



Editorial Stream                                              P. Hoffman
Request for Comments: 9920                                         ICANN
Obsoletes: 9280                                                 A. Rossi
Updates: 7841, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994,      RFC Series Consulting Editor
         7995, 7996, 7997, 8729, 8730,                     February 2026
         9720                                                           
Category: Informational                                                 
ISSN: 2070-1721


                      RFC Editor Model (Version 3)

Abstract

   This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model.  The model
   defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series.  First,
   policy definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series
   Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC
   Series Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals.  Second,
   policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC
   Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF
   Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC).  In addition,
   various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are now performed
   alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting
   Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC.  Finally, this document specifies the
   Editorial Stream for publication of future policy definition
   documents produced through the processes defined herein.

   Since the publication of RFC 9280, 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 document
   obsoletes RFC 9280.

   This document updates RFCs 7841, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996,
   7997, 8729, 8730, and 9720.

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 RFC Series Policy Definition
   Process.  It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working Group
   approved by the RFC Series Approval Board.  Such documents are not
   candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
   7841.

   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/rfc9920.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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
     1.1.  Changes to RFC 9280
     1.2.  RPC Roles and Responsibilities
       1.2.1.  Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs
       1.2.2.  Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions
       1.2.3.  RFC Consumers
     1.3.  Updates to RFC 9720
       1.3.1.  RFCs May Be Reissued
       1.3.2.  Consistency Policy
     1.4.  Purview of the RSWG and RSAB
     1.5.  Updates to RFCs 7991 through 7997
     1.6.  Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280
   2.  Overview of the Model
   3.  Policy Definition
     3.1.  Structure and Roles
       3.1.1.  RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
       3.1.2.  RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
     3.2.  Process
       3.2.1.  Intent
       3.2.2.  Workflow
       3.2.3.  Community Calls for Comment
       3.2.4.  Appeals
       3.2.5.  Anti-Harassment Policy
       3.2.6.  RFC Boilerplates
     3.3.  RFC Consumers
   4.  Policy Implementation
     4.1.  Roles and Processes
     4.2.  Working Practices
     4.3.  RPC Responsibilities
     4.4.  Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC
     4.5.  Point of Contact
     4.6.  Administrative Implementation
       4.6.1.  Vendor Selection for the RPC
       4.6.2.  Budget
   5.  RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)
     5.1.  RSCE Selection
     5.2.  RSCE Performance Evaluation
     5.3.  Temporary RSCE Appointment
     5.4.  Conflict of Interest
   6.  Editorial Stream
     6.1.  Procedures Request of the IETF Trust
     6.2.  Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream
     6.3.  Editorial Stream Boilerplate
   7.  Historical Properties of the RFC Series
     7.1.  Availability
     7.2.  Accessibility
     7.3.  Language
     7.4.  Diversity
     7.5.  Quality
     7.6.  Stability
     7.7.  Longevity
     7.8.  Consistency
   8.  Updates to This Document
   9.  Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model
     9.1.  RFC Editor Function
     9.2.  RFC Series Editor
     9.3.  RFC Publisher
     9.4.  IAB
     9.5.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
     9.6.  RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
     9.7.  Editorial Stream
   10. Security Considerations
   11. IANA Considerations
   12. References
     12.1.  Normative References
     12.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series
   dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, including
   general contributions from the Internet research and engineering
   community as well as standards documents.  RFCs are available free of
   charge to anyone via the Internet.  As described in [RFC8700], RFCs
   have been published continually since 1969.

   RFCs are generated and approved by multiple document streams.
   Whereas the stream approving body [RFC8729] for each stream is
   responsible for the content of that stream, the RFC Editor function
   is responsible for the production and distribution of all RFCs.  The
   four existing streams are described in [RFC8729].  This document
   specifies a fifth stream, the Editorial Stream, for publication of
   policies governing the RFC Series as a whole.

   The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function
   is described in [RFC8729] and is updated by this document, which
   defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model.  Under this version,
   various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are performed
   alone or in combination by the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), RFC
   Series Advisory Board (RSAB), RFC Production Center (RPC), RFC Series
   Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF Administration Limited Liability
   Company (IETF LLC) [RFC8711], which collectively comprise the RFC
   Editor function.  The intent is to ensure sustainable maintenance and
   support of the RFC Series based on the principles of expert
   implementation, clear management and direction, and appropriate
   community input [RFC8729].

   This document updates [RFC7841] by defining boilerplate text for the
   Editorial Stream.  This document updates [RFC8729] by replacing the
   RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and RSCE.  This document updates
   [RFC8730] by removing the dependency on certain policies specified by
   the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE).  More detailed information about
   changes from version 2 of the RFC Editor Model can be found in
   Section 9.

1.1.  Changes to RFC 9280

   This section details the changes made to [RFC9280] by the RSWG
   starting in 2022.  If you are not interested in how this document was
   changed, skip directly to Section 2.

   [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 can be improved.
   In addition, gaps in some of the processes have been found.  This
   document updates [RFC9280] based on these findings.

   The organization of this RFC is different from typical RFCs in order
   to keep the section numbering the same as [RFC9280].  To keep the
   section numbering the same, the Introduction section is much longer,
   with several subsections that refer to the main body.

   The remainder of this introduction is a list of changes to [RFC9280].
   Those changes are instantiated in the rest of the document, with
   cross-references between the list of changes and the main body.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

1.2.  RPC Roles and Responsibilities

   [RFC9280] 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 the RSWG
   writes policies for the Editorial Stream, the RSAB approves those
   policies, and the RPC implements those policies.  However, [RFC9280]
   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 [RFC9280] to deal
   with this and other related matters.

1.2.1.  Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs

   Section 2 of [RFC9280] states:

   |  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) [RFC8711].

   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.

   [RFC9280] does not define any other group that is responsible for
   implementing policies.

   Throughout [RFC9280], 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.  [RFC9280] does
   not cover any specific responsibilities for designing and building
   the tools and code used to publish documents.

   [RFC9280] mentions tool developers twice.  Section 3.1.1.2 of
   [RFC9280] encourages "developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs
   and Internet-Drafts" to participate in the RSWG.  Section 3.2.1 of
   [RFC9280] 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 [RFC9280] 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 [RFC9280].

   The following is added to Section 4.3 of this document:

   |  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 is responsible for
   |  detailed technical specifications, for example, specific details
   |  of text or graphical formats or XML grammar.  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 the RSAB for guidance
   |  in interpreting that policy per the process described in
   |  Section 4.4.

1.2.2.  Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions

   Section 4.4 of [RFC9280] 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).

   The paragraph below is reflected in Section 4.4 of this 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 acknowledgment 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.

1.2.3.  RFC Consumers

   This text is reflected in Section 3.3 of this document:

   |  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 introduces the term "consumers of RFCs", referring
   |  to them as "constituent stakeholders" who should be considered by
   |  the 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 to consumers of RFCs is as follows:
   |  
   |  *  Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as separate constituent
   |     stakeholders 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 unless they wish to extend, update, or
   |     modify an RFC.

1.3.  Updates to RFC 9720

   [RFC9720], "RFC Formats and Versions", updates [RFC9280].  This
   document updates [RFC9720].

1.3.1.  RFCs May Be Reissued

   Section 7.6 of [RFC9280] says:

   |  Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.

   That sentence is replaced in Section 7.6 of this document with:

   |  Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of
   |  publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent
   |  possible, as described in Section 2.2 of [RFC9720].

1.3.2.  Consistency Policy

   A new policy is added to Section 7 of this document:

   |  7.8.  Consistency
   |  
   |  RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published.  They may be
   |  reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.

1.4.  Purview of the RSWG and RSAB

   Section 3 of [RFC9280] 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 to Section 3 of this document 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, with community consultation as for other tools and
   |  services supported by the IETF LLC [RFC8711].

1.5.  Updates to RFCs 7991 through 7997

   All instances of "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series Editor" in [RFC7991],
   [RFC7992], [RFC7993], [RFC7994], [RFC7995], [RFC7996] (obsoleted by
   [RFC9896]), and [RFC7997] are replaced by "RFC Production Center
   (RPC)".

1.6.  Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280

   Many parts of [RFC9280] talked about changes to be made.  Because
   this document obsoletes [RFC9280], these parts were updated to
   indicate that the changes were made.

2.  Overview of the Model

   This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
   two high-level tasks:

   1.  Policy definition governing the RFC Series as a whole.  This is
       the joint responsibility of two entities.  First, the RFC Series
       Working Group (RSWG) is an open working group independent of the
       IETF that generates policy proposals.  Second, the RFC Series
       Approval Board (RSAB) is an appointed body that approves such
       proposals for publication in the Editorial Stream.  The RSAB
       includes representatives of the streams [RFC8729] as well as an
       expert in technical publishing, the RFC Series Consulting Editor
       (RSCE).

   2.  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) [RFC8711].

   As described more fully in the remainder of this document, the core
   activities and responsibilities are as follows:

   *  The RSWG proposes policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole,
      with input from the community, the RSAB, and the RSCE.

   *  The RSAB considers those proposals and either approves them or
      returns them to the RSWG, which may make further changes or remove
      them from further consideration.

   *  If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the Editorial
      Stream and thus define the policies to be followed by the RSWG,
      RSAB, RSCE, and RPC.

   *  The RSCE provides expert advice to the RPC and RSAB on how to
      implement established policies on an ongoing and operational
      basis, which can include raising issues or initiating proposed
      policy changes within the RSWG.

   *  The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in
      its day-to-day editing and publication of RFCs from all of the
      streams.

   *  If issues arise with the implementation of particular policies,
      the RPC brings those issues to the RSAB, which interprets the
      policies and provides interim guidance to the RPC, informing the
      RSWG of those interpretations.

   This model is designed to ensure public processes and policy
   documents, clear lines of responsibility and authority, transparent
   mechanisms for updates and changes to policies governing the RFC
   Series as a whole, and effective operational implementation of the
   RFC Series, thus meeting the requirements specified in Section 4 of
   [RFC8729].

   The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.

3.  Policy Definition

   Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through the
   following high-level process:

   1.  Proposals must be submitted to, adopted by, and discussed within
       the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG).

   2.  Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working group
       and a community call for comments (see Section 3.2.3).

   3.  Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board
       (RSAB).

   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 text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.4.)

   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,
   with community consultation as for other tools and services supported
   by the IETF LLC [RFC8711].

3.1.  Structure and Roles

3.1.1.  RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)

3.1.1.1.  Purpose

   The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which
   members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that
   govern the RFC Series.

3.1.1.2.  Participation

   All interested individuals are welcome to participate in the RSWG;
   participants are subject to anti-harassment policies as described in
   Section 3.2.5.  This includes but is not limited to participants in
   the IETF and IRTF, members of the IAB and IESG, developers of
   software or hardware systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and
   Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and
   Internet-Drafts, individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions,
   scholarly researchers, and representatives of standards development
   organizations other than the IETF and IRTF.  The IETF LLC Board
   members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFC
   Production Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited to
   participate as community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted
   by any relevant IETF LLC policies.  Members of the RSAB are also
   expected to participate actively.

3.1.1.3.  Chairs

   The RSWG has two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the other
   appointed by the IAB.  The IESG and IAB determine their own processes
   for making these appointments, making sure to take account of any
   potential conflicts of interest.  Community members who have concerns
   about the performance of an RSWG Chair should direct their feedback
   to the appropriate appointing body.  The IESG and IAB may remove
   their appointed chairs at their discretion at any time and name a
   replacement who shall serve the remainder of the original chair's
   term.

   It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus
   within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision
   making, for instance, regarding acceptance of new proposals and
   advancement of proposals to the RSAB.

3.1.1.4.  Mode of Operation

   The intent is that the RSWG shall operate in a way similar to that of
   working groups in the IETF.  Therefore, all RSWG meetings and
   discussion venues shall be open to all interested individuals, and
   all RSWG contributions shall be subject to intellectual property
   policies, which must be consistent with those of the IETF as
   specified in [BCP78] and [BCP79].

   All discussions in the RSWG shall take place on an open email
   discussion list, which shall be publicly archived.

   The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person, online-only, or hybrid
   meetings, which should be announced with sufficient notice to enable
   broad participation; the IESG Guidance on In-Person and Online
   Interim Meetings (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-
   guidance-on-in-person-and-online-interim-meetings-20230814/) provides
   a reasonable baseline.  In-person meetings should include provision
   for effective online participation for those unable to attend in
   person.

   The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation
   informally described in [RFC2418].

   The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling
   (e.g., GitHub as specified in [RFC8874]), forms of communication, and
   working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent
   with this document and with [RFC2418] or its successors.

   Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the operation of
   the RSWG, the general guidance provided in Section 6 of [RFC2418]
   should be considered appropriate.

   The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support
   RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies.

3.1.2.  RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)

3.1.2.1.  Purpose

   The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which includes representatives
   of all of the streams, shall act as the approving body for proposals
   generated within the RSWG, thus providing an appropriate set of
   checks and balances on the output of the RSWG.  The only policy-
   making role of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by
   the RSWG; it shall have no independent authority to formulate policy
   on its own.  It is expected that the RSAB will respect the rough
   consensus of the RSWG wherever possible, without ceding its
   responsibility to review RSWG proposals, as further described in
   Section 3.2.2.

3.1.2.2.  Members

   The RSAB consists primarily of the following voting members:

   *  A stream representative for the IETF Stream: either an IESG member
      or someone appointed by the IESG

   *  A stream representative for the IAB Stream: either an IAB member
      or someone appointed by the IAB

   *  A stream representative for the IRTF Stream: either the IRTF Chair
      or someone appointed by the IRTF Chair

   *  A stream representative for the Independent Stream: either the
      Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) [RFC8730] or someone
      appointed by the ISE

   *  The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)

   If and when a new stream is created, the document that creates the
   stream shall specify if a voting member representing that stream
   shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules and processes
   related to that representative (e.g., whether the representative is a
   member of the body responsible for the stream or an appointed
   delegate thereof).

   The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a voting member of the
   RSAB but does not act as a representative of the Editorial Stream.

   To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
   include the following non-voting, ex officio members:

   *  The IETF Executive Director or their delegate (the rationale is
      that the IETF LLC is accountable for implementation of policies
      governing the RFC Series)

   *  A representative of the RPC, named by the RPC (the rationale is
      that the RPC is responsible for implementation of policies
      governing the RFC Series)

   In addition, the RSAB may include other non-voting members at its
   discretion; these non-voting members may be ex officio members or
   liaisons from groups or organizations with which the RSAB deems it
   necessary to formally collaborate or coordinate.

3.1.2.3.  Appointment and Removal of Voting Members

   The appointing bodies (i.e., IESG, IAB, IRTF Chair, and ISE) shall
   determine their own processes for appointing RSAB members (note that
   processes related to the RSCE are described in Section 5).  Each
   appointing body shall have the power to remove its appointed RSAB
   member at its discretion at any time.  Appointing bodies should
   ensure that voting members are seated at all times and should fill
   any vacancies with all due speed, if necessary on a temporary basis.

   In the case that the IRTF Chair or ISE is incapacitated or otherwise
   unable to appoint another person to serve as a delegate, the IAB (as
   the appointing body for the IRTF Chair and ISE) shall act as the
   temporary appointing body for those streams and shall appoint a
   temporary member of the RSAB until the IAB has appointed an IRTF
   Chair or ISE, who can then act as an RSAB member or appoint a
   delegate through normal processes.

3.1.2.4.  Vacancies

   In the case of vacancies by voting members, the RSAB shall operate as
   follows:

   *  Activities related to implementation of policies already in force
      shall continue as normal.

   *  Voting on approval of policy documents produced by the RSWG shall
      be delayed until the vacancy or vacancies have been filled, up to
      a maximum of three (3) months.  If a further vacancy arises during
      this three-month period, the delay should be extended by up to
      another three months.  After the delay period expires, the RSAB
      should continue to process documents as described below.  Note
      that this method of handling vacancies does not apply to a vacancy
      of the RSCE role; it only applies to vacancies of the stream
      representatives enumerated in Section 3.1.2.2.

3.1.2.5.  Chair

   The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using a
   method of its choosing.  If the chair position is vacated during the
   chair's term, the RSAB chooses a new chair from among its members.

3.1.2.6.  Mode of Operation

   The RSAB is expected to operate via an email discussion list, in-
   person meetings, teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling
   it deems necessary.

   The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including
   minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions.  The primary
   email discussion list used by the RSAB shall be publicly archived,
   although topics that require confidentiality (e.g., personnel
   matters) may be omitted from such archives or discussed in private.
   Similarly, meeting minutes may exclude detailed information about
   topics discussed under executive session but should note that such
   topics were discussed.

   The RSAB shall announce plans and agendas for their meetings on the
   RFC Editor website and by email to the RSWG at least a week before
   such meetings.  The meetings shall be open for public attendance, and
   the RSAB may consider allowing open participation.  If the RSAB needs
   to discuss a confidential matter in executive session, that part of
   the meeting shall be private to the RSAB, but it must be noted on the
   agenda and documented in the minutes with as much detail as
   confidentiality requirements permit.

   The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling and staff to
   support RSAB communication, decision processes, and policies.

   The IAB convened the RSAB in 2022 in order to formalize the IAB's
   transfer of authority over the RFC Editor Model.

3.2.  Process

   This section specifies the RFC Series Policy Definition Process,
   which shall be followed in producing all Editorial Stream RFCs.

3.2.1.  Intent

   The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to
   the RFC Series are defined and evolved.  The general expectation is
   that all interested parties will participate in the RSWG and that
   only under extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold
   CONCERN positions (as described in Section 3.2.2).

   Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWG
   participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work
   together in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to
   achieve rough consensus (see [RFC2418]).  In particular, RSWG members
   are encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously, and RSAB members are
   encouraged to clearly express their concerns early in the process and
   to be responsive to the community.  All parties are encouraged to
   respect the value of each stream and the long-term health and
   viability of the RFC Series.

   This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation.  RSAB
   members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,
   authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an
   ongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider the approval
   of a proposal, there should be no surprises.  Appointing bodies are
   expected to establish whatever processes they deem appropriate to
   facilitate this goal.

3.2.2.  Workflow

   The following process shall be used to formulate or modify policies
   related to the RFC Series:

   1.   An individual or set of individuals generates a proposal in the
        form of an Internet-Draft (which must be submitted in full
        conformance with the provisions of [BCP78] and [BCP79]) and asks
        the RSWG to adopt the proposal as a working group item.

   2.   The RSWG may adopt the proposal as a working group item if the
        chairs determine (by following working group procedures for
        rough consensus) that there is sufficient interest in the
        proposal; this is similar to the way a working group of the IETF
        would operate (see [RFC2418]).

   3.   The RSWG shall then further discuss and develop the proposal.
        All participants, but especially RSAB members, should pay
        special attention to any aspects of the proposal that have the
        potential to significantly modify long-standing policies or
        historical characteristics of the RFC Series as described in
        Section 7.  Members of the RSAB are expected to participate as
        individuals in all discussions relating to RSWG proposals.  This
        should help to ensure that they are fully aware of proposals
        early in the RFC Series Policy Definition Process.  It should
        also help to ensure that RSAB members will raise any issues or
        concerns during the development of the proposal and not wait
        until the RSAB review period.  The RSWG Chairs are also expected
        to participate as individuals.

   4.   At some point, if the RSWG Chairs believe there may be rough
        consensus for the proposal to advance, they will issue a Last
        Call for comments within the working group.

   5.   After a comment period of suitable length, the RSWG Chairs will
        determine whether rough consensus for the proposal exists
        (taking their own feedback as individuals into account along
        with feedback from other participants).  If comments have been
        received and substantial changes have been made, additional Last
        Calls may be necessary.  Once the chairs determine that
        consensus has been reached, they shall announce their
        determination on the RSWG email discussion list and forward the
        document to the RSAB.

   6.   Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue
        a community call for comments as further described in
        Section 3.2.3.  If substantial comments are received in response
        to the community call for comments, the RSAB may return the
        proposal to the RSWG to consider those comments and make
        revisions to address the feedback received.  In parallel with
        the community call for comments, the RSAB itself shall also
        consider the proposal.

   7.   If the scope of the revisions made in the previous step is
        substantial, an additional community call for comments should be
        issued by the RSAB, and the feedback received should be
        considered by the RSWG.

   8.   Once the RSWG Chairs confirm that concerns received during the
        community call(s) for comments have been addressed, they shall
        inform the RSAB that the document is ready for balloting by the
        RSAB.

   9.   Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will poll its
        members for their positions on the proposal.  Positions may be
        as follows:

        *  YES: the proposal should be approved

        *  CONCERN: the proposal raises substantial concerns that must
           be addressed

        *  RECUSE: the person holding the position has a conflict of
           interest

        Any RSAB member holding a CONCERN position must explain their
        concern to the community in detail.  Nevertheless, the RSWG
        might not be able to come to consensus on modifications that
        will address the RSAB member's concern.

        There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a position
        of CONCERN:

        *  The RSAB member believes that the proposal represents a
           serious problem for one or more of the individual streams.

        *  The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause
           serious harm to the overall RFC Series, including harm to the
           long-term health and viability of the Series.

        *  The RSAB member believes, based on the results of the
           community call(s) for comments (Section 3.2.3), that rough
           consensus to advance the proposal is lacking.

        Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the
        discussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues
        during those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come
        as a surprise to the RSWG.  Notwithstanding, late CONCERN
        positions are always possible if issues are identified during
        RSAB review or the community call(s) for comments.

   10.  If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
        Again, all RSAB members are expected to participate.  If
        substantial changes are made in order to address CONCERN
        positions, an additional community call for comments might be
        needed.

   11.  A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.

   12.  If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions
        remain, a vote of the RSAB is taken.  If at least three voting
        members vote YES, the proposal is approved.

   13.  If the proposal is not approved, it is returned to the RSWG.
        The RSWG can then consider making further changes.

   14.  If the proposal is approved, a notification is sent to the
        community, and the document enters the queue for publication as
        an RFC within the Editorial Stream.

   15.  Policies may take effect immediately upon approval by the RSAB
        and before publication of the relevant RFC, unless they are
        delayed while the IETF LLC resolves pending resource or contract
        issues.

3.2.3.  Community Calls for Comment

   The RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community calls
   for comments on proposals that have gained consensus within the RSWG.
   The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input.  The RSAB seeks
   such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the rfc-
   interest@rfc-editor.org (mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org) email
   discussion list or to its successor or future equivalent.  RSAB
   members should also send a notice to the communities they directly
   represent (e.g., the IETF and IRTF).  Notices are also to be made
   available and archived on the RFC Editor website.  In addition, other
   communication channels can be established for notices (e.g., via an
   RSS feed or by posting to social media venues).

   In cases where a proposal has the potential to significantly modify
   long-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFC
   Series as described in Section 7, the RSAB should take extra care to
   reach out to a very wide range of communities that make use of RFCs
   (as described in Section 3.1.1.2) since such communities might not be
   actively engaged in the RSWG directly.  The RSAB should work with the
   stream approving bodies and the IETF LLC to identify and establish
   contacts in such communities, assisted by the RSCE in particular.

   The RSAB should maintain a public list of communities that are
   contacted during calls for comments.

   A notice of a community call for comments contains the following:

   *  A subject line beginning with 'Call for Comments:'

   *  A clear, concise summary of the proposal

   *  A URL pointing to the Internet-Draft that defines the proposal

   *  Any explanations or questions for the community that the RSAB
      deems necessary (using their usual decision-making procedures)

   *  Clear instructions on how to provide public comments

   *  A deadline for comments

   A comment period will last not less than two weeks and should be
   longer if wide outreach is required.  Comments will be publicly
   archived on the RFC Editor website.

   The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during a
   community call for comments.  If RSAB members conclude that such
   comments raise important issues that need to be addressed, they
   should do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if the
   issues meet the criteria specified in Step 9 of Section 3.2.2)
   lodging a position of CONCERN during RSAB balloting.

3.2.4.  Appeals

   Appeals of RSWG Chair decisions shall be made to the RSAB.  Decisions
   of the RSWG Chairs can be appealed only on grounds of failure to
   follow the correct process.  Appeals should be made within thirty
   (30) days of any action or, in the case of failure to act, of notice
   having been given to the RSWG Chairs.  The RSAB will then decide if
   the process was followed and will direct the RSWG Chairs as to what
   procedural actions are required.

   Decisions of the RSAB can be appealed on grounds of failure to follow
   the correct process.  In addition, if the RSAB makes a decision in
   order to resolve a disagreement between authors and the RPC (as
   described in Section 4.4), appeals can be filed on the basis that the
   RSAB misinterpreted an approved policy.  Aside from these two cases,
   disagreements about the conduct of the RSAB are not subject to
   appeal.  Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB and
   should be made within thirty (30) days of public notice of the
   relevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are posted).  The IAB
   shall decide whether a process failure occurred and what (if any)
   corrective action should take place.

3.2.5.  Anti-Harassment Policy

   The IETF anti-harassment policy
   (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-harassment-
   policy/) also applies to the RSWG and RSAB, which strive to create
   and maintain an environment in which people of many different
   backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect.
   Participants are expected to behave according to professional
   standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior.  For
   further information about these policies, see [RFC7154], [RFC7776],
   and [RFC8716].

3.2.6.  RFC Boilerplates

   RFC boilerplates (see [RFC7841]) are part of the RFC Style Guide, as
   defined in Section 4.2.  New or modified boilerplates considered
   under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model must be approved by the
   following parties, each of which has a separate area of
   responsibility with respect to boilerplates:

   *  The applicable stream, which approves that the boilerplate meets
      its needs

   *  The RSAB, which approves that the boilerplate is not in conflict
      with the boilerplate used in the other streams

   *  The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate is
      consistent with the RFC Style Guide

   *  The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly
      states the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership

3.3.  RFC Consumers

   (The text in this section is added by Section 1.2.3.)

   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 introduces the term "consumers of RFCs", referring to
   them as "constituent stakeholders" who should be considered by the
   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 to consumers of RFCs is as follows:

   *  Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as separate constituent
      stakeholders 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 unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an
      RFC.

4.  Policy Implementation

4.1.  Roles and Processes

   Publication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC).

   A few general considerations apply:

   *  The general roles and responsibilities of the RPC are defined by
      RFCs published in the Editorial Stream (i.e., not directly by the
      RSWG, RSAB, or RSCE), by existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and
      have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and by the
      requisite contracts.

   *  The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and it has a duty to
      consult with them under specific circumstances, such as those
      relating to disagreements between authors and the RPC as described
      in Section 4.4.

   *  The RPC is overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that it performs in
      accordance with contracts in place.

   All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance
   targets are between the RPC and IETF LLC.

   The RPC shall regularly provide reports to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG,
   and broader community regarding its activities and any key risks or
   issues affecting it.

   In the event that the RPC is required to make a decision without
   consultation that would normally deserve consultation, or makes a
   decision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify the
   RSAB.

   This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
   IETF LLC and the RPC; for example, the work of the RPC could be
   performed by a separate corporate entity under contract to the IETF
   LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or the IETF
   LLC could engage with independent contractors for some or all aspects
   of such work.  The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC to
   determine.

   The IETF LLC is responsible for the method and management of the
   engagement of the RPC.  Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority over
   negotiating performance targets for the RPC and also has
   responsibility for ensuring that those targets are met.  Such
   performance targets are set based on the RPC's publication load and
   additional efforts required to implement policies specified in
   Editorial Stream RFCs, in existing RFCs that apply to the RPC and
   have not yet been superseded by Editorial Stream RFCs, and in the
   requisite contracts.  The IETF LLC may consult with the community
   regarding these targets.  The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a
   manager or to convene a committee to complete these activities.

   If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the
   performance of the RPC, they can request that the matter be
   investigated by the IETF LLC Board, the IETF Executive Director, or a
   point of contact designated by the IETF LLC Board.  Even if the IETF
   LLC opts to delegate this activity, concerns should be raised with
   the IETF LLC.  The IETF LLC is ultimately answerable to the community
   via the mechanisms outlined in [RFC8711].

4.2.  Working Practices

   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 working practices regarding the
   editorial preparation, final publication, and dissemination of RFCs.
   Examples include:

   *  Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards for
      RFCs; specifically, the RFC Style Guide consists of [RFC7322] and
      the other documents and resources listed at [STYLEGUIDE].

   *  Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as input
      to the editing and publication process.

   *  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.

4.3.  RPC Responsibilities

   The core responsibility of the RPC is the implementation of RFC
   Series policies through publication of RFCs (including the dimensions
   of document quality, timeliness of publication, and accessibility of
   results), while taking into account issues raised by the community
   through the RSWG and by the stream approving bodies.  More
   specifically, the RPC's responsibilities at the time of writing
   include the following:

   1.   Editing documents originating from all RFC streams to ensure
        that they are consistent with the editorial standards specified
        in the RFC Style Guide.

   2.   Creating and preserving records of edits performed on documents.

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

   4.   Establishing the publication readiness of each document through
        communication with the authors, IANA, or stream-specific
        contacts, supplemented if needed by the RSAB and RSCE.

   5.   Creating and preserving records of dialogue with document
        authors.

   6.   Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed.

   7.   Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed.

   8.   Participating within the RSWG in the creation of new Editorial
        Stream RFCs that impact the RPC, specifically with respect to
        any challenges the RPC might foresee with regard to
        implementation of proposed policies.

   9.   Identifying topics and issues while processing documents or
        carrying out other responsibilities on this list for which they
        lack sufficient expertise, and identifying and conferring with
        relevant experts as needed.

   10.  Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans.

   11.  Consulting with the community on its plans.

   12.  Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC.

   13.  Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC
        performance by the IETF LLC.

   14.  Coordinating with IANA to ensure that RFCs accurately document
        registration processes and assigned values for IANA registries.

   15.  Assigning RFC numbers.

   16.  Liaising with stream approving bodies and other representatives
        of the streams as needed.

   17.  Publishing RFCs, which includes:

        *  posting copies to the RFC Editor site both individually and
           in collections

        *  depositing copies with external archives

        *  creating catalogs and catalog entries

        *  announcing the publication to interested parties

   18.  Providing online access to RFCs.

   19.  Providing an online system to facilitate the submission,
        management, and display of errata to RFCs.

   20.  Maintaining the RFC Editor website.

   21.  Providing for the backup of RFCs.

   22.  Ensuring the storage and preservation of records.

   23.  Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.

   (The text in the next two paragraphs is added by Section 1.2.1.)

   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 is responsible for detailed
   technical specifications, for example, specific details of text or
   graphical formats or XML grammar.  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 the RSAB for guidance in
   interpreting that policy per the process described in Section 4.4.

4.4.  Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC

   During the process of editorial preparation and publication,
   disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the
   RPC.  Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such
   disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct
   consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in
   collaboration with stream-specific contacts.

   However, if it is unclear whether an existing policy applies or if it
   is unclear how to interpret an existing policy, the parties may need
   to consult with additional individuals or bodies (e.g., RSAB, IESG,
   IRSG, or stream approving bodies) to help achieve a resolution.  The
   following points are intended to provide more specific guidance.

   *  If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, to
      help achieve a resolution, the RPC should consult with the
      relevant stream approving body (such as the IESG or IRSG) and
      other representatives of the relevant stream as appropriate.

   *  If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should
      consult with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.

   *  The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by an
      existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation
      between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies, as
      described above.  In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a)
      resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary so that
      the relevant stream document(s) can be published before a new
      policy is defined and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so that a
      new policy can be defined.

   (The text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.2.2.)

   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
   acknowledgment 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.

4.5.  Point of Contact

   From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF
   and the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC
   Series.  Such inquiries should be directed to the rfc-editor@rfc-
   editor.org (mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org) email alias or to its
   successor or future equivalent and then handled by the appropriate
   bodies (e.g., RSAB and RPC) or individuals (e.g., RSWG Chairs and
   RSCE).

4.6.  Administrative Implementation

   The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
   activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC.  This
   section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such
   activities.

4.6.1.  Vendor Selection for the RPC

   Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under
   the final authority of the IETF LLC.

   The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) for
   the RPC and manages the vendor-selection process.  The work
   definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into
   account the RPC responsibilities (as described in Section 4.3), the
   needs of the streams, and community input.

   The process to select and contract for the RPC and other RFC-related
   services is as follows:

   *  The IETF LLC establishes the contract process, including the steps
      necessary to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) when necessary,
      the timing, and the contracting procedures.

   *  The IETF LLC establishes a selection committee, which will consist
      of the IETF Executive Director and other members selected by the
      IETF LLC in consultation with the stream approving bodies.  The
      committee shall select a chair from among its members.

   *  The selection committee selects the vendor, subject to the
      successful negotiation of a contract approved by the IETF LLC.  In
      the event that a contract cannot be signed, the matter shall be
      referred to the selection committee for further action.

4.6.2.  Budget

   Most expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses.  They
   have been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.

   The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding
   to support the RSCE, the RFC Production Center, and the Independent
   Stream.

   The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor
   budget (and the authority to deny it).  All relevant parties must
   work within the IETF LLC budgetary process.

5.  RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)

   The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a senior technical
   publishing professional who will apply their deep knowledge of
   technical publishing processes to the RFC Series.

   The primary responsibilities of the RSCE are as follows:

   *  Serve as a voting member on the RSAB

   *  Identify problems with the RFC publication process and
      opportunities for improvement

   *  Provide expert advice within the RSWG regarding policy proposals

   *  Provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC

   Matters on which the RSCE might provide guidance could include the
   following (see also Section 4 of [RFC8729]):

   *  Editing, processing, and publication of RFCs

   *  Publication formats for the RFC Series

   *  Changes to the RFC Style Guide

   *  Series-wide guidelines regarding document content and quality

   *  Web presence for the RFC Series

   *  Copyright matters related to the RFC Series

   *  Archiving, indexing, and accessibility of RFCs

   The IETF LLC is responsible for the method and management of the
   engagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and the
   timely filling of any vacancy.  Therefore, whether the RSCE role is
   structured as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for
   the IETF LLC to determine.

5.1.  RSCE Selection

   Responsibility for making a recommendation to the IETF LLC regarding
   the RSCE role will lie with a selection committee.  The IETF LLC
   should propose an initial slate of members for this committee, making
   sure to include community members with diverse perspectives, and
   consult with the stream representatives regarding the final
   membership of the committee.  In making its recommendation for the
   role of RSCE, the selection committee will take into account the
   definition of the role as well as any other information that the
   committee deems necessary or helpful in making its decision.  The
   IETF LLC is responsible for contracting or employment of the RSCE.

5.2.  RSCE Performance Evaluation

   Periodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the RSCE,
   including a call for confidential input from the community.  The IETF
   LLC will produce a draft evaluation of the RSCE's performance for
   review by RSAB members (other than the RSCE), who will provide
   feedback to the IETF LLC.

5.3.  Temporary RSCE Appointment

   In the case that the currently appointed RSCE is expected to be
   unavailable for an extended period, the IETF LLC may appoint a
   Temporary RSCE through whatever recruitment process it considers
   appropriate.  A Temporary RSCE acts as the RSCE in all aspects during
   their term of appointment.

5.4.  Conflict of Interest

   The RSCE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of
   interest or judgment in performing their role.  To ensure this, the
   RSCE will be subject to a conflict-of-interest policy established by
   the IETF LLC.

   The RPC service provider may contract services from the RSCE service
   provider, and vice versa, including services provided to the IETF
   LLC.  All contracts between the two must be disclosed to the IETF
   LLC.  Where those services are related to services provided to the
   IETF LLC, IETF LLC policies shall apply, including publication of
   relevant parts of the contract.

6.  Editorial Stream

   This document creates the Editorial Stream as a separate space for
   publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related
   information regarding the RFC Series as a whole.

   The Editorial Stream shall be used only to specify and update
   policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related information
   regarding the RFC Series as a whole; no other use of the Editorial
   Stream is authorized by this memo, and no other streams are so
   authorized.  This policy may be changed only by agreement of the IAB,
   IESG, and IETF LLC.

   All documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB shall be
   published as RFCs in the Editorial Stream with a status of
   Informational.  (Note that the Editorial Stream is not authorized to
   publish RFCs that are Standards Track or Best Current Practice, since
   such RFCs are reserved for the IETF Stream [RFC8729].)
   Notwithstanding the status of Informational, it should be understood
   that documents published in the Editorial Stream define policies for
   the RFC Series as a whole.

   The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams
   are outside the scope of this document.

6.1.  Procedures Request of the IETF Trust

   In [RFC9280], the IAB requested that the IETF Trust and its Trustees
   assist in meeting the goals and procedures set forth in this
   document.

   The Trustees were requested to publicly confirm their willingness and
   ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights
   (IPR) for the Editorial Stream.

   Specifically, the Trustees were asked to develop the necessary
   boilerplate to enable the suitable marking of documents so that the
   IETF Trust receives the rights as specified in [BCP78].  These
   procedures needed to also allow authors to indicate either no rights
   to make derivative works or, preferentially, the right to make
   unlimited derivative works from the documents.  It is left to the
   Trust to specify exactly how this shall be clearly indicated in each
   document.

6.2.  Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream

   As specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial
   Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying
   therein with the rules specified in [BCP9].  This includes the
   disclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can be
   reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor.

   Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as
   specified in [BCP79].  The Editorial Stream has chosen to use the
   IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/
   about/) for this purpose.  It is preferred that the most liberal
   terms possible be made available for Editorial Stream documents.
   Terms that do not require fees or licensing are preferable.  Non-
   discriminatory terms are strongly preferred over those that
   discriminate among users.  However, although disclosure is required
   and the RSWG and the RSAB may consider disclosures and terms in
   making a decision as to whether to submit a document for publication,
   there are no specific requirements on the licensing terms for
   intellectual property related to Editorial Stream publication.

6.3.  Editorial Stream Boilerplate

   This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This
   Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream.  Any changes
   to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy
   Definition Process specified in Section 3 of this document.

   Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the
   first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
   specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].

   The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
   follows:

   |  This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
   |  Process.  It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working
   |  Group approved by the RFC Series Approval Board.  Such documents
   |  are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see
   |  Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
   specified in Section 3.5 of [RFC7841].

7.  Historical Properties of the RFC Series

   This section lists some of the properties that have been historically
   regarded as important to the RFC Series.  Proposals that affect these
   properties are possible within the processes defined in this
   document.  As described in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, proposals that
   might have a detrimental effect on these properties should receive
   heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB review.  The
   purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes are deliberate
   and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as they can be
   identified, have been carefully considered.

7.1.  Availability

   Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades,
   with no restrictions on access or distribution.

7.2.  Accessibility

   RFC Series documents have been published in a format that was
   intended to be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities,
   e.g., people with impaired sight.

7.3.  Language

   All existing RFC Series documents have been published in English.
   However, since the beginning of the RFC Series, documents have been
   published under terms that explicitly allow translation into
   languages other than English without asking for permission.

7.4.  Diversity

   The RFC Series has included many types of documents including
   standards for the Internet, procedural and informational documents,
   thought experiments, speculative ideas, research papers, histories,
   humor, and even eulogies.

7.5.  Quality

   RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality
   and edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documents
   are clear, consistent, and readable [RFC7322].

7.6.  Stability

   (The text in this section is updated by Section 1.3.1.)

   Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of
   publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent
   possible, as described in Section 2.2 of [RFC9720].

7.7.  Longevity

   RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be
   comprehensible to humans for decades or longer.

7.8.  Consistency

   (The text in this section is added by Section 1.3.2.)

   RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published.  They may be
   reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.

8.  Updates to This Document

   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.

9.  Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model

   The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs have
   changed significantly over the years.  Most recently, in 2009,
   [RFC5620] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1), and in 2012,
   [RFC6635] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), which was then
   modified slightly in 2020 by [RFC8728].

   However, the community experienced several problems with versions 1
   and 2, including a lack of transparency, a lack of avenues for
   community input into policy definition, and unclear lines of
   authority and responsibility.

   To address these problems, in 2020, the IAB formed the RFC Editor
   Future Development Program to conduct a community discussion and
   consensus process for the further evolution of the RFC Editor Model.
   Under the auspices of this Program, the community considered changes
   that would increase transparency and community input regarding the
   definition of policies for the RFC Series as a whole, while at the
   same time ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, maintaining the
   quality and timely publication of RFCs, ensuring document
   accessibility, and clarifying lines of authority and responsibility.

   [RFC9280] was the result of discussion within the original Program
   and described version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining
   consistent with [RFC8729].  As stated earlier, this document
   obsoletes [RFC9280].

   The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in more
   detail.

9.1.  RFC Editor Function

   Several responsibilities previously assigned to the RFC Editor (or
   more precisely, the RFC Editor function) are now performed by the
   RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination).  These
   include various aspects of strategic leadership (Section 2.1.1 of
   [RFC8728]), representation of the RFC Series (Section 2.1.2 of
   [RFC8728]), development of RFC production and publication
   (Section 2.1.3 of [RFC8728]), development of the RFC Series
   (Section 2.1.4 of [RFC8728]), operational oversight (Section 3.3 of
   [RFC8729]), policy oversight (Section 3.4 of [RFC8729]), the editing,
   processing, and publication of documents (Section 4.2 of [RFC8729]),
   and development and maintenance of guidelines and rules that apply to
   the RFC Series (Section 4.4 of [RFC8729]).  Among other things, this
   changes the dependency on the RFC Series Editor (RSE) included in
   Section 2.2 of [RFC8730] with regard to "coordinating work and
   conforming to general RFC Series policies as specified by the IAB and
   RSE."  In addition, various details regarding these responsibilities
   have been modified to accord with the framework defined in this
   document.

9.2.  RFC Series Editor

   Implied by the changes outlined in the previous section, the
   responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or role
   (contrasted with the overall RFC Editor function) are now split or
   shared among the RSWG, RSAB, RSCE, RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or in
   combination).  More specifically, the responsibilities of the RFC
   Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) under version 3 of the RFC Editor
   Model differ in many ways from the responsibilities of the RFC Series
   Editor under version 2 of the RFC Editor Model.  In general,
   references in existing documents to the RSE can be taken as referring
   to the RFC Editor function as described herein but should not be
   taken as referring to the RSCE.

9.3.  RFC Publisher

   In practice, the RFC Production Center (RPC) and RFC Publisher roles
   have been performed by the same entity, and this practice is expected
   to continue; therefore, this document dispenses with the distinction
   between these roles and refers only to the RPC.

9.4.  IAB

   Under earlier versions of the RFC Editor Model, the IAB was
   responsible for oversight of the RFC Series and acted as a body for
   final conflict resolution regarding the RFC Series.  The IAB's
   authority in these matters is described in the IAB Charter
   ([RFC2850], as updated by [RFC9283]).  Under version 2 of the RFC
   Editor Model, the IAB delegated some of its authority to the RFC
   Series Oversight Committee (see Section 9.5).  Under version 3 of the
   RFC Editor Model, authority for policy definition resides with the
   RSWG as an independent venue for work by members of the community
   (with approval of policy proposals being the responsibility of the
   RSAB, which represents the streams and includes the RSCE), whereas
   authority for policy implementation resides with the IETF LLC.

9.5.  RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)

   In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and
   responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE proved unwieldy and
   somewhat opaque.  To overcome some of these issues, [RFC9280]
   dispensed with the RSOC.  References to the RSOC in documents such as
   [RFC8730] are obsolete.

9.6.  RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)

   Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC5620] specified the existence
   of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer
   specified in version 2 of the RFC Editor Model.  For the avoidance of
   doubt, [RFC9280] affirmed that the RSAG was disbanded.  (The RSAG is
   not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which
   this document specifies.)

9.7.  Editorial Stream

   This document specifies the Editorial Stream in addition to the
   streams already described in [RFC8729].

10.  Security Considerations

   The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply.  The
   processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
   introduction of unapproved changes.  Because multiple entities
   described in this document (most especially the RPC) participate in
   maintenance of the index of publications, sufficient security must be
   in place to prevent these published documents from being changed by
   external parties.  The archive of RFC documents, any source documents
   needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original
   documents (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items,
   originals that are not machine-readable) need to be secured against
   data storage failure.

   The IETF LLC (along with any other contracting or contracted
   entities) should take these security considerations into account
   during the implementation and enforcement of any relevant contracts.

11.  IANA Considerations

   The RPC is responsible for coordinating with the IANA to ensure that
   RFCs accurately document registration processes and assigned values
   for IANA registries.

   The IETF LLC facilitates management of the relationship between the
   RPC and IANA.

   This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any
   values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [BCP78]    Best Current Practice 78,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>.
              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

              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>.

   [BCP79]    Best Current Practice 79,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>.
              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

              Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
              Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.

   [BCP9]     Best Current Practice 9,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>.
              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

              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>.

              Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
              and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
              Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, DOI 10.17487/RFC5657,
              September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5657>.

              Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
              Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410>.

              Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official
              Protocol Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7100, December 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7100>.

              Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
              of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7127, January 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7127>.

              Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in
              an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, DOI 10.17487/RFC7475,
              March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7475>.

              Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream
              Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8789, June 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8789>.

              Rosen, B., "Responsibility Change for the RFC Series",
              BCP 9, RFC 9282, DOI 10.17487/RFC9282, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9282>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
              September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.

   [RFC7154]  Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
              RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>.

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

   [RFC7776]  Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.

   [RFC7841]  Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed.,
              "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7841>.

   [RFC7991]  Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
              RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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/info/rfc7992>.

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

   [RFC7994]  Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs",
              RFC 7994, DOI 10.17487/RFC7994, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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/info/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/info/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/info/rfc7997>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8716]  Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IETF Anti-
              Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF
              Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF
              Administration LLC", BCP 25, RFC 8716,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8716, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716>.

   [RFC8729]  Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
              RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.

   [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>.

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

   [RFC9720]  Hoffman, P. and H. Flanagan, "RFC Formats and Versions",
              RFC 9720, DOI 10.17487/RFC9720, January 2025,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9720>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2850]  IAB 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>.

   [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
              BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.

   [RFC5620]  Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
              RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620>.

   [RFC6635]  Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
              Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.

   [RFC8700]  Flanagan, H., Ed., "Fifty Years of RFCs", RFC 8700,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8700, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8700>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8874]  Thomson, M. and B. Stark, "Working Group GitHub Usage
              Guidance", RFC 8874, DOI 10.17487/RFC8874, August 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8874>.

   [RFC9283]  Carpenter, B., Ed., "IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor
              Model", BCP 39, RFC 9283, DOI 10.17487/RFC9283, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9283>.

   [RFC9896]  Rossi, A., Brownlee, N., Mahoney, J., and M. Thomson, "SVG
              in RFCs", RFC 9896, DOI 10.17487/RFC9896, January 2026,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9896>.

   [STYLEGUIDE]
              RFC Editor, "Style Guide",
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>.

Acknowledgments

   This document is the product of the RFC Series Working Group.  Many
   people in the RSWG participated in the active discussions that led to
   the changes listed in Section 1.1.  The authors are indebted to them
   for their contributions.

   [RFC9280] was authored by Peter Saint-Andre.  It had additional,
   extensive acknowledgments.

Authors' Addresses

   Paul Hoffman
   ICANN
   Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org


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