RFC 9920 | RFC Editor Model | February 2026
Hoffman & Rossi | Informational | [Page]

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

# RFC 9920

# 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.¶

## 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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