Network Working Group                                           A. Rossi
Internet-Draft                              RFC Series Consulting Editor
Updates: 7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995,             21 January 2025
         7996, 7997, 9280 (if approved)                                 
Intended status: Informational                                          
Expires: 25 July 2025


                     RPC Roles and Responsibilities
                   draft-rossi-rpcresponsibilities-00

Abstract

   This document updates RFC 9280 to specify that the RPC is responsible
   for operational decisions needed to implement RFC Series policies as
   they pertain to the document publication process code and tools, and
   provides a pathway for resolution of disagreements with those
   operational decisions.  This document also updates RFC9280 to
   acknowledge that RFC Consumers, a distinct but partially overlapping
   group with IETF participants, must be specifically considered in the
   process of writing and implementing RFC Series policies, and makes
   the RPC responsible for representing their interests.  Additionally,
   this document updates language in RFC7990, RFC7991, RFC7992, RFC7993,
   RFC7994, RFC7995, RFC7996, and RFC7997 to transfer responsibilities
   previously held by the RFC Editor or RFC Series Editor to the RPC.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   The latest revision of this draft can be found at
   https://github.com/alexisannerossi/ID-rpc-responsibilities-
   9280/blob/main/draft-rossi-rpcresponsibilities.md.  Status
   information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rossi-rpcresponsibilities/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/ID-rpc-responsibilities-9280.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.



Rossi                     Expires 25 July 2025                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             RPCResponsibilities              January 2025


   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 July 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) 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.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Updates to 7990-7997  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Updates to 9280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  RPC Implementation Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Tooling and code used for publication of RFCs . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Conflict resolution for implementation decisions  . . . .   5
   5.  RFC Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Origin of the term “consumers of RFCs”  . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Formal definition of the term “consumers of RFCs” . . . .   6
     5.3.  Policy in respect of consumers of RFCs  . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  Representation of consumers of RFCs . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   RFC Editor Model (Version 3) [RFC9280] created a new structure for
   the RFC Editor function, establishing the RFC Series Working Group
   (RSWG) and the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) and giving new
   responsibilities to the RFC Production Center (RPC).  Broadly
   speaking, it says that RSWG writes policies for the editorial stream,
   RSAB approves those policies, and the RPC implements those policies.



Rossi                     Expires 25 July 2025                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             RPCResponsibilities              January 2025


   However RFC 9280 does not specify which group is responsible for
   defining or building the specific code and tools that implement the
   policies agreed upon in this process.

   This document updates RFC 9280 to specify that the RPC is responsible
   for the development of tools and processes used to implement
   editorial stream policies, in the absence of an RFC with specific
   requirements.  The RPC may designate a team of volunteers and/or
   employees who implement these operational decisions.  The RPC is
   expected to solicit input from experts and community members when
   making implementation decisions.  The RPC is required to document
   implementation decisions in a publicly available place, preferably
   with rationale.

   While RFC 9280 provides a pathway for resolution of conflict between
   the RPC and the author(s) of a specific document (RFC 9280 section
   4.4), no appeal pathway is given for resolution of issues that may
   occur when a community member believes an RPC implementation decision
   that applies to the entire publication process (not just one
   document) conflicts with an RFC Series policy.  This document defines
   that both types of appeals will follow the same path (appeal to
   RSAB).

   This document formally defines the term “Consumers of RFCs”, defines
   the policy to be applied by the RFC publication streams (currently
   IETF, IRTF, IAB, Independent Stream and Editorial Stream) and the RFC
   Editor in respect of consumers of RFCs, and defines the role of the
   RPC in representing consumers of RFCs in the Editorial Stream process
   defined in RFC 9280.

   Finally, the set of RFCs that define our current publication formats
   (RFC 7990, RFC 7991, RFC 7992, RFC 7993, RFC 7994, RFC 7995, RFC
   7996, and RFC 7997) frequently give responsibility to “the RFC
   Editor” or “the RFC Series Editor” for implementation decisions.  The
   role of “RFC Editor” that existed when those documents were published
   was divided into different roles in RFC 9280, so it is unclear who
   the responsibilities fall to after this split.  This document defines
   that all responsibilities previously held by the RFC Editor or RFC
   Series Editor in these documents are now held by the RPC.  If the RPC
   has questions about how to interpret policy in these documents, they
   will refer to RSAB for guidance per the process described in RFC 9280
   (RFC 9280 section 4.4).

2.  Updates to 7990-7997

   All instances of “RFC Editor” or “RFC Series Editor” in [RFC7990],
   [RFC7991], [RFC7992], [RFC7993], [RFC7994], [RFC7995], [RFC7996], and
   [RFC7997] are replaced by “RFC Production Center (RPC)”.



Rossi                     Expires 25 July 2025                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             RPCResponsibilities              January 2025


3.  Updates to 9280

   (specific updates TBD)

4.  RPC Implementation Responsibilities

4.1.  Tooling and code used for publication of RFCs

   The second responsibility defined in the RFC 9280 Model Overview (RFC
   9280 section 2) says “Policy implementation through publication of
   RFCs in all of the streams that form the RFC Series.  This is
   primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as
   contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability
   Company (IETF LLC).”

   The same section also states, “The RPC implements the policies
   defined by the Editorial Stream in its day-to-day editing and
   publication of RFCs from all of the streams.” (9280 section 2)

   RFC 9280 does not define any other group that is responsible for
   implementing policies.

   Throughout RFC 9280 the RSWG is consistently assigned responsibility
   for writing policies (not deciding on implementations).  The RPC is
   consistently assigned responsibility for implementing policy
   decisions, but examples given generally describe decisions made at
   the single document level.  The document does not cover any specific
   responsibilities for designing and building the tools and code used
   to publish documents.

   RFC 9280 mentions tool developers twice.  It encourages “developers
   of tools used to author or edit RFCs and Internet-Drafts” to
   participate in the RSWG (RFC 9280 3.1.1.2), and it says that “RSAB
   members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,
   authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an
   ongoing basis” (RFC 9280 3.2.1).

   RFC 9280 mentions a specific implementation once when discussing the
   working practices of the RPC.  Elided for brevity, it says “In the
   absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in the
   interest of specifying the detail of its implementation of such
   policies, the RPC can document … Guidelines regarding the final
   structure and layout of published documents.  In the context of the
   XML vocabulary [RFC7991], such guidelines could include
   clarifications regarding the preferred XML elements and attributes
   used to capture the semantic content of RFCs.” (9280 section 4.2) RFC
   7991 is the only editorial implementation-related RFC mentioned in
   9280.



Rossi                     Expires 25 July 2025                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             RPCResponsibilities              January 2025


   This document updates RFC 9280 to specify that the RPC is responsible
   for the development of tools and processes used to implement
   editorial stream policies, in the absence of an RFC with specific
   requirements.  The RPC may designate a team of volunteers and/or
   employees who implement these operational decisions.  The RPC is
   expected to solicit input from experts and community members when
   making implementation decisions.  The RPC is required to document
   implementation decisions in a publicly available place, preferably
   with rationale.

   If the RPC has questions about how to interpret policy in Editorial
   stream documents, they should ask RSAB for guidance in interpreting
   that policy per the process described in RFC 9280 (RFC 9280 section
   4.4).

4.2.  Conflict resolution for implementation decisions

   RFC 9280 provides a pathway for resolution of conflicts between the
   RPC and the author(s) of a specific document (9280 section 4.4).  No
   appeal pathway is given for resolution of issues that may occur when
   a conflict arises with an implementation decision that applies to the
   entire editorial process (not just one document).

   If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both
   the document and editorial process tooling level, conflicts on either
   level will involve interpretation of written policy (or the
   acknowledgement that policy does not exist to cover a given
   situation).  In any case, the conflict resolution will use the same
   path of appeal to the RSAB.

5.  RFC Consumers

5.1.  Origin of the term “consumers of RFCs”

   The IETF Mission Statement [RFC 3935] is clear that the documents it
   produces are intended to be consumed by anyone who wishes to
   implement an IETF protocol or operational recommendation: “to produce
   high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that
   influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such
   a way as to make the Internet work better.”

   RFC 9280 introduces the term “consumers of RFCs”, referring to them
   as “constituent stakeholders” who should be considered by RSAB when
   approving Editorial Stream policy documents (RFC 9280 section 3.2.1).







Rossi                     Expires 25 July 2025                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             RPCResponsibilities              January 2025


5.2.  Formal definition of the term “consumers of RFCs”

   “Consumers of RFCs” is defined to mean those people who read RFCs to
   understand, implement, critique, and research the protocols,
   operational practices and other content, as found in RFCs.

5.3.  Policy in respect of consumers of RFCs

   The policy to be followed by the RFC publication streams and RFC
   Editor in respect of consumers of RFCs is as follows:

   Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as a separate constituent
   stakeholder from IETF/IRTF participants.  While IETF/IRTF
   participants and others involved in the development and production of
   RFCs may be consumers of RFCs, the two are distinct, overlapping
   sets.

   The RFC Editor website (www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be primarily focused
   on consumers of RFCs.

   Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/
   IRTF participants, but it MAY be recommended or suggested that they
   do so.

5.4.  Representation of consumers of RFCs

   Responsibility for representing the interests of consumers of RFCs in
   the Editorial Stream process as defined in RFC 9280, is assigned to
   the RPC . The RPC SHOULD represent consumers of RFCs to the best of
   their ability given the information and tools available to them, both
   within RSWG and as ex-officio members of RSAB.  The RPC MAY solicit
   information from other individuals, groups or experts, or directly
   from consumers of RFCs, including by tracking traffic or interactions
   on www.rfc-editor.org within the constraints of the privacy statement
   available on www.rfc-editor.org.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document has no security considerations.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

8.  Normative References






Rossi                     Expires 25 July 2025                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             RPCResponsibilities              January 2025


   [RFC7990]  Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7990>.

   [RFC7991]  Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
              RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7991>.

   [RFC7992]  Hildebrand, J., Ed. and P. Hoffman, "HTML Format for
              RFCs", RFC 7992, DOI 10.17487/RFC7992, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7992>.

   [RFC7993]  Flanagan, H., "Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Requirements
              for RFCs", RFC 7993, DOI 10.17487/RFC7993, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7993>.

   [RFC7994]  Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs",
              RFC 7994, DOI 10.17487/RFC7994, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7994>.

   [RFC7995]  Hansen, T., Ed., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF Format
              for RFCs", RFC 7995, DOI 10.17487/RFC7995, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7995>.

   [RFC7996]  Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC",
              RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7996>.

   [RFC7997]  Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in
              RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7997>.

   [RFC9280]  Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)",
              RFC 9280, DOI 10.17487/RFC9280, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280>.

Acknowledgments

Author's Address

   Alexis Rossi
   RFC Series Consulting Editor
   Email: rsce@rfc-editor.org








Rossi                     Expires 25 July 2025                  [Page 7]