informal agreements cannot be reached and formal RSAG review and/or RSE or stream approver decisions are required, the RSE must identify the issues involved to the community and report them to the IAB in its oversight capacity. The RSE and IAB shall mutually develop a satisfactory mechanism for this type of reporting when and if it is necessary.

非公式の合意に達することができず、正式なRSAGレビューおよび/またはRSEまたはストリーム承認の決定が必要な場合は、RSEはコミュニティに関連する問題を特定し、その監督能力にIABに報告しなければなりません。 RSEとIABは、相互に報告するとき、このタイプのための十分なメカニズムを開発しなければならず、それが必要な場合。

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
4.2. 独立提出ストリーム編集委員会

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.

今日、RFC Editorは独立提出ストリーム文書のレビューのために編集委員会によってサポートされています。このボードは、我々は独立した提出ストリーム編集委員会を呼ぶものの中で進化することが期待されます。このボランティア編集委員会は、ISEの喜びに存在し、メンバーはISEの喜びに役立ちます。このボードの存在は、単にこのモデルの中で指摘されており、このような追加の議論は、この文書の範囲外と考えられています。

5. IANA Considerations
5. IANAの考慮事項

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.

この文書では、全体的なRFC Editorの構造内にいくつかの関数を定義し、それはRFCプロダクションセンターレジストリ値の割り当ての調整のために責任を置きます。 IAOCはRFCプロダクションセンターとIANAとの間の関係の確立を容易にします。

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 (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.

RFC 4844と同じセキュリティ上の考慮事項が適用されます。文書の公開のためのプロセスは、未承認の変更の導入を防止しなければなりません。 RFC Editorは出版物のインデックスを維持するので、十分なセキュリティは、外部関係者によって変更されることから、これらの公表された文書を予防するための場所でなければなりません。 RFC文書、RFC文書を再作成するために必要なすべてのソースドキュメント、および(例えば、いくつかの初期の項目の正誤表のリスト、ツール、および、非機械可読原本など)の任意の関連する原稿のアーカイブは失敗しないように固定する必要があります記憶媒体や他の類似の災害。

The IAOC should take these security considerations into account during the implementation of this RFC Editor model.

IAOCは、このRFC Editorのモデルの実装の際に考慮にこれらのセキュリティ上の考慮事項を取る必要があります。

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.

(アルファベット順)RFC Editorのモデルがあっ承認された時点でのIAOCメンバー:フレッド・ベイカー、ボブHindenとラスHousley、オレヤコブセン、エドJuskevicius、オラフKolkman、レイ・ペルティエ(非議決権)、リン・セント・アムール、そしてJonne Soininen。また、マーシャルユーバンクスはIAOCスクリーブとしてでした。

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.

(アルファベット順)初期のRFC Editorのモデルがあっ承認された時点でのIABメンバー:ロア・アンダーソン、ゴンサロ・カマリロ、スチュアートチェシャー、ラスHousley、オラフKolkman、グレゴリーLebovitz、バリー・レイバ、カーティスLindqvist、アンドリューMalis、ダニー・マクファーソン、デビッド・オラン、デーブターラー、およびLixiaチャン。 IABのエグゼクティブ・ディレクターとして働くれたダウ・ストリート、そしてアーロンフォーク、IRTF議長としてました:また、IABは、二つの職権メンバーが含まれています。

The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in alphabetical order): Marcelo Bagnulo, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart Cheshire, Vijay Gill, Russ Housley, John Klensin, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Jon Peterson, and Dave Thaler.


8. References
8.1. Normative References
8.1. 引用規格

[1] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.

[1] Daigle氏、L.およびインターネットアーキテクチャ委員会、 "RFCシリーズとRFCエディタ"、RFC 4844、2007年7月。

8.2. Informative References
8.2. 参考文献

[2] Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, "The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process", BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005.

[2]ヒューストン、G.およびB. Wijnenの、 "IETF行政監視委員会(IAOC)メンバー選択のガイドラインとプロセス"、BCP 113、RFC 4333、2005年12月。

Appendix A. 2009 Selection Process

付録A. 2009選択プロセス

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.

2009年には、IABはRFCシリーズ編集者の選択のためにおよび独立提出エディタの選択に責任があります。 IAOCはRFCプロダクションセンターと提案を提出することを選択したベンダーからのRFC出版社を選択します。 IAOCの調達プロセスは、この文書に記述されていません。

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.

IABとIAOCは、入札プロセスの様々な段階で、各種機能の選択でそれらを支援するために、1つ以上のアドホック諮問委員会を設置することが期待されます。 IABメンバーまたはIETFの参加者である必要はありません委員会、のメンバーの名前は、同様にIABとIAOC分、おそらく他のメカニズムによって公表されます。

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。 RFCシリーズ編集者および/または独立した提出エディタのIAB選択プロセス

A.2.1. Nominations and Eligibility


The IAB will be making a broad public call for nominations. The public call will specify the manner by which nominations will be accepted and the means by which the list of nominees will be published. Self-nominations are permitted. Along with the name and contact information for each candidate, details about the candidate's background and qualifications for the position should be attached to the nomination.


People that served on the ad-hoc advisory committee(s) mentioned above are not eligible. There are no further limitations. Specifically, nominees do not have to be actively contributing to the IETF and active participation as 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

A.2.2。 2009年に委員会

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.

2009選択プロセスの間に、委員会は、職務記述書と仕事の書類を作成する際にIAOC / IABを支援しました。この委員会はまた、生産センターおよびRFC PublisherのIAOCに行われた入札を評価するのを助けることができます。別の委員、編集機能の選択のための特別委員会は、RFCシリーズの編集者および独立提出エディタ候補の評価にIABを支援します。

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.

IABは、コミュニティのための時間は、IABに関連するすべてのコメントを通過させる、意思決定をする前に指名した者のリストを公開します。確立した場合、諮問委員会は、やる気の候補リストを提供するように求められます。 IABは、指名材料、任意の提出意見、諮問委員会からの最終候補リストを確認し、その選択を行います。

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.

前述したコミュニティがRFCの関心とRFCエディタの機能を持つコミュニティであることに留意されたいです。 IETFコミュニティは、そのコミュニティの一部でしかありません。

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.


A.2.5. Term of Office and Selection Time Frame

A.2.5。 Officeとの選択タイムフレームの期間

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.

さらに交渉の対象と安定性を提供するの関心で、任期は更新の短い実際の契約や中間レビューのための規定で制限なしで5年であると予想されます。 RSE、ISE、およびRFCプロダクションセンターの任期が同時に終了しないように、また、努力がなされるべきです。

The selection timeframe for 2009 is roughly:


June - IAB calls for nominations for ISE and RSE positions;

6月 - ISEとRSE位置の推薦のためのIABのコール。

July - A Committee conducts interviews;

7月 - 委員会が面接を実施。

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

八月中旬 - 委員会は、ISEとRSE位置についてIABに個人を推奨しています。

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

9月の後半は - IABは、ISEとRSE、IAOCとの契約の成功の交渉の対象を任命します。

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

十月中旬 - 了解覚書(覚書)の費用のためにIAD、ISEで実行、奨学金や費用のRSE。

Mid-October - Transition begins;

十月中旬 - 移行が開始されます。

January 2010 - Contract begins.

2010年1月 - 契約が開始されます。

The timeline for future selections is subject to recommendation from the RSAG and review by the IAB.


Authors' Addresses


Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)

オラフKolkman M.(編集者)



Internet Architecture Board