[rfc-i] RFC Editor Model Final Version?

Jim Schaad ietf at augustcellars.com
Tue Sep 9 15:00:07 PDT 2008


> RFC Editor
> 
> The RFC Editor is a single person, and this person is responsible for:
> 	1.	Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series continuity
> 	2.	Participate in IAOC reviews of the RFC Publisher and RFC
> Publication
> 		functions to ensure the above mentioned continuity
> 	3.	RFC Style Manual publication for use by authors, editors,
> and the
> RFC publisher
> 	4.	RFC errata process management
> 	5.	Liaison with the IAB
>

It is not clear to me why the RFC errata process is under the jurisdiction
of the RFC editor.  First there is a conflict as the Independent Submission
Editor is responsible for that stream's errata processing.  Secondly I think
that it should be the responsibility of each stream processing governing
body to decide on how when and how errata should be managed or at least the
policy of when and how errata should be accepted.  The mechanics would then
seem to fall under the RFC Publisher for publishing the errata.  

I would hope that the RFC Style Manual is actually being used by the RFC
Production entity, not the publisher.

Is the RFC Style Manual maintained independently by the RFC Editor, or is
this suppose to be some type of community process?  Currently the RFC editor
is permitted to publish the style manual, but it is not stated that it is
the responsibility of the editor to update the style manual nor who has
final approval on style manual updates.  (Perhaps this is one of the
functions of the RFC Editorial Board.)
 
> 
> The RFC Editor is a senior managerial position with a strong
> understanding of the IETF process and seasoned management skills and is
> supported by the RFC Editorial board (see below).

Beyond the review processing, what is the RFC Editor managing?  Or is that
managed by the IAOC?

> 
> Independent Submission Editor
> 
> The Independent Submission Editor is a single person, and this person
> is responsible for:
> 
> 	1.	Independent Submissions approval and processing
> 	2.	Forwarding RFCs in the independent stream to the RFC
> Publisher
> 	3.	Independent Submissions RFC errata review and approval
> 	4.	Appointment of RFC Editorial Board members, see below

Is the Independent Submissions Editor suppose to keep some type of status on
the state of all independent submissions available?  Would you expect this
to be supported by one of the other entities or is this part of the ISE's
budget?

> 
> The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the
> following qualifications are desired:
> 
> 	1.	Technical competence
> 	2.	Deep familiarity with the RFC series
> 	3.	An ability to assess the technical competence of potential
> Editorial Board members
> 	4.	Good standing in the technical community in and beyond the
> IETF
> 
> 
> The  individual with the listed qualifications selected by the
> community and confirmed by the IAB.  An approach similar to the one
> used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year as described
> in RFC 4333 could be used.  Expenses to support the administrative
> operation of the Independent Submission Editor selected in this manner
> would be part of the IASA budget.

This process of selecting the ISE would preclude a person bidding for the
RFC editor process to bid for both positions in a single bid.

Is the ISE responsible for creating a budget or the IASA?  This is not an
RFP position so there is no competitive bidding done.

> 
> RFC Production
> 
> In the proposed split of activities, RFC Production is performed by a
> paid contractor, and the contractor responsibilities include:
> 
> 	1.	Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC
> Style
> Manual
> 	2.	Creating records of edits performed on documents
> 	3.	Engaging in dialogue with authors when clarification is
> needed
> 	4.	Creating records of dialogue with documents authors
> 	5.	Requesting advice from the RFC Editor as needed
> 	6.	Provide suggestions to the RFC Editor as needed
> 	7.	Coordinating with IANA to obtain registry information
> 	8.	RFC number assignment
> 	9.	Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher
> 	10.	Forwarding records of edits and author dialogue to RFC
> Publisher
> 	11.	Liaison with IESG and IAB
> 
> The RFC Production contractor is to be selected by the IAOC through an
> RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the RFC Editor.
> The IAOC would seek a bidder who, among other things, is able to
> provide a timely and cost effective service against the established
> style and production guidelines.  Contract terms, including length of
> contract, extensions and renewals, shall be as defined in an RFP.  The
> opportunity to bid shall be broadly available.


I will assume that the ready-to-publish documents would include all of the
different formats used for a single document and they would be forwarded at
the same time.  (I.e. .xml, .txt, .ps and .pdf as appropriate).  If a new
document format is required by an update to the RFC Style manual, would this
automatically required a re-negotiation of the contract to get the new
document format include in the ready-to-publish list?


Is the list of all edits performed to be only those which meet final
approval of the author(s)? or a list of all possible edits which were
performed in house?


Is the publish house required to provide for public consumption any form of
status information about where documents are in the editing process?  Is
this to be coordinated with the RFC Publisher in any fashion?




Jim Schaad



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list