rfc9920.original   rfc9920.txt 
Network Working Group P. Hoffman Editorial Stream P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft ICANN Request for Comments: 9920 ICANN
Obsoletes: 9280 (if approved) A. Rossi Obsoletes: 9280 A. Rossi
Updates: 7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, RFC Series Consulting Editor Updates: 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, RFC Series Consulting Editor
7995, 7996, 7997, 8729 (if 31 July 2025 7996, 7997, 8729, 9720 December 2025
approved) Category: Informational
Intended status: Informational ISSN: 2070-1721
Expires: 1 February 2026
RFC Editor Model (Version 3) RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates-04
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. The model This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. The model
defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. First, defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. First,
policy definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series policy definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series
Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC
Series Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second, Series Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second,
policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC
Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at line 33
alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting
Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document establishes the Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document establishes the
Editorial Stream for publication of future policy definition Editorial Stream for publication of future policy definition
documents produced through the processes defined herein. documents produced through the processes defined herein.
Since the publication of RFC 9280, lessons have been learned about Since the publication of RFC 9280, lessons have been learned about
implementing this model. This document lists some of those lessons implementing this model. This document lists some of those lessons
learned and updates RFC 9280 based on that experience. This document learned and updates RFC 9280 based on that experience. This document
obsoletes RFC 9280. obsoletes RFC 9280.
This document updates RFCs 7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, This document updates RFCs 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997,
7997, and 8729. 8729, and 9720.
This draft is part of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG); see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/edwg/rswg/documents/
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/edwg/rswg/documents/). There is a
repository for this draft at https://github.com/
paulehoffman/9280-updates (https://github.com/
paulehoffman/9280-updates).
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for informational purposes.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any Process. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working Group
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents are not
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 February 2026. 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 Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction
1.1. Changes to RFC 9280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Changes to RFC 9280
1.2. RPC Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. RPC Roles and Responsibilities
1.2.1. Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs . . . . 5 1.2.1. Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs
1.2.2. Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions . . 7 1.2.2. Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions
1.2.3. RFC Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.2.3. RFC Consumers
1.3. Updates from "RFC Formats and Versions" . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3. Updates to RFC 9720
1.3.1. RFCs May Be Reissued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3.1. RFCs May Be Reissued
1.3.2. Consistency Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3.2. Consistency Policy
1.4. Purview of the RSWG and RSAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.4. Purview of the RSWG and RSAB
1.5. Updates to RFCs 7990 through 7997 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.5. Updates to RFCs 7991 through 7997
1.6. Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.6. Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280
2. Overview of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. Overview of the Model
3. Policy Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. Policy Definition
3.1. Structure and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1. Structure and Roles
3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.2. RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)
3.2. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2. Process
3.2.1. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.1. Intent
3.2.2. Workflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2.2. Workflow
3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2.3. Community Calls for Comment
3.2.4. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2.4. Appeals
3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2.5. Anti-Harassment Policy
3.2.6. RFC Boilerplates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2.6. RFC Boilerplates
3.3. RFC Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.3. RFC Consumers
4. Policy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4. Policy Implementation
4.1. Roles and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.1. Roles and Processes
4.2. Working Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.2. Working Practices
4.3. RPC Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.3. RPC Responsibilities
4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the 4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC
RPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.5. Point of Contact
4.5. Point of Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.6. Administrative Implementation
4.6. Administrative Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.6.1. Vendor Selection for the RPC
4.6.1. Vendor Selection for the RPC . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.6.2. Budget
4.6.2. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5. RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)
5. RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.1. RSCE Selection
5.1. RSCE Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.2. RSCE Performance Evaluation
5.2. RSCE Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.3. Temporary RSCE Appointment
5.3. Temporary RSCE Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.4. Conflict of Interest
5.4. Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Editorial Stream
6. Editorial Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.1. Procedures Request of the IETF Trust
6.1. Procedures Request of the IETF Trust . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.2. Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream
6.2. Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream . . . 31 6.3. Editorial Stream Boilerplate
6.3. Editorial Stream Boilerplate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7. Historical Properties of the RFC Series
7. Historical Properties of the RFC Series . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.1. Availability
7.1. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.2. Accessibility
7.2. Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.3. Language
7.3. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.4. Diversity
7.4. Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.5. Quality
7.5. Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.6. Stability
7.6. Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.7. Longevity
7.7. Longevity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.8. Consistency
7.8. Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 8. Updates to This Document
8. Updates to This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 9. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model
9. Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model . . . . . . . 33 9.1. RFC Editor Function
9.1. RFC Editor Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9.2. RFC Series Editor
9.2. RFC Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9.3. RFC Publisher
9.3. RFC Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9.4. IAB
9.4. IAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9.5. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
9.5. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . 35 9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9.7. Editorial Stream
9.7. Editorial Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 10. Security Considerations
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 11. IANA Considerations
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 12. References
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 12.1. Normative References
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 12.2. Informative References
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Acknowledgments
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Authors' Addresses
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series
dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, including dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, including
general contributions from the Internet research and engineering general contributions from the Internet research and engineering
community as well as standards documents. RFCs are available free of community as well as standards documents. RFCs are available free of
charge to anyone via the Internet. As described in [RFC8700], RFCs charge to anyone via the Internet. As described in [RFC8700], RFCs
have been published continually since 1969. have been published continually since 1969.
skipping to change at page 4, line 44 skipping to change at line 173
This document defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. This This document defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. This
document updates [RFC7841] by defining boilerplate text for the document updates [RFC7841] by defining boilerplate text for the
Editorial Stream. This document updates [RFC8729] by replacing the Editorial Stream. This document updates [RFC8729] by replacing the
RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and RSCE. This document updates RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and RSCE. This document updates
[RFC8730] by removing the dependency on certain policies specified by [RFC8730] by removing the dependency on certain policies specified by
the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE). More detailed information about the IAB and RFC Series Editor (RSE). More detailed information about
changes from version 2 of the RFC Editor Model can be found in changes from version 2 of the RFC Editor Model can be found in
Section 9. Section 9.
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.
1.1. Changes to RFC 9280 1.1. Changes to RFC 9280
This section details the changes made to RFC 9280 by the RSWG This section details the changes made to [RFC9280] by the RSWG
starting in 2022. If you are reading this document and do not care starting in 2022. If you are not interested in how this document was
about how it was changed, you can skip directly to Section 2. changed, skip directly to Section 2.
[RFC9280] contained significant changes to the publication model for [RFC9280] contained significant changes to the publication model for
RFCs. Those changes created new structures and new processes for the RFCs. Those changes created new structures and new processes for the
publication of RFCs. As these structures and processes have been publication of RFCs. As these structures and processes have been
exercised, the community has found places where they might be exercised, the community has found places where they might be
improved. In addition, gaps in some of the processes have been improved. In addition, gaps in some of the processes have been
found. This document updates RFC 9280 based on these findings. found. This document updates [RFC9280] based on these findings.
The organization for this RFC is different from typical RFCs in order The organization of this RFC is different from typical RFCs in order
to keep the section numbering the same as RFC 9280. To keep the to keep the section numbering the same as [RFC9280]. To keep the
section numbering the same, the introduction section is much longer, section numbering the same, the Introduction section is much longer,
with lots of sub-sections that refer to the main body. with several subsections that refer to the main body.
The rest of this introduction is a list of changes to RFC 9280. The remainder of this introduction is a list of changes to [RFC9280].
Those changes are instantiated in the rest of the document, with Those changes are instantiated in the rest of the document, with
cross-references between the list of changes and the main body. cross-references between the list of changes and the main body.
1.2. RPC Roles and Responsibilities 1.2. RPC Roles and Responsibilities
RFC 9280 created a new structure for the RFC Editor function. It [RFC9280] created a new structure for the RFC Editor function. It
established the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) and the RFC Series established the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) and the RFC Series
Approval Board (RSAB), and gave new responsibilities to the RFC Approval Board (RSAB) and gave new responsibilities to the RFC
Production Center (RPC). Broadly speaking, it says that RSWG writes Production Center (RPC). Broadly speaking, it says that the RSWG
policies for the editorial stream, RSAB approves those policies, and writes policies for the Editorial Stream, the RSAB approves those
the RPC implements those policies. However RFC 9280 does not specify policies, and the RPC implements those policies. However, [RFC9280]
which group is responsible for defining or building the specific code does not specify which group is responsible for defining or building
and tools that implement the policies agreed upon in this process. the specific code and tools that implement the policies agreed upon
The rest of this section updates RFC 9280 to deal with this and other in this process. The rest of this section updates [RFC9280] to deal
related matters. with this and other related matters.
1.2.1. Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs 1.2.1. Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs
Section 2 says: Section 2 states:
Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the | Policy implementation through publication of RFCs in all of the
streams that form the RFC Series. This is primarily the | streams that form the RFC Series. This is primarily the
responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as contractually | responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as contractually
overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company | overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company
(IETF LLC). | (IETF LLC) [RFC8711].
The same section also states The same section also states:
The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in | The RPC implements the policies defined by the Editorial Stream in
its day-to-day editing and publication of RFCs from all of the | its day-to-day editing and publication of RFCs from all of the
streams. | streams.
RFC 9280 does not define any other group that is responsible for [RFC9280] does not define any other group that is responsible for
implementing policies. implementing policies.
Throughout RFC 9280, the RSWG is consistently assigned responsibility Throughout [RFC9280], the RSWG is consistently assigned
for writing policies (not deciding on implementations). The RPC is responsibility for writing policies (not deciding on
consistently assigned responsibility for implementing policy implementations). The RPC is consistently assigned responsibility
decisions, but examples given generally describe decisions made at for implementing policy decisions, but examples given generally
the single document level. RFC 9280 does not cover any specific describe decisions made at the single document level. [RFC9280] does
responsibilities for designing and building the tools and code used not cover any specific responsibilities for designing and building
to publish documents. the tools and code used to publish documents.
RFC 9280 mentions tool developers twice. In Section 3.1.1.2, it [RFC9280] mentions tool developers twice. Section 3.1.1.2 of
encourages "developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and [RFC9280] encourages "developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs
Internet-Drafts" to participate in the RSWG. Section 3.2.1 says that and Internet-Drafts" to participate in the RSWG. Section 3.2.1 of
"RSAB members should consult with their constituent stakeholders [RFC9280] says that "RSAB members should consult with their
(e.g., authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on constituent stakeholders (e.g., authors, editors, tool developers,
an ongoing basis". and consumers of RFCs) on an ongoing basis".
Section 4.2 in RFC 9280 mentions a specific implementation when Section 4.2 of [RFC9280] mentions a specific implementation when
discussing the working practices of the RPC. discussing the working practices of the RPC:
In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in | In the absence of a high-level policy documented in an RFC or in
the interest of specifying the detail of its implementation of | the interest of specifying the detail of its implementation of
such policies, the RPC can document ... Guidelines regarding the | such policies, the RPC can document ... Guidelines regarding the
final structure and layout of published documents. In the context | final structure and layout of published documents. In the context
of the XML vocabulary [RFC7991], such guidelines could include | of the XML vocabulary [RFC7991], such guidelines could include
clarifications regarding the preferred XML elements and attributes | clarifications regarding the preferred XML elements and attributes
used to capture the semantic content of RFCs. | used to capture the semantic content of RFCs.
[RFC7991] is the only editorial implementation-related RFC mentioned [RFC7991] is the only editorial implementation-related RFC mentioned
in 9280. in [RFC9280].
The following is added to Section 4.3 in this document.
The RPC is responsible for the development of tools and processes The following is added to Section 4.3 of this document:
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 | The RPC is responsible for the development of tools and processes
stream documents, they should ask RSAB for guidance in interpreting | used to implement Editorial Stream policies, in the absence of an
that policy per the process described in Section 4.4. | 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 1.2.2. Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions
Section 4.4 provides a pathway for resolution of conflicts between Section 4.4 provides a pathway for resolution of conflicts between
the RPC and the author(s) of a specific document. No appeal pathway 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 is given for resolution of issues that may occur when a conflict
arises with an implementation decision that applies to the entire arises with an implementation decision that applies to the entire
editorial process (not just one document). editorial process (not just one document).
If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both The paragraph below is reflected in Section 4.4 of this document:
the document and editorial process tooling level, conflicts on either
level will involve interpretation of written policy (or the
acknowledgement that policy does not exist to cover a given
situation). In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the
same path of appeal: to the RSAB.
The paragraph above is now reflected in Section 4.4 in 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 1.2.3. RFC Consumers
The IETF mission statement [RFC3935] is clear that the documents it This text is reflected in Section 3.3 of this document:
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 RSAB
when approving Editorial Stream policy documents.
"Consumers of RFCs" is now defined to mean those people who read RFCs
to understand, implement, critique, and research the protocols,
operational practices and other content, as found in RFCs.
The policy to be followed by the RFC publication streams and RFC
Editor in respect of consumers of RFCs is as follows:
* Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as a separate constituent
stakeholder from IETF/IRTF participants. While IETF/IRTF
participants and others involved in the development and production
of RFCs may be consumers of RFCs, the two are distinct,
overlapping sets.
* The RFC Editor website (https://www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be
primarily focused on consumers of RFCs.
* Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/
IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an
RFC.
This text is now reflected in Section 3.3. | 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.
1.3. Updates from "RFC Formats and Versions" 1.3. Updates to RFC 9720
[RFC9720], "RFC Formats and Versions", updated RFC 9280. [RFC9720], "RFC Formats and Versions", updated [RFC9280].
1.3.1. RFCs May Be Reissued 1.3.1. RFCs May Be Reissued
Section 7.6 in RFC 9280 says: Section 7.6 of [RFC9280] says:
Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed. | Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.
That sentence is replaced in this document with: That sentence is replaced in Section 7.6 of this document with:
Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of | Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of
publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent | publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent
possible. | possible, as described in Section 2.2 of [RFC9720].
1.3.2. Consistency Policy 1.3.2. Consistency Policy
A new policy in Section 7 of this document was added: A new policy is added to Section 7 of this document:
7.8. Consistency
RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. They may be | 7.8. Consistency
reissued to maintain a consistent presentation. |
| RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. They may be
| reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.
1.4. Purview of the RSWG and RSAB 1.4. Purview of the RSWG and RSAB
Section 3 says: Section 3 says:
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but | Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but
are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication | are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication
and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC | and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC
Series. | Series.
The following is added in this document immediately following that The following is added to Section 3 of this document immediately
sentence: following that sentence:
Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, | Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications,
for example specific details of text or graphical formats or XML | for example, specific details of text or graphical formats or XML
grammar. Such matters will be decided and documented by the RPC | grammar. Such matters will be decided and documented by the RPC
along with its other working practices, as discussed in | along with its other working practices, as discussed in
Section 4.2, with community consultation as for other tools and | Section 4.2, with community consultation as for other tools and
services supported by IETF LLC [RFC8711]." | services supported by the IETF LLC [RFC8711].
1.5. Updates to RFCs 7990 through 7997 1.5. Updates to RFCs 7991 through 7997
All instances of "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series Editor" in [RFC7990], All instances of "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series Editor" in [RFC7991],
[RFC7991], [RFC7992], [RFC7993], [RFC7994], [RFC7995], [RFC7996], and [RFC7992], [RFC7993], [RFC7994], [RFC7995], [RFC7996], and [RFC7997]
[RFC7997] are replaced by "RFC Production Center (RPC)". are replaced by "RFC Production Center (RPC)".
1.6. Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280 1.6. Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280
Many parts of [RFC9280] talked about changes to be made. Because Many parts of [RFC9280] talked about changes to be made. Because
this document obsoletes [RFC9280], these parts were updated to this document obsoletes [RFC9280], these parts were updated to
indicate that the changes were made. indicate that the changes were made.
2. Overview of the Model 2. Overview of the Model
This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at line 467
2. Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working group 2. Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working group
and a community call for comments (see Section 3.2.3). and a community call for comments (see Section 3.2.3).
3. Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board 3. Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board
(RSAB). (RSAB).
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but
are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication and are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication and
dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series. dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series.
(The text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.4) (The text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.4.)
Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for
example specific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. example, specific details of text or graphical formats or XML
Such matters will be decided and documented by the RPC along with its grammar. Such matters will be decided and documented by the RPC
other working practices, as discussed in Section 4.2, with community along with its other working practices, as discussed in Section 4.2,
consultation as for other tools and services supported by IETF LLC with community consultation as for other tools and services supported
[RFC8711]. by the IETF LLC [RFC8711].
3.1. Structure and Roles 3.1. Structure and Roles
3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) 3.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)
3.1.1.1. Purpose 3.1.1.1. Purpose
The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is the primary venue in which
members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that members of the community collaborate regarding the policies that
govern the RFC Series. govern the RFC Series.
skipping to change at page 11, line 44 skipping to change at line 506
organizations other than the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC Board organizations other than the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC Board
members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFC members, staff and contractors (especially representatives of the RFC
Production Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited to Production Center), and the IETF Executive Director are invited to
participate as community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted participate as community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted
by any relevant IETF LLC policies. Members of the RSAB are also by any relevant IETF LLC policies. Members of the RSAB are also
expected to participate actively. expected to participate actively.
3.1.1.3. Chairs 3.1.1.3. Chairs
The RSWG has two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the other The RSWG has two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the other
appointed by the IAB. The IESG and IAB determines their own appointed by the IAB. The IESG and IAB determine their own processes
processes for making these appointments, making sure to take account for making these appointments, making sure to take account of any
of any potential conflicts of interest. Community members who have potential conflicts of interest. Community members who have concerns
concerns about the performance of an RSWG Chair should direct their about the performance of an RSWG Chair should direct their feedback
feedback to the appropriate appointing body. The IESG and IAB may to the appropriate appointing body. The IESG and IAB may remove
remove their appointed chairs at their discretion at any time and to their appointed chairs at their discretion at any time and name a
name a replacement who shall serve the remainder of the original replacement who shall serve the remainder of the original chair's
chair's term. term.
It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus
within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision
making, for instance, regarding acceptance of new proposals and making, for instance, regarding acceptance of new proposals and
advancement of proposals to the RSAB. advancement of proposals to the RSAB.
3.1.1.4. Mode of Operation 3.1.1.4. Mode of Operation
The intent is that the RSWG shall operate in a way similar to that of 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 working groups in the IETF. Therefore, all RSWG meetings and
skipping to change at page 21, line 27 skipping to change at line 951
with the boilerplate used in the other streams with the boilerplate used in the other streams
* The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate is * The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate is
consistent with the RFC Style Guide consistent with the RFC Style Guide
* The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly * The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly
states the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership states the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership
3.3. RFC Consumers 3.3. RFC Consumers
(The text in this section is added by Section 1.2.3) (The text in this section is added by Section 1.2.3.)
The IETF mission statement [RFC3935] is clear that the documents it The IETF mission statement [RFC3935] is clear that the documents it
produces are intended to be consumed by anyone who wishes to produces are intended to be consumed by anyone who wishes to
implement an IETF protocol or operational recommendation: implement an IETF protocol or operational recommendation:
to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering | to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering
documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage | documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage
the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. | 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 Section 3.2.1 introduces the term "consumers of RFCs", referring to
them as "constituent stakeholders" who should be considered by RSAB them as "constituent stakeholders" who should be considered by the
when approving Editorial Stream policy documents. RSAB when approving Editorial Stream policy documents.
"Consumers of RFCs" is now defined to mean those people who read RFCs "Consumers of RFCs" is now defined to mean those people who read RFCs
to understand, implement, critique, and research the protocols, to understand, implement, critique, and research the protocols,
operational practices and other content, as found in RFCs. operational practices, and other content as found in RFCs.
The policy to be followed by the RFC publication streams and RFC The policy to be followed by the RFC publication streams and RFC
Editor in respect of consumers of RFCs is as follows: Editor in respect to consumers of RFCs is as follows:
* Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as a separate constituent * Consumers of RFCs MUST be considered as separate constituent
stakeholder from IETF/IRTF participants. While IETF/IRTF stakeholders from IETF/IRTF participants. While IETF/IRTF
participants and others involved in the development and production participants and others involved in the development and production
of RFCs may be consumers of RFCs, the two are distinct, of RFCs may be consumers of RFCs, the two are distinct,
overlapping sets. overlapping sets.
* The RFC Editor website (https://www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be * The RFC Editor website (https://www.rfc-editor.org) MUST be
primarily focused on consumers of RFCs. primarily focused on consumers of RFCs.
* Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/ * Consumers of RFCs MUST NOT be required or expected to become IETF/
IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an
RFC. RFC.
skipping to change at page 25, line 37 skipping to change at line 1149
management, and display of errata to RFCs. management, and display of errata to RFCs.
20. Maintaining the RFC Editor website. 20. Maintaining the RFC Editor website.
21. Providing for the backup of RFCs. 21. Providing for the backup of RFCs.
22. Ensuring the storage and preservation of records. 22. Ensuring the storage and preservation of records.
23. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings. 23. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.
(The text in the next two paragraphs is added by Section 1.2.1) (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 The RPC is responsible for the development of tools and processes
used to implement editorial stream policies, in the absence of an RFC used to implement Editorial Stream policies, in the absence of an RFC
with specific requirements. The RPC is responsible for detailed with specific requirements. The RPC is responsible for detailed
technical specifications, for example specific details of text or technical specifications, for example, specific details of text or
graphical formats or XML grammar. The RPC may designate a team of graphical formats or XML grammar. The RPC may designate a team of
volunteers and/or employees who implement these operational volunteers and/or employees who implement these operational
decisions. The RPC is expected to solicit input from experts and decisions. The RPC is expected to solicit input from experts and
community members when making implementation decisions. The RPC is community members when making implementation decisions. The RPC is
required to document implementation decisions in a publicly available required to document implementation decisions in a publicly available
place, preferably with rationale. place, preferably with rationale.
If the RPC has questions about how to interpret policy in Editorial If the RPC has questions about how to interpret policy in Editorial
stream documents, they should ask RSAB for guidance in interpreting Stream documents, they should ask the RSAB for guidance in
that policy per the process described in Section 4.4. interpreting that policy per the process described in Section 4.4.
4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC 4.4. Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC
During the process of editorial preparation and publication, During the process of editorial preparation and publication,
disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the disagreements can arise between the authors of an RFC-to-be and the
RPC. Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such RPC. Where an existing policy clearly applies, typically such
disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct disagreements are handled in a straightforward manner through direct
consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in consultation between the authors and the RPC, sometimes in
collaboration with stream-specific contacts. collaboration with stream-specific contacts.
skipping to change at page 26, line 37 skipping to change at line 1198
* The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by an * The disagreement might raise a new issue that is not covered by an
existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation existing policy or that cannot be resolved through consultation
between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies, as between the RPC and other relevant individuals and bodies, as
described above. In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a) described above. In this case, the RSAB is responsible for (a)
resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary so that resolving the disagreement in a timely manner if necessary so that
the relevant stream document(s) can be published before a new 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 policy is defined and (b) bringing the issue to the RSWG so that a
new policy can be defined. new policy can be defined.
(The text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.2.2) (The text in the next paragraph is added by Section 1.2.2.)
If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both If the RPC is responsible for interpreting policy decisions at both
the document and editorial process tooling level, conflicts on either the document and editorial process tooling level, conflicts on either
level will involve interpretation of written policy (or the level will involve interpretation of written policy (or the
acknowledgement that policy does not exist to cover a given acknowledgment that policy does not exist to cover a given
situation). In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the situation). In any case, the conflict resolution will now use the
same path of appeal: to the RSAB. same path of appeal: to the RSAB.
4.5. Point of Contact 4.5. Point of Contact
From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF From time to time, individuals or organizations external to the IETF
and the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC and the broader RFC Series community may have questions about the RFC
Series. Such inquiries should be directed to the rfc-editor@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 editor.org (mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org) email alias or to its
successor or future equivalent and then handled by the appropriate successor or future equivalent and then handled by the appropriate
skipping to change at page 31, line 15 skipping to change at line 1402
6.2. Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream 6.2. Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream
As specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial As specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial
Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying
therein with the rules specified in [BCP9]. This includes the therein with the rules specified in [BCP9]. This includes the
disclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can be disclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can be
reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor. reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor.
Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as
specified in [BCP79]. The Editorial Stream has chosen to use the specified in [BCP79]. The Editorial Stream has chosen to use the
IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism (https://www.ietf.org/ipr/) for this IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/
purpose. It is preferred that the most liberal terms possible be about/) for this purpose. It is preferred that the most liberal
made available for Editorial Stream documents. Terms that do not terms possible be made available for Editorial Stream documents.
require fees or licensing are preferable. Non-discriminatory terms Terms that do not require fees or licensing are preferable. Non-
are strongly preferred over those that discriminate among users. discriminatory terms are strongly preferred over those that
However, although disclosure is required and the RSWG and the RSAB discriminate among users. However, although disclosure is required
may consider disclosures and terms in making a decision as to whether and the RSWG and the RSAB may consider disclosures and terms in
to submit a document for publication, there are no specific making a decision as to whether to submit a document for publication,
requirements on the licensing terms for intellectual property related there are no specific requirements on the licensing terms for
to Editorial Stream publication. intellectual property related to Editorial Stream publication.
6.3. Editorial Stream Boilerplate 6.3. Editorial Stream Boilerplate
This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This
Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes
to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy
Definition Process specified in Section 3 of this document. Definition Process specified in Section 3 of this document.
Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the
first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841]. specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].
The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
follows: follows:
This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition | This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
Process. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working | Process. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working
Group approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents | Group approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents
are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see | are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see
Section 2 of RFC 7841. | Section 2 of RFC 7841.
The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
specified in Section 3.5 of [RFC7841]. specified in Section 3.5 of [RFC7841].
7. Historical Properties of the RFC Series 7. Historical Properties of the RFC Series
This section lists some of the properties that have been historically This section lists some of the properties that have been historically
regarded as important to the RFC Series. Proposals that affect these regarded as important to the RFC Series. Proposals that affect these
properties are possible within the processes defined in this properties are possible within the processes defined in this
document. As described in Sections Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.3, document. As described in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, proposals that
proposals that might have a detrimental effect on these properties might have a detrimental effect on these properties should receive
should receive heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB heightened scrutiny during RSWG discussion and RSAB review. The
review. The purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes purpose of this scrutiny is to ensure that all changes are deliberate
are deliberate and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as and that the consequences of a proposal, as far as they can be
they can be identified, have been carefully considered. identified, have been carefully considered.
7.1. Availability 7.1. Availability
Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades, Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades,
with no restrictions on access or distribution. with no restrictions on access or distribution.
7.2. Accessibility 7.2. Accessibility
RFC Series documents have been published in a format that was RFC Series documents have been published in a format that was
intended to be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities, intended to be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities,
skipping to change at page 32, line 50 skipping to change at line 1481
humor, and even eulogies. humor, and even eulogies.
7.5. Quality 7.5. Quality
RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality RFC Series documents have been reviewed for subject matter quality
and edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documents and edited by professionals with a goal of ensuring that documents
are clear, consistent, and readable [RFC7322]. are clear, consistent, and readable [RFC7322].
7.6. Stability 7.6. Stability
(The text in this section is updated by Section 1.3.1) (The text in this section is updated by Section 1.3.1.)
Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of
publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent
possible. possible, as described in Section 2.2 of [RFC9720].
7.7. Longevity 7.7. Longevity
RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be
comprehensible to humans for decades or longer. comprehensible to humans for decades or longer.
7.8. Consistency 7.8. Consistency
(The text in this section is added by Section 1.3.2) (The text in this section is added by Section 1.3.2.)
RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. They may be RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published. They may be
reissued to maintain a consistent presentation. reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.
8. Updates to This Document 8. Updates to This Document
Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced
using the process documented herein but shall be published and using the process documented herein but shall be published and
operative only after (a) obtaining the agreement of the IAB and the operative only after (a) obtaining the agreement of the IAB and the
IESG and (b) ensuring that the IETF LLC has no objections regarding IESG and (b) ensuring that the IETF LLC has no objections regarding
skipping to change at page 35, line 40 skipping to change at line 1608
responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE proved unwieldy and responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE proved unwieldy and
somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, [RFC9280] somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, [RFC9280]
dispensed with the RSOC. References to the RSOC in documents such as dispensed with the RSOC. References to the RSOC in documents such as
[RFC8730] are obsolete. [RFC8730] are obsolete.
9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) 9.6. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)
Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC5620] specified the existence Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC5620] specified the existence
of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no longer
specified in version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. For the avoidance of specified in version 2 of the RFC Editor Model. For the avoidance of
doubt, [RFC9280] affirmed that the RSAG has been disbanded. (The doubt, [RFC9280] affirmed that the RSAG was disbanded. (The RSAG is
RSAG is not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which
which this document establishes.) this document establishes.)
9.7. Editorial Stream 9.7. Editorial Stream
This document specifies the Editorial Stream in addition to the This document specifies the Editorial Stream in addition to the
streams already described in [RFC8729]. streams already described in [RFC8729].
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply. The The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply. The
processes for the publication of documents must prevent the processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
skipping to change at page 38, line 5 skipping to change at line 1710
Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream
Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789, Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8789, June 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8789, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8789>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8789>.
Rosen, B., "Responsibility Change for the RFC Series", Rosen, B., "Responsibility Change for the RFC Series",
BCP 9, RFC 9282, DOI 10.17487/RFC9282, June 2022, BCP 9, RFC 9282, DOI 10.17487/RFC9282, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9282>. <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 [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418, Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418>. September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.
[RFC7154] Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54, [RFC7154] Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014, RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7154>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>.
[RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322, [RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.
[RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment [RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7776>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.
[RFC7841] Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed., [RFC7841] Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed.,
"RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841, "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7841>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7841>.
[RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7990>.
[RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary", [RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016, RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7991>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.
[RFC7992] Hildebrand, J., Ed. and P. Hoffman, "HTML Format for [RFC7992] Hildebrand, J., Ed. and P. Hoffman, "HTML Format for
RFCs", RFC 7992, DOI 10.17487/RFC7992, December 2016, RFCs", RFC 7992, DOI 10.17487/RFC7992, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7992>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7992>.
[RFC7993] Flanagan, H., "Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Requirements [RFC7993] Flanagan, H., "Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Requirements
for RFCs", RFC 7993, DOI 10.17487/RFC7993, December 2016, for RFCs", RFC 7993, DOI 10.17487/RFC7993, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7993>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7993>.
[RFC7994] Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs", [RFC7994] Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs",
RFC 7994, DOI 10.17487/RFC7994, December 2016, RFC 7994, DOI 10.17487/RFC7994, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7994>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7994>.
[RFC7995] Hansen, T., Ed., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF Format [RFC7995] Hansen, T., Ed., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF Format
for RFCs", RFC 7995, DOI 10.17487/RFC7995, December 2016, for RFCs", RFC 7995, DOI 10.17487/RFC7995, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7995>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7995>.
[RFC7996] Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC", [RFC7996] Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC",
RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016, RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7996>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7996>.
[RFC7997] Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in [RFC7997] Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in
RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016, RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7997>. <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 [RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0", the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020, BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8711>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.
[RFC8716] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IETF Anti- [RFC8716] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IETF Anti-
Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF
Administration LLC", BCP 25, RFC 8716, Administration LLC", BCP 25, RFC 8716,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8716, February 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8716, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8716>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716>.
[RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and [RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729>. 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.
[RFC8730] Brownlee, N., Ed. and B. Hinden, Ed., "Independent [RFC8730] Brownlee, N., Ed. and R. Hinden, Ed., "Independent
Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730, Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8730>. February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8730>.
[RFC9280] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)", [RFC9280] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)",
RFC 9280, DOI 10.17487/RFC9280, June 2022, RFC 9280, DOI 10.17487/RFC9280, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9280>.
[RFC9720] Hoffman, P. and H. Flanagan, "RFC Formats and Versions", [RFC9720] Hoffman, P. and H. Flanagan, "RFC Formats and Versions",
RFC 9720, DOI 10.17487/RFC9720, January 2025, RFC 9720, DOI 10.17487/RFC9720, January 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9720>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9720>.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[RFC2850] IAB and B. Carpenter, Ed., "Charter of the Internet [RFC2850] IAB and B. Carpenter, Ed., "Charter of the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850, Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2850>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>.
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", [RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004, BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3935>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.
[RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", [RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed. and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009, RFC 5620, DOI 10.17487/RFC5620, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5620>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620>.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor [RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6635>. 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
[RFC8700] Flanagan, H., Ed., "Fifty Years of RFCs", RFC 8700, [RFC8700] Flanagan, H., Ed., "Fifty Years of RFCs", RFC 8700,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8700, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8700, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8700>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8700>.
[RFC8728] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed., [RFC8728] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728, "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8728>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728>.
[RFC8874] Thomson, M. and B. Stark, "Working Group GitHub Usage [RFC8874] Thomson, M. and B. Stark, "Working Group GitHub Usage
Guidance", RFC 8874, DOI 10.17487/RFC8874, August 2020, Guidance", RFC 8874, DOI 10.17487/RFC8874, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8874>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8874>.
[RFC9283] Carpenter, B., Ed., "IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor [RFC9283] Carpenter, B., Ed., "IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor
Model", BCP 39, RFC 9283, DOI 10.17487/RFC9283, June 2022, Model", BCP 39, RFC 9283, DOI 10.17487/RFC9283, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9283>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9283>.
[STYLEGUIDE] [STYLEGUIDE]
RFC Editor, "Style Guide", RFC Editor, "Style Guide",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements Acknowledgments
This document is the product of the RFC Series Working Group. Many This document is the product of the RFC Series Working Group. Many
people in the RSWG participated in the active discussions that led to 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 the changes listed in Section 1.1. The authors are indebted to them
for their contributions. for their contributions.
[RFC9280] was authored by Peter SaintA-ndre. It had additional, [RFC9280] was authored by Peter Saint-Andre. It had additional,
extensive acknowledgements. extensive acknowledgments.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Paul Hoffman Paul Hoffman
ICANN ICANN
Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org
Alexis Rossi Alexis Rossi
RFC Series Consulting Editor RFC Series Consulting Editor
Email: rsce@rfc-editor.org Email: rsce@rfc-editor.org
 End of changes. 96 change blocks. 
330 lines changed or deleted 334 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.