Network Working Group P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft ICANN
Updates: 7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, A. Rossi
7996, 7997, 9280 (if approved) RFC Series Consulting Editor
Intended status: Informational 4 March 2025
Expires: 5 September 2025
RFC Editor Model
draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates-00
Abstract
RFC 9280 specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. Since its
publication, lessons have been learned about implementing this model.
This document lists some of those lessons learned and updates RFC
9280 based on that experience.
This draft is part of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG); see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/edwg/rswg/documents/
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/edwg/rswg/documents/). There is a
repository for this draft at https://github.com/
paulehoffman/9280-updates (https://github.com/
paulehoffman/9280-updates).
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/.
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 5 September 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Hoffman & Rossi Expires 5 September 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 9280 updates March 2025
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Methods for Updating RFC 9280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. RPC Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. RPC Implementation Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Tooling and code used for publication of RFCs . . . . 3
3.1.2. Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions . . 5
3.2. RFC Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Updates to RFCs 7990 through 7997 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Updates from "RFC Formats and Versions" . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. RFCs May Be Reissued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Consistency Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Purview of the RSWG and RSAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Processing Drafts from the RSWG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
[RFC9280] contained significant changes to the publication model for
RFCs. Those changes created new structures and new processes for the
publication of RFCs. As these structures and processes have been
exercised, the community has found places where they might be
improved. In addition, gaps in some of the processes have been
found. This document updates RFC 9280 based on these findings.
An editorial note: RFC 9280 is discussed throughout this document.
The only time it is formally referenced is above; the rest of the
time, it is simply called "RFC 9280".
A later version of this document will have all the changes in place
in RFC 9280.
2. Methods for Updating RFC 9280
Section 8 of RFC 9280 currently says:
Hoffman & Rossi Expires 5 September 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 9280 updates March 2025
Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be
produced using the process documented herein but shall be
published and operative only after (a) obtaining the agreement of
the IAB and the IESG and (b) ensuring that the IETF LLC has no
objections regarding its ability to implement any proposed
changes.
This sentence is replaced with:
Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be
produced using the process documented herein but, unless otherwise
specified in this document, shall be published and operative only
after (a) obtaining the agreement of the IAB and the IESG and (b)
ensuring that the IETF LLC has no objections regarding its ability
to implement any proposed changes.
3. RPC Roles and Responsibilities
RFC 9280 created a new structure for the RFC Editor function. It
established the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) and the RFC Series
Approval Board (RSAB), and gave 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. 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.
The rest of this section updates RFC 9280 to deal with this and other
related matters.
3.1. RPC Implementation Responsibilities
3.1.1. Tooling and code used for publication of RFCs
Section 2 of RFC 9280 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.
Hoffman & Rossi Expires 5 September 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 9280 updates March 2025
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. RFC 9280 does not cover any specific
responsibilities for designing and building the tools and code used
to publish documents.
RFC 9280 mentions tool developers twice. In Section 3.1.1.2, it
encourages "developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and
Internet-Drafts" to participate in the RSWG. Section 3.2.1 says that
"RSAB members should consult with their constituent stakeholders
(e.g., authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on
an ongoing basis".
Section 4.2 of RFC 9280 mentions a specific implementation when
discussing the working practices of the RPC.
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.
[RFC7991] is the only editorial implementation-related RFC mentioned
in 9280.
This section 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 Section 4.4 of RFC 9280.
Hoffman & Rossi Expires 5 September 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 9280 updates March 2025
3.1.2. Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions
Section 4.4 of RFC 9280 provides a pathway for resolution of
conflicts between the RPC and the author(s) of a specific document.
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 now use the
same path of appeal: to the RSAB.
3.2. RFC Consumers
The IETF mission statement [RFC3935] 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.
Section 3.2.1 of 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.
"Consumers of RFCs" is now 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.
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 (https://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.
Hoffman & Rossi Expires 5 September 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC 9280 updates March 2025
3.3. Updates to RFCs 7990 through 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)".
4. Updates from "RFC Formats and Versions"
[RFC9720], "RFC Formats and Versions", updated RFC 9280.
4.1. RFCs May Be Reissued
Section 7.6 of RFC 9280 currently says:
Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.
That sentence was replaced with:
Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of
publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent
possible.
4.2. Consistency Policy
A new policy that would exist in Section 7 of RFC 9280 was added:
7.8. Consistency
RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. They may be
reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.
5. Purview of the RSWG and RSAB
Section 3 of RFC 9280 currently says:
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but
are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication
and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC
Series.
The following is added immediately following that sentence:
Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications,
for example specific details of text or graphical formats or XML
grammar. Such matters will be decided and documented by the RPC
along with its other working practices, as discussed in section
4.2 of RFC 9280, with community consultation as for other tools
and services supported by IETF LLC [RFC8711]."
Hoffman & Rossi Expires 5 September 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC 9280 updates March 2025
6. Processing Drafts from the RSWG
%% Maybe clarify RSAB role in running the full-community last call,
such as deciding when it is finished, what the RSWG Chairs should do
after that, mailing lists, and so on. %%
7. Security Considerations
There are no security considerations for the changes listed in this
document.
8. IANA Considerations
This document contains no actions for IANA.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[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>.
Hoffman & Rossi Expires 5 September 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC 9280 updates March 2025
[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>.
[RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8711>.
[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>.
[RFC9720] Hoffman, P. and H. Flanagan, "RFC Formats and Versions",
RFC 9720, DOI 10.17487/RFC9720, January 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9720>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3935>.
Authors' Addresses
Paul Hoffman
ICANN
Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org
Alexis Rossi
RFC Series Consulting Editor
Email: rsce@rfc-editor.org
Hoffman & Rossi Expires 5 September 2025 [Page 8]