



Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                        R. Housley, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8729                                              
Obsoletes: 4844                                           L. Daigle, Ed.
Category: Informational                                    February 2020
ISSN: 2070-1721


                     The RFC Series and RFC Editor

Abstract

   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.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
   and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
   provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of the
   Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for
   publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  RFC Series Mission
   3.  Roles and Responsibilities
     3.1.  RFC Editor
     3.2.  IAB
     3.3.  Operational Oversight
     3.4.  Policy Oversight
   4.  Framework
     4.1.  Document Approval
       4.1.1.  Definition
       4.1.2.  Operational Implementation
       4.1.3.  Process Change
       4.1.4.  Existing Approval Process Documents
     4.2.  Editing, Processing, and Publication of Documents
       4.2.1.  Definition
       4.2.2.  Operational Implementation
       4.2.3.  Process Change
       4.2.4.  Existing Process Documents
     4.3.  Archiving, Indexing, and Accessibility
       4.3.1.  Definition
       4.3.2.  Operational Implementation
       4.3.3.  Process Change
       4.3.4.  Existing Process Documents
     4.4.  Series-Wide Guidelines and Rules
       4.4.1.  Definition
       4.4.2.  Operational Implementation
       4.4.3.  Process Change
       4.4.4.  Existing Process Documents
   5.  RFC Streams
     5.1.  RFC Approval Processes
       5.1.1.  IETF Document Stream
       5.1.2.  IAB Document Stream
       5.1.3.  IRTF Document Stream
       5.1.4.  Independent Submission Stream
     5.2.  RFC Technical Publication Requirements
       5.2.1.  IETF Documents
       5.2.2.  IAB Documents
       5.2.3.  IRTF Documents
       5.2.4.  Independent Submissions
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  Changes Since RFC 4844
   8.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  A Retrospective of IAB Charters and RFC Editor
     A.1.  1992
     A.2.  1994
     A.3.  2000
   IAB Members at the Time of Approval
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   The first Request for Comments (RFC) document was published in April
   of 1969 as part of the effort to design and build what we now know of
   as the Internet.  Since then, the RFC Series has been the archival
   series dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications,
   including both general contributions from the Internet research and
   engineering community as well as standards documents.

   As described in the history of the first 30 years of RFCs
   ([RFC2555]), the RFC Series was created for the purpose of capturing
   the research and engineering thought that underlie the design of
   (what we now know of as) the Internet.  As the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF) was formalized to carry out the discussion and
   documentation of Internet standards, IETF documents have become a
   large part (but not the entirety) of the RFC Series.

   As the IETF has grown up and celebrated its own 30 years of history,
   its requirements for archival publication of its output have changed
   and become more rigorous.  Perhaps most significantly, the IETF must
   be able to define (based on its own open consensus discussion
   processes and leadership directions) and implement adjustments to its
   publication processes.

   At the same time, the Internet engineering and research community as
   a whole has grown and come to require more openness and
   accountability in all organizations supporting it.  More than ever,
   this community needs an RFC Series that is supported (operationally
   and in terms of its principles) such that there is a balance of:

   *  expert implementation;

   *  clear management and direction -- for operations and evolution
      across the whole RFC Series (whether originating in the IETF or
      not); and

   *  appropriate community input into and review of activities.

   In the past, there has been confusion and therefore sometimes tension
   over where and how to address RFC issues that are particular to
   contributing groups (e.g., the IETF, the Internet Architecture Board
   (IAB), or independent individuals).  It was not always clear where
   there should be community involvement versus RFC Editor control;
   depending on the issue, there might be more or less involvement from
   the IAB, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), or the
   community at large.  There are similar issues with handling RFC
   Series-wide issues -- where to discuss and resolve them in a way that
   is balanced across the whole series.

   For example, there have been discussions about Intellectual Property
   Rights (IPR) for IETF-generated documents, but it's not clear when or
   how to abstract the portions of those discussions that are relevant
   to the rest of the RFC Series.  Discussions of labeling (of RFCs in
   general, IETF documents in particular, or some combination thereof)
   generally must be applied to the whole RFC Series or not at all.
   Without an agreed-on framework for managing the RFC Series, it is
   difficult to have those discussions in a non-polarized fashion --
   either the IETF dictating the reality of the rest of the RFC Series,
   or the RFC Series imposing undue restrictions on documents from the
   IETF.

   As part of its charter (see Appendix A), the IAB has a responsibility
   for the RFC Editor.  Acknowledging the IETF's needs and the general
   Internet engineering and research community's evolving needs, the IAB
   supports a future for the RFC Series that continues to meet its
   original mandate of providing the archival series for the technical
   research and engineering documentation that describes the Internet.

   With this document, the IAB provides the framework for the RFC Series
   and an RFC Editor function with the specific purpose of ensuring that
   the RFC Series is maintained and supported in ways that are
   consistent with the stated purpose of the RFC Series and the
   realities of today's Internet research and engineering community.
   The framework describes the existing "streams" of RFCs, draws a
   roadmap of existing process documents already defining the
   implementation, and provides clear direction of how to evolve this
   framework and its supporting pieces through discussion and future
   document revision.

   Specifically, this document provides a brief charter for the RFC
   Series, describes the role of the RFC Editor, the IAB, and the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA) in a framework for managing
   the RFC Series, and discusses the streams of input to the RFC Series
   from the various constituencies it serves.

2.  RFC Series Mission

   The 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.

   RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the Internet.

3.  Roles and Responsibilities

   As this document sets out the framework for supporting the RFC Series
   mission, this section reviews the updated roles and responsibilities
   of the entities that have had, and will have, involvement in
   continued support of the mission.

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.

3.2.  IAB

   In this model, the role of the IAB is to ensure that the RFC Series
   mission is being appropriately fulfilled for the whole community for
   which it was created.  The IAB does not, organizationally, have
   comprehensive publishing or editorial expertise.  Therefore, the role
   of the IAB is focused on ensuring that principles are met, the
   appropriate bodies and communities are duly informed and consulted,
   and the RFC Editor has what it needs in order to execute on the
   material that is in their mandate.

   It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of the
   RFC Editor and to approve the general policy followed by the RFC
   Editor.

3.3.  Operational Oversight

   The IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC), as part
   of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA), is responsible
   for administrative and financial matters for the IETF, the IAB, and
   the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) [RFC8711].  The IASA is
   tasked with providing the funding for the RFC Editor.  The IASA,
   through the IETF Executive Director, provides contractual and
   financial oversight of the RFC Editor.  Additionally, as described in
   Section 3.1 of [RFC8728], the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC),
   acting with authority delegated from the IAB, is responsible for
   ensuring that the RFC Series is run in a transparent and accountable
   manner, including design and execution of the RFC Series Editor
   selection process.

   The IETF Executive Director works with the IAB to identify suitable
   persons or entities to fulfill the mandate of the RFC Production
   Center and the RFC Publisher roles as defined in [RFC8728].

   The IETF Executive Director establishes appropriate contractual
   agreements with the selected persons or entities to carry out the
   work that will satisfy the technical publication requirements defined
   for the various RFC input streams (see Section 5.2).  The IETF
   Executive Director may define additional operational requirements and
   policies for management purposes to meet the requirements defined by
   the various communities.

   The IETF Administration LLC Board approves a budget for operation of
   the RFC Editor activity, and the IETF Executive Director establishes
   and manages the necessary operational agreements for the RFC Editor
   activity.

3.4.  Policy Oversight

   The IAB monitors the effectiveness of the policies in force and their
   implementation to ensure that the RFC Editor activity meets the
   editorial management and document publication needs as referenced in
   this document.  In the event of serious non-conformance, the IAB,
   either on its own initiative or at the request of the IETF
   Administration LLC Board, may require the IETF Executive Director to
   vary or terminate and renegotiate the arrangements for the RFC Editor
   activity.

4.  Framework

   With the RFC Series mission outlined above, this document describes a
   framework for supporting

   *  the operational implementation of the RFC Series,

   based on

   *  public process and definition documents,

   for which there are

   *  clear responsibilities and mechanisms for update and change.

   Generally speaking, the RFC Editor is responsible for the operational
   implementation of the RFC Series.  As outlined in Section 3.3, the
   IETF Executive Director provides the oversight of this operational
   role.

   The process and definition documents are detailed below, including
   responsibility for the individual process documents (maintenance and
   update).  The RFC Editor works with the appropriate community to
   ensure that the process documents reflect current requirements.  The
   IAB is charged with the role of verifying that appropriate community
   input has been sought and that any changes appropriately account for
   community requirements.

   There are three categories of activity, and a fourth category of
   series-wide rules and guidelines, described for implementing the RFC
   Series to support its mission:

   *  Approval of documents.

   *  Editing, processing, and publication of documents.

   *  Archiving and indexing the documents and making them accessible.

   *  Series rules and guidelines.

4.1.  Document Approval

   The RFC Series mission implicitly requires that documents be reviewed
   and approved for acceptance into the series.

4.1.1.  Definition

   Section 5.1 describes the different streams of documents that are put
   to the RFC Editor for publication as RFCs today.  While there may be
   general policies for approval of documents as RFCs (to ensure the
   coherence of the RFC Series), there are also policies defined for the
   approval of documents in each stream.  Generally speaking, there is a
   different approving body for each stream.  The current definitions
   are catalogued in Section 5.1.

4.1.2.  Operational Implementation

   Each stream has its own documented approval process.  The RFC Editor
   is responsible for the approval of documents in one of the streams
   (Independent Submission stream, see Section 5.1.4) and works with the
   other approving bodies to ensure smooth passage of approved documents
   into the next phases, ultimately to publication and archiving as an
   RFC.

4.1.3.  Process Change

   From time to time, it may be necessary to change the approval
   processes for any given stream, or even add or remove streams.  This
   may occur when the RFC Editor, the IAB, the body responsible for a
   given stream of documents, or the community determines that there are
   issues to be resolved in general for RFC approval or for per-stream
   approval processes.

   In this framework, the general approach is that the IAB will work
   with the RFC Editor and other parties to get community input, and it
   will verify that any changes appropriately account for community
   requirements.

4.1.4.  Existing Approval Process Documents

   The existing documents describing the approval processes for each
   stream are detailed in Section 5.1.

4.2.  Editing, Processing, and Publication of Documents

   Producing and maintaining a coherent, well-edited document series
   requires specialized skills and subject matter expertise.  This is
   the domain of the RFC Editor.  Nevertheless, the community served by
   the RFC Series and the communities served by the individual streams
   of RFCs have requirements that help define the nature of the series.

4.2.1.  Definition

   General and stream-specific requirements for the RFC Series are
   documented in community-approved documents (catalogued in Section 5.2
   below).

   Any specific interfaces, numbers, or concrete values required to make
   the requirements operational are the subject of agreements between
   the IASA and the RFC Editor (e.g., contracts, statements of work,
   service level agreements, etc).

4.2.2.  Operational Implementation

   The RFC Editor is responsible for ensuring that editing, processing,
   and publication of RFCs are carried out in a way that is consistent
   with the requirements laid out in the appropriate documents.  The RFC
   Editor works with the IASA to provide regular reporting and feedback
   on these operations.

4.2.3.  Process Change

   From time to time, it may be necessary to change the requirements for
   any given stream, or the RFC Series in general.  This may occur when
   the RFC Editor, the IAB, the approval body for a given stream of
   documents, or the community determines that there are issues to be
   resolved in general for RFCs or for per-stream requirements.

   In this model, the general approach is that the IAB will work with
   the RFC Editor to get community input, and it will approve changes by
   validating appropriate consideration of community requirements.

4.2.4.  Existing Process Documents

   Documents describing existing requirements for the streams are
   detailed in Section 5.2.

4.3.  Archiving, Indexing, and Accessibility

   The activities of archiving, indexing, and making accessible the RFC
   Series can be informed by specific subject matter expertise in
   general document series editing.  It is also important that they are
   informed by requirements from the whole community.  As long as the
   RFC Series is to remain coherent, there should be uniform archiving
   and indexing of RFCs across all streams and a common method of
   accessing the resulting documents.

4.3.1.  Definition

   In principle, there should be a community consensus document
   describing the archiving, indexing, and accessibility requirements
   for the RFC Series.  In practice, we continue with the archive as
   built by the capable RFC Editors since the series' inception.

   Any specific concrete requirements for the archive, index, and
   accessibility operations are the subject of agreements between the
   IASA and the RFC Editor (e.g., contracts, statements of work, service
   level agreements, etc).

4.3.2.  Operational Implementation

   The RFC Editor is responsible for ensuring that the RFC archive and
   index are maintained appropriately and that the resulting documents
   are made available to anybody wishing to access them via the
   Internet.  The RFC Editor works with the IASA for regular reporting
   and feedback.

4.3.3.  Process Change

   Should there be a community move to propose changes to the
   requirements for the RFC archive and index or accessibility, the IAB
   will work with the RFC Editor to get community input, and it will
   approve changes by validating appropriate consideration of community
   requirements.

4.3.4.  Existing Process Documents

   There are no applicable process documents.

4.4.  Series-Wide Guidelines and Rules

   The RFC Series style and content can be shaped by subject matter
   expertise in document series editing.  They are also informed by
   requirements by the using community.  As long as the RFC Series is to
   remain coherent, there should be uniform style and content for RFCs
   across all streams.  This includes, but is not limited to, acceptable
   language, use of references, and copyright rules.

4.4.1.  Definition

   In principle, there should be a community consensus document (or set
   of documents) describing the content requirements for the RFC Series.
   In practice, some do exist, though some need reviewing and more may
   be needed over time.

4.4.2.  Operational Implementation

   The RFC Editor is responsible for ensuring that the RFC Series
   guidelines are upheld within the RFC Series.

4.4.3.  Process Change

   When additions or changes are needed to series-wide definitions, the
   IAB will work with the RFC Editor and stream stakeholders to get
   community input and review.  The IAB will approve changes by
   validating appropriate consideration of community requirements.

4.4.4.  Existing Process Documents

   Existing series-wide rules and guidelines documents include:

   *  RFC Style Guide [RFC7322],

   *  The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs [RFC7997],

   *  Copyright and intellectual property rules [RFC5378],

   *  Normative references [RFC3967] [RFC4897], [RFC8067].

5.  RFC Streams

   Various contributors provide input to the RFC Series.  These
   contributors come from several different communities, each with its
   own defined process for approving documents that will be published by
   the RFC Editor.  This is nothing new; however, over time the various
   communities and document requirements have grown and separated.  In
   order to promote harmony in discussing the collective set of
   requirements, it is useful to recognize each in their own space --
   and they are referred to here as "streams".

   Note that by identifying separate streams, there is no intention of
   dividing them or undermining their management as one series.  Rather,
   the opposite is true -- by clarifying the constituent parts, it is
   easier to make them work together without the friction that sometimes
   arises when discussing various requirements.

   The subsections below identify the streams that exist today.  There
   is no immediate expectation of new streams being created, and it is
   preferable that new streams NOT be created.  Creation of streams and
   all policies surrounding general changes to the RFC Series are
   discussed above in Section 4.

5.1.  RFC Approval Processes

   Processes for approval of documents (or requirements) for each stream
   are defined by the community that defines the stream.  The IAB is
   charged with the role of verifying that appropriate community input
   has been sought and that the changes are consistent with the RFC
   Series mission and this overall framework.

   The RFC Editor is expected to publish all documents passed to it
   after appropriate review and approval in one of the identified
   streams.

5.1.1.  IETF Document Stream

   The IETF document stream includes IETF WG documents as well as
   "individual submissions" sponsored by an IESG area director.  Any
   document being published as part of the IETF standards process must
   follow this stream -- no other stream can approve Standards-Track
   RFCs or Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs.

   Approval of documents in the IETF stream is defined by

   *  the IETF standards process [RFC2026] (and its successors).

   *  the IESG process for sponsoring individual submissions [SPONSOR].

   Changes to the approval process for this stream are made by updating
   the IETF standards process documents.

5.1.2.  IAB Document Stream

   The IAB defines the processes by which it approves documents in its
   stream.  Consistent with the above, any documents that the IAB wishes
   to publish as part of the IETF Standards Track (Standards or BCPs)
   are subject to the approval processes referred to in Section 5.1.1.

   The review and approval process for documents in the IAB stream is
   described in

   *  the IAB process for review and approval of its documents
      [RFC4845].

5.1.3.  IRTF Document Stream

   The IRTF is chartered as an activity of the IAB.  With the approval
   of the IAB, the IRTF may publish and update a process for publication
   of its own, non-IETF Standards-Track, documents.

   The review and approval process for documents in the IRTF stream is
   described in

   *  IRTF Research Group RFCs [RFC5743].

5.1.4.  Independent Submission Stream

   The RFC Series has always served a broader Internet technical
   community than the IETF.  The "Independent Submission" stream is
   defined to provide review and (possible) approval of documents that
   are outside the scope of the streams identified above.

   Generally speaking, approval of documents in this stream falls under
   the purview of the RFC Editor, and the RFC Editor seeks input to its
   review from the IESG.

   The process for reviewing and approving documents in the Independent
   Submission stream is defined by

   *  Procedures for Rights Handling in the RFC Independent Submission
      Stream [RFC5744],

   *  Independent Submission Editor Model [RFC8730],

   *  Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor [RFC4846],

   *  The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures [RFC5742].

5.2.  RFC Technical Publication Requirements

   The Internet engineering and research community has not only grown,
   it has become more diverse, and sometimes more demanding.  The IETF,
   as a standards-developing organization, has publication requirements
   that extend beyond those of an academic journal.  The IAB does not
   have the same interdependence with IANA assignments as the IETF
   stream does.  Therefore, there is the need to both codify the
   publishing requirements of each stream, and endeavor to harmonize
   them to the extent that is reasonable.

   Therefore, it is expected that the community of effort behind each
   document stream will outline their technical publication
   requirements.

   As part of the RFC Editor oversight, the IAB must agree that the
   requirements are consistent with and implementable as part of the RFC
   Editor activity.

5.2.1.  IETF Documents

   The requirements for this stream are defined in [RFC4714].

5.2.2.  IAB Documents

   Although they were developed for the IETF standards process, the IAB
   has identified applicable requirements in [RFC4714] for its stream.
   In addition, procedures related to IPR for the IAB stream are
   captured in [RFC5745].

   If the IAB elects to define other requirements, they should deviate
   minimally from those (in an effort to keep the collective technical
   publication requirements reasonably managed by one technical
   publisher).

5.2.3.  IRTF Documents

   The IRTF has identified applicable requirements in [RFC5743] for its
   stream.

   If the IRTF elects to define other requirements, they should deviate
   minimally from those (in an effort to keep the collective technical
   publication requirements reasonably managed by one technical
   publisher).

5.2.4.  Independent Submissions

   Procedures and processes for the Independent Stream are described in
   [RFC4846] and [RFC8730].

   Although they were developed for the IETF standards process, the RFC
   Editor has identified applicable requirements in [RFC4714] for the
   Independent Submissions stream.  In addition, procedures related to
   IPR for the independent submissions stream are captured in [RFC5744].

   If the RFC Editor elects to define other requirements, they should
   deviate minimally from those (in an effort to keep the collective
   technical publication requirements reasonably managed by one
   technical publisher).

6.  Security Considerations

   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.

7.  Changes Since RFC 4844

   Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 4 have been updated to align with the
   restructuring of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
   Under the new structure, the IETF LLC performs the tasks related to
   IASA that were previously assigned to the IETF Administrative
   Director and to the Internet Society.

   Many references were updated to point to the most recent documents.

   Minor editorial changes were made to reflect 10 years of using the
   framework provided in RFC 4884.  For example, RFC 4844 said, "...
   this document sets out a revised framework ...", and it is now more
   appropriate to say, "... this document sets out the framework ...".

8.  Informative References

   [RFC1358]  Chapin, L., "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board
              (IAB)", RFC 1358, DOI 10.17487/RFC1358, August 1992,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1358>.

   [RFC1601]  Huitema, C., "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board
              (IAB)", RFC 1601, DOI 10.17487/RFC1601, March 1994,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1601>.

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.

   [RFC2555]  Editor, RFC. and et. al., "30 Years of RFCs", RFC 2555,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2555, April 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2555>.

   [RFC2850]  Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed.,
              "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)",
              BCP 39, RFC 2850, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>.

   [RFC3967]  Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track
              Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower
              Level", BCP 97, RFC 3967, DOI 10.17487/RFC3967, December
              2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3967>.

   [RFC4714]  Mankin, A. and S. Hayes, "Requirements for IETF Technical
              Publication Service", RFC 4714, DOI 10.17487/RFC4714,
              October 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4714>.

   [RFC4845]  Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "Process
              for Publication of IAB RFCs", RFC 4845,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4845, July 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4845>.

   [RFC4846]  Klensin, J., Ed. and D. Thaler, Ed., "Independent
              Submissions to the RFC Editor", RFC 4846,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4846, July 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4846>.

   [RFC4897]  Klensin, J. and S. Hartman, "Handling Normative References
              to Standards-Track Documents", BCP 97, RFC 4897,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4897, June 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4897>.

   [RFC5378]  Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
              Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.

   [RFC5742]  Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
              Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
              BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5742>.

   [RFC5743]  Falk, A., "Definition of an Internet Research Task Force
              (IRTF) Document Stream", RFC 5743, DOI 10.17487/RFC5743,
              December 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5743>.

   [RFC5744]  Braden, R. and J. Halpern, "Procedures for Rights Handling
              in the RFC Independent Submission Stream", RFC 5744,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5744, December 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5744>.

   [RFC5745]  Malis, A., Ed. and IAB, "Procedures for Rights Handling in
              the RFC IAB Stream", RFC 5745, DOI 10.17487/RFC5745,
              December 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5745>.

   [RFC7322]  Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.

   [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/info/rfc7997>.

   [RFC8067]  Leiba, B., "Updating When Standards Track Documents May
              Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level", BCP 97,
              RFC 8067, DOI 10.17487/RFC8067, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8067>.

   [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/info/rfc8711>.

   [RFC8728]  Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
              "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728>.

   [RFC8730]  Brownlee, N., Ed. and R. Hinden, Ed., "Independent
              Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730,
              February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8730>.

   [SPONSOR]  IESG, "Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents",
              IESG Statement, March 2007,
              <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-
              docs.html>.

Appendix A.  A Retrospective of IAB Charters and RFC Editor

   With this document, the IAB's role with respect to the RFC Series and
   the RFC Editor is being adjusted to work more directly with the RFC
   Editor and provide oversight to ensure the RFC Series mission
   principles and communities' input are addressed appropriately.

   This section provides an overview of the role of the IAB with respect
   to the RFC Editor as it has been presented in IAB Charter RFCs dating
   back to 1992.  The point of this section is that the IAB's role has
   historically been substantive -- whether it is supposed to be
   directly responsible for the RFC Series' editorial management (circa
   1992, Appendix A.1), or appointment of the RFC Editor organization
   and approval of general policy (circa 2000, Appendix A.3).

A.1.  1992

   [RFC1358] says:

   |  [The IAB's] responsibilities shall include:
   |  [...]
   |      (2)  The editorial management and publication of the Request
   |           for Comments (RFC) document series, which constitutes the
   |           archival publication series for Internet Standards and
   |           related contributions by the Internet research and
   |           engineering community.

A.2.  1994

   [RFC1601] says:

   |  [The IAB's] responsibilities under this charter include:
   |  
   |  (d) RFC Series and IANA
   |  
   |     The IAB is responsible for editorial management and publication
   |     of the Request for Comments (RFC) document series, and for
   |     administration of the various Internet assigned numbers.

   Which it elaborates as:

   |   2.4 RFC Series and Assigned Numbers
   |  
   |      The RFC Series constitutes the archival publication channel
   |      for Internet Standards and for other contributions by the
   |      Internet research and engineering community.  The IAB
   |      shall select an RFC Editor, who shall be responsible for
   |      the editorial management and publication of the RFC Series.

A.3.  2000

   The most recent IAB Charter [RFC2850] says:

   |  (d) RFC Series and IANA
   |  
   |  The RFC Editor executes editorial management and publication of
   |  the IETF "Request for Comment" (RFC) document series, which is
   |  the permanent document repository of the IETF.  The RFC Series
   |  constitutes the archival publication channel for Internet
   |  Standards and for other contributions by the Internet research
   |  and engineering community.  RFCs are available free of charge to
   |  anyone via the Internet.  The IAB must approve the appointment
   |  of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy
   |  followed by the RFC Editor.

IAB Members at the Time of Approval

   The IAB members at the time of approval of RFC 4844 were:

      Bernard Aboba
      Loa Andersson
      Brian Carpenter
      Leslie Daigle
      Elwyn Davies
      Kevin Fall
      Olaf Kolkman
      Kurtis Lindqvist
      David Meyer
      David Oran
      Eric Rescorla
      Dave Thaler
      Lixia Zhang

   The IAB members at the time of approval of this document were:

      Jari Arkko
      Alissa Cooper
      Stephen Farrell
      Wes Hardaker
      Ted Hardie
      Christian Huitema
      Zhenbin Li
      Erik Nordmark
      Mark Nottingham
      Melinda Shore
      Jeff Tantsura
      Martin Thomson
      Brian Trammell

Authors' Addresses

   Russ Housley (editor)

   Email: housley@vigilsec.com


   Leslie L. Daigle (editor)

   Email: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
