RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
RFC 9920


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