<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" version="3" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates-04" category="info" submissionType="editorial" xml:lang="en" number="9920" obsoletes="9280" updates="7841, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, 8729, 8730, 9720" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" prepTime="2026-02-11T12:58:33" indexInclude="true" scripts="Common,Latin" tocDepth="3">
  <link href="https://dx.doi.org/10.17487/rfc9920" rel="alternate"/>
  <link href="urn:issn:2070-1721" rel="alternate"/>
  <link href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates-04" rel="prev"/>
  <front>
    <title abbrev="RFC Editor Model">RFC Editor Model (Version 3)</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9920" stream="editorial"/>
    <author initials="P." surname="Hoffman" fullname="Paul Hoffman">
      <organization showOnFrontPage="true">ICANN</organization>
      <address>
        <email>paul.hoffman@icann.org</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="A." surname="Rossi" fullname="Alexis Rossi">
      <organization showOnFrontPage="true">RFC Series Consulting Editor</organization>
      <address>
        <email>rsce@rfc-editor.org</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date month="02" year="2026"/>
    <abstract pn="section-abstract">
      <t indent="0" pn="section-abstract-1">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.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-abstract-2">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.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-abstract-3">This document updates RFCs 7841, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, 8729, 8730, and 9720.</t>
    </abstract>
    <boilerplate>
      <section anchor="status-of-memo" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-boilerplate.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-status-of-this-memo">Status of This Memo</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-1">
            This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
            published for informational purposes.
        </t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-2">
            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.
        </t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-3">
            Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
            and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
            <eref target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9920" brackets="none"/>.
        </t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="copyright" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-boilerplate.2">
        <name slugifiedName="name-copyright-notice">Copyright Notice</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.2-1">
            Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
            document authors. All rights reserved.
        </t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.2-2">
            This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
            Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
            (<eref target="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info" brackets="none"/>) 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.
        </t>
      </section>
    </boilerplate>
    <toc>
      <section anchor="toc" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-toc.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-table-of-contents">Table of Contents</name>
        <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1">
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.1"><xref derivedContent="1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-introduction">Introduction</xref></t>
            <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2">
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.1">
                <t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="1.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-changes-to-rfc-9280">Changes to RFC 9280</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="1.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rpc-roles-and-responsibilit">RPC Roles and Responsibilities</xref></t>
                <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.2.2">
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.2.2.1">
                    <t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.2.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="1.2.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.2.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-tooling-and-code-used-for-p">Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs</xref></t>
                  </li>
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.2.2.2">
                    <t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.2.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="1.2.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.2.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-conflict-resolution-for-imp">Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions</xref></t>
                  </li>
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.2.2.3">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.2.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="1.2.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.2.3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfc-consumers">RFC Consumers</xref></t>
                  </li>
                </ul>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="1.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-updates-to-rfc-9720">Updates to RFC 9720</xref></t>
                <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.2">
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.2.1">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="1.3.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.3.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfcs-may-be-reissued">RFCs May Be Reissued</xref></t>
                  </li>
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.2.2">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="1.3.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.3.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-consistency-policy">Consistency Policy</xref></t>
                  </li>
                </ul>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.4">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.4.1"><xref derivedContent="1.4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.4"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-purview-of-the-rswg-and-rsa">Purview of the RSWG and RSAB</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.5">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.5.1"><xref derivedContent="1.5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.5"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-updates-to-rfcs-7991-throug">Updates to RFCs 7991 through 7997</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.6">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.6.1"><xref derivedContent="1.6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.6"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rewording-to-obsolete-rfc-9">Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280</xref></t>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.2.1"><xref derivedContent="2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-overview-of-the-model">Overview of the Model</xref></t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.1"><xref derivedContent="3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-policy-definition">Policy Definition</xref></t>
            <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2">
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="3.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-structure-and-roles">Structure and Roles</xref></t>
                <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.1.2">
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.1.2.1">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.1.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="3.1.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.1.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfc-series-working-group-rs">RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)</xref></t>
                  </li>
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.1.2.2">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.1.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="3.1.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.1.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfc-series-approval-board-r">RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)</xref></t>
                  </li>
                </ul>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="3.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-process">Process</xref></t>
                <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2">
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.1">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="3.2.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.2.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-intent">Intent</xref></t>
                  </li>
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.2">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="3.2.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.2.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-workflow">Workflow</xref></t>
                  </li>
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.3">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="3.2.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.2.3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-community-calls-for-comment">Community Calls for Comment</xref></t>
                  </li>
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.4">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.4.1"><xref derivedContent="3.2.4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.2.4"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-appeals">Appeals</xref></t>
                  </li>
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.5">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.5.1"><xref derivedContent="3.2.5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.2.5"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-anti-harassment-policy">Anti-Harassment Policy</xref></t>
                  </li>
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.6">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.2.6.1"><xref derivedContent="3.2.6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.2.6"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfc-boilerplates">RFC Boilerplates</xref></t>
                  </li>
                </ul>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.3">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="3.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfc-consumers-2">RFC Consumers</xref></t>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.1"><xref derivedContent="4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-policy-implementation">Policy Implementation</xref></t>
            <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2">
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="4.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-roles-and-processes">Roles and Processes</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="4.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-working-practices">Working Practices</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.3">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="4.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rpc-responsibilities">RPC Responsibilities</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.4">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.4.1"><xref derivedContent="4.4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.4"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-resolution-of-disagreements">Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.5">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.5.1"><xref derivedContent="4.5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.5"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-point-of-contact">Point of Contact</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.6">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.6.1"><xref derivedContent="4.6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.6"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-administrative-implementati">Administrative Implementation</xref></t>
                <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.6.2">
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.6.2.1">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.6.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="4.6.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.6.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-vendor-selection-for-the-rp">Vendor Selection for the RPC</xref></t>
                  </li>
                  <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.6.2.2">
                    <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.6.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="4.6.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.6.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-budget">Budget</xref></t>
                  </li>
                </ul>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.5.1"><xref derivedContent="5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfc-series-consulting-edito">RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)</xref></t>
            <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2">
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="5.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rsce-selection">RSCE Selection</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="5.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rsce-performance-evaluation">RSCE Performance Evaluation</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.3">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="5.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-temporary-rsce-appointment">Temporary RSCE Appointment</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.4">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.4.1"><xref derivedContent="5.4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.4"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-conflict-of-interest">Conflict of Interest</xref></t>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.6">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.6.1"><xref derivedContent="6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-6"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-editorial-stream">Editorial Stream</xref></t>
            <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2">
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="6.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-6.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-procedures-request-of-the-i">Procedures Request of the IETF Trust</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="6.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-6.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-patent-and-trademark-rules-">Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2.3">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="6.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-6.3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-editorial-stream-boilerplat">Editorial Stream Boilerplate</xref></t>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.1"><xref derivedContent="7" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-historical-properties-of-th">Historical Properties of the RFC Series</xref></t>
            <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2">
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="7.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-availability">Availability</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="7.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-accessibility">Accessibility</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.3">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="7.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-language">Language</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.4">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.4.1"><xref derivedContent="7.4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.4"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-diversity">Diversity</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.5">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.5.1"><xref derivedContent="7.5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.5"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-quality">Quality</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.6">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.6.1"><xref derivedContent="7.6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.6"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-stability">Stability</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.7">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.7.1"><xref derivedContent="7.7" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.7"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-longevity">Longevity</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.8">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.8.1"><xref derivedContent="7.8" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.8"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-consistency">Consistency</xref></t>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.8">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.8.1"><xref derivedContent="8" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-8"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-updates-to-this-document">Updates to This Document</xref></t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.9">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.9.1"><xref derivedContent="9" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-9"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-changes-from-version-2-of-t">Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model</xref></t>
            <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2">
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="9.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-9.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfc-editor-function">RFC Editor Function</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="9.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-9.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfc-series-editor">RFC Series Editor</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.3">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="9.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-9.3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfc-publisher">RFC Publisher</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.4">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.4.1"><xref derivedContent="9.4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-9.4"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-iab">IAB</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.5">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.5.1"><xref derivedContent="9.5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-9.5"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfc-series-oversight-commit">RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.6">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.6.1"><xref derivedContent="9.6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-9.6"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rfc-series-advisory-group-r">RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.7">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.9.2.7.1"><xref derivedContent="9.7" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-9.7"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-editorial-stream-2">Editorial Stream</xref></t>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.10">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.10.1"><xref derivedContent="10" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-10"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-security-considerations">Security Considerations</xref></t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.11">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.11.1"><xref derivedContent="11" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-11"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-iana-considerations">IANA Considerations</xref></t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.12">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.12.1"><xref derivedContent="12" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-12"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-references">References</xref></t>
            <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2">
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="12.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-12.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-normative-references">Normative References</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="12.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-12.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-informative-references">Informative References</xref></t>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.13">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.13.1"><xref derivedContent="" format="none" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.a"/><xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</xref></t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.14">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.14.1"><xref derivedContent="" format="none" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.b"/><xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-authors-addresses">Authors' Addresses</xref></t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
    </toc>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1">
      <name slugifiedName="name-introduction">Introduction</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-1-1">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 <xref target="RFC8700" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8700"/>, RFCs
have been published continually since 1969.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-1-2">RFCs are generated and approved by multiple document streams.
Whereas the stream approving body <xref target="RFC8729" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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 <xref target="RFC8729" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8729"/>.  This document specifies
a fifth stream, the Editorial Stream, for publication of policies
governing the RFC Series as a whole.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-1-3">The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function
is described in <xref target="RFC8729" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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) <xref target="RFC8711" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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 <xref target="RFC8729" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8729"/>.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-1-4">This document updates <xref target="RFC7841" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7841"/> by defining
boilerplate text for the Editorial Stream.  This document updates
<xref target="RFC8729" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8729"/> by replacing the RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and
RSCE.  This document updates <xref target="RFC8730" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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 <xref target="changes" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 9"/>.</t>
      <section anchor="changes-to-9280" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-changes-to-rfc-9280">Changes to RFC 9280</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-1.1-1">This section details the changes made to <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> by the RSWG starting in 2022.
If you are not interested in how this document was changed, skip directly to <xref target="overview" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2"/>.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-1.1-2"><xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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 <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> based on these findings.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-1.1-3">The organization of this RFC is different from typical RFCs in order to keep the section numbering the same as <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/>.
To keep the section numbering the same, the Introduction section is much longer, with several subsections that refer to the main body.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-1.1-4">The remainder of this introduction is a list of changes to <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/>.
Those changes are instantiated in the rest of the document, with cross-references between the list of changes and the main body.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-1.1-5">The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="rpc-roles-and-responsibilities" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1.2">
        <name slugifiedName="name-rpc-roles-and-responsibilit">RPC Roles and Responsibilities</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2-1"><xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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, <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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 <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> to deal with this and other related matters.</t>
        <section anchor="tooling-code" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1.2.1">
          <name slugifiedName="name-tooling-and-code-used-for-p">Tooling and Code Used for Publication of RFCs</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-1"><xref section="2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9280" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280#section-2" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> states:</t>
          <blockquote pn="section-1.2.1-2">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-2.1">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) <xref target="RFC8711" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8711"/>.</t>
          </blockquote>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-3">The same section also states:</t>
          <blockquote pn="section-1.2.1-4">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-4.1">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.</t>
          </blockquote>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-5"><xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> does not define any other group that is responsible for implementing policies.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-6">Throughout <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.
<xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> does not cover any specific responsibilities for designing and building the tools and code used to publish documents.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-7"><xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> mentions tool developers twice.
<xref section="3.1.1.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9280" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280#section-3.1.1.2" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> encourages "developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and Internet-Drafts" to participate in the RSWG.
<xref section="3.2.1" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9280" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280#section-3.2.1" derivedContent="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".</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-8"><xref section="4.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9280" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280#section-4.2" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> mentions a specific implementation when discussing the working practices of the RPC:</t>
          <blockquote pn="section-1.2.1-9">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-9.1">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 <xref target="RFC7991" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7991"/>, such guidelines could include clarifications regarding the preferred XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic content of RFCs.</t>
          </blockquote>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-10"><xref target="RFC7991" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7991"/> is the only editorial implementation-related RFC mentioned in <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/>.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-11">The following is added to <xref target="rpc-responsibilities" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 4.3"/> of this document:</t>
          <blockquote pn="section-1.2.1-12">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-12.1">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.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.1-12.2">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 <xref target="resolution" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 4.4"/>.</t>
          </blockquote>
        </section>
        <section anchor="conflict-resolution" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1.2.2">
          <name slugifiedName="name-conflict-resolution-for-imp">Conflict Resolution for Implementation Decisions</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.2-1"><xref section="4.4" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9280" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280#section-4.4" derivedContent="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).</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.2-2">The paragraph below is reflected in <xref target="resolution" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 4.4"/> of this document:</t>
          <blockquote pn="section-1.2.2-3">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.2-3.1">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.</t>
          </blockquote>
        </section>
        <section anchor="rfc-consumers" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1.2.3">
          <name slugifiedName="name-rfc-consumers">RFC Consumers</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.3-1">This text is reflected in <xref target="rfc-consumers-definition" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3.3"/> of this document:</t>
          <blockquote pn="section-1.2.3-2">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.3-2.1">The IETF mission statement <xref target="RFC3935" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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:</t>
            <ul empty="true" bare="false" indent="3" spacing="normal" pn="section-1.2.3-2.2">
              <li pn="section-1.2.3-2.2.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.3-2.2.1.1">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.</t>
              </li>
            </ul>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.3-2.3"><xref target="intent" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.3-2.4">"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.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.3-2.5">The policy to be followed by the RFC publication streams and RFC Editor in respect to consumers of RFCs is as follows:</t>
            <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-1.2.3-2.6">
              <li pn="section-1.2.3-2.6.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.3-2.6.1.1">Consumers of RFCs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> 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.</t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-1.2.3-2.6.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.3-2.6.2.1">The <eref target="https://www.rfc-editor.org" brackets="none">RFC Editor website</eref> <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be primarily focused on consumers of RFCs.</t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-1.2.3-2.6.3">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-1.2.3-2.6.3.1">Consumers of RFCs <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be required or expected to become IETF/IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an RFC.</t>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </blockquote>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="updates-to-rfc-9720" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1.3">
        <name slugifiedName="name-updates-to-rfc-9720">Updates to RFC 9720</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-1.3-1"><xref target="RFC9720" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9720"/>, "RFC Formats and Versions", updates <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/>.
This document updates <xref target="RFC9720" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9720"/>.</t>
        <section anchor="reissued" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1.3.1">
          <name slugifiedName="name-rfcs-may-be-reissued">RFCs May Be Reissued</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.3.1-1"><xref section="7.6" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9280" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280#section-7.6" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> says:</t>
          <blockquote pn="section-1.3.1-2">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.3.1-2.1">Once published, RFC Series documents are not changed.</t>
          </blockquote>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.3.1-3">That sentence is replaced in <xref target="stability" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 7.6"/> of this document with:</t>
          <blockquote pn="section-1.3.1-4">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.3.1-4.1">Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, as described in <xref section="2.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9720" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9720#section-2.2" derivedContent="RFC9720"/>.</t>
          </blockquote>
        </section>
        <section anchor="consistency-policy" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1.3.2">
          <name slugifiedName="name-consistency-policy">Consistency Policy</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.3.2-1">A new policy is added to <xref target="historical" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 7"/> of this document:</t>
          <blockquote pn="section-1.3.2-2">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.3.2-2.1">7.8.  Consistency</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-1.3.2-2.2">RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published.  They may be reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.</t>
          </blockquote>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="purview" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1.4">
        <name slugifiedName="name-purview-of-the-rswg-and-rsa">Purview of the RSWG and RSAB</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-1.4-1"><xref section="3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9280" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280#section-3" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> says:</t>
        <blockquote pn="section-1.4-2">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.4-2.1">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.</t>
        </blockquote>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-1.4-3">The following is added to <xref target="policy-definition" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3"/> of this document immediately following that sentence:</t>
        <blockquote pn="section-1.4-4">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-1.4-4.1">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 <xref target="working-practices" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 4.2"/>, with community consultation as for other tools and services supported by the IETF LLC <xref target="RFC8711" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8711"/>.</t>
        </blockquote>
      </section>
      <section anchor="updates-to-rfcs-7991-through-7997" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1.5">
        <name slugifiedName="name-updates-to-rfcs-7991-throug">Updates to RFCs 7991 through 7997</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-1.5-1">All instances of "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series Editor" in <xref target="RFC7991" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7991"/>, <xref target="RFC7992" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7992"/>, <xref target="RFC7993" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7993"/>, <xref target="RFC7994" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7994"/>, <xref target="RFC7995" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7995"/>, <xref target="RFC7996" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7996"/> (obsoleted by <xref target="RFC9896" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9896"/>), and <xref target="RFC7997" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7997"/> are replaced by "RFC Production Center (RPC)".</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="rewording-to-obsolete-rfc-9280" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-1.6">
        <name slugifiedName="name-rewording-to-obsolete-rfc-9">Rewording to Obsolete RFC 9280</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-1.6-1">Many parts of <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> talked about changes to be made.
Because this document obsoletes <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/>, these parts were updated to indicate that the changes were made.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="overview" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-2">
      <name slugifiedName="name-overview-of-the-model">Overview of the Model</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-2-1">This document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
two high-level tasks:</t>
      <ol spacing="normal" type="1" indent="adaptive" start="1" pn="section-2-2"><li pn="section-2-2.1" derivedCounter="1.">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-2-2.1.1">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 <xref target="RFC8729" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8729"/> as well as an
expert in technical publishing, the RFC Series Consulting Editor
(RSCE).</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-2-2.2" derivedCounter="2.">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-2-2.2.1">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) <xref target="RFC8711" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8711"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ol>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-2-3">As described more fully in the remainder of this document, the core
activities and responsibilities are as follows:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-2-4">
        <li pn="section-2-4.1">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-2-4.1.1">The RSWG proposes policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole,
with input from the community, the RSAB, and the RSCE.</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-2-4.2">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-2-4.2.1">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.</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-2-4.3">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-2-4.3.1">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.</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-2-4.4">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-2-4.4.1">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.</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-2-4.5">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-2-4.5.1">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.</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-2-4.6">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-2-4.6.1">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.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-2-5">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 <xref section="4" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8729" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729#section-4" derivedContent="RFC8729"/>.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-2-6">The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="policy-definition" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3">
      <name slugifiedName="name-policy-definition">Policy Definition</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-3-1">Policies governing the RFC Series as a whole are defined through the
following high-level process:</t>
      <ol spacing="normal" type="1" indent="adaptive" start="1" pn="section-3-2"><li pn="section-3-2.1" derivedCounter="1.">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3-2.1.1">Proposals must be submitted to, adopted by, and discussed within
the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG).</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-3-2.2" derivedCounter="2.">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3-2.2.1">Proposals must pass a Last Call for comments in the working group
and a community call for comments (see <xref target="calls" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3.2.3"/>).</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-3-2.3" derivedCounter="3.">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3-2.3.1">Proposals must be approved by the RFC Series Approval Board
(RSAB).</t>
        </li>
      </ol>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-3-3">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.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-3-4">(The text in the next paragraph is added by <xref target="purview" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 1.4"/>.)</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-3-5">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 <xref target="working-practices" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 4.2"/>, with community consultation as for other tools and services supported by the IETF LLC <xref target="RFC8711" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8711"/>.</t>
      <section anchor="structure-and-roles" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-structure-and-roles">Structure and Roles</name>
        <section anchor="rfc-series-working-group-rswg" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3.1.1">
          <name slugifiedName="name-rfc-series-working-group-rs">RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)</name>
          <section anchor="purpose" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-3.1.1.1">
            <name slugifiedName="name-purpose">Purpose</name>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.1.1-1">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.</t>
          </section>
          <section anchor="rswg-participation" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-3.1.1.2">
            <name slugifiedName="name-participation">Participation</name>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.1.2-1">All interested individuals are welcome to participate in the RSWG;
participants are subject to anti-harassment policies as described in
<xref target="anti-h" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
          </section>
          <section anchor="chairs" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-3.1.1.3">
            <name slugifiedName="name-chairs">Chairs</name>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.1.3-1">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.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.1.3-2">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.</t>
          </section>
          <section anchor="mode-of-operation" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-3.1.1.4">
            <name slugifiedName="name-mode-of-operation">Mode of Operation</name>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.1.4-1">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 <xref target="BCP78" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="BCP78"/> and <xref target="BCP79" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="BCP79"/>.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.1.4-2">All discussions in the RSWG shall take place on an open
email discussion list, which shall be publicly archived.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.1.4-3">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 <eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-guidance-on-in-person-and-online-interim-meetings-20230814/" brackets="none">IESG Guidance on In-Person and Online Interim Meetings</eref> provides a reasonable
baseline.  In-person meetings should include provision for effective
online participation for those unable to attend in person.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.1.4-4">The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation
informally described in <xref target="RFC2418" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC2418"/>.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.1.4-5">The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling
(e.g., GitHub as specified in <xref target="RFC8874" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8874"/>), forms of communication, and
working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent
with this document and with <xref target="RFC2418" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC2418"/> or its successors.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.1.4-6">Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the operation of
the RSWG, the general guidance provided in <xref section="6" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC2418" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418#section-6" derivedContent="RFC2418"/>
should be considered appropriate.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.1.4-7">The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support
RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies.</t>
          </section>
        </section>
        <section anchor="rfc-series-approval-board-rsab" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3.1.2">
          <name slugifiedName="name-rfc-series-approval-board-r">RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB)</name>
          <section anchor="rsab-purpose" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-3.1.2.1">
            <name slugifiedName="name-purpose-2">Purpose</name>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.1-1">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
<xref target="workflow" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3.2.2"/>.</t>
          </section>
          <section anchor="rsab-members" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-3.1.2.2">
            <name slugifiedName="name-members">Members</name>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-1">The RSAB consists primarily of the following voting members:</t>
            <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-3.1.2.2-2">
              <li pn="section-3.1.2.2-2.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-2.1.1">A stream representative for the IETF Stream: either an IESG member
or someone appointed by the IESG</t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-3.1.2.2-2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-2.2.1">A stream representative for the IAB Stream: either an IAB member
or someone appointed by the IAB</t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-3.1.2.2-2.3">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-2.3.1">A stream representative for the IRTF Stream: either the IRTF Chair
or someone appointed by the IRTF Chair</t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-3.1.2.2-2.4">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-2.4.1">A stream representative for the Independent Stream: either the
Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) <xref target="RFC8730" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8730"/> or someone
appointed by the ISE</t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-3.1.2.2-2.5">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-2.5.1">The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)</t>
              </li>
            </ul>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-3">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).</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-4">The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a voting member of the
RSAB but does not act as a representative of the Editorial Stream.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-5">To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
include the following non-voting, ex officio members:</t>
            <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-3.1.2.2-6">
              <li pn="section-3.1.2.2-6.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-6.1.1">The IETF Executive Director or their delegate (the rationale is
that the IETF LLC is accountable for implementation of policies
governing the RFC Series)</t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-3.1.2.2-6.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-6.2.1">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)</t>
              </li>
            </ul>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.2-7">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.</t>
          </section>
          <section anchor="appointment-and-removal-of-voting-members" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-3.1.2.3">
            <name slugifiedName="name-appointment-and-removal-of-">Appointment and Removal of Voting Members</name>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.3-1">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 <xref target="rsce" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.3-2">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.</t>
          </section>
          <section anchor="vacancies" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-3.1.2.4">
            <name slugifiedName="name-vacancies">Vacancies</name>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.4-1">In the case of vacancies by voting members, the RSAB shall operate as
follows:</t>
            <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-3.1.2.4-2">
              <li pn="section-3.1.2.4-2.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.4-2.1.1">Activities related to implementation of policies already in force
shall continue as normal.</t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-3.1.2.4-2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.4-2.2.1">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 <xref target="rsab-members" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3.1.2.2"/>.</t>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </section>
          <section anchor="chair" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-3.1.2.5">
            <name slugifiedName="name-chair">Chair</name>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.5-1">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.</t>
          </section>
          <section anchor="mode-of-operation-1" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-3.1.2.6">
            <name slugifiedName="name-mode-of-operation-2">Mode of Operation</name>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.6-1">The RSAB is expected to operate via an email discussion list, in-person
meetings, teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling
it deems necessary.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.6-2">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.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.6-3">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.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.6-4">The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling and staff to
support RSAB communication, decision processes, and policies.</t>
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1.2.6-5">The IAB convened the RSAB in 2022 in
order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC
Editor Model.</t>
          </section>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="process" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3.2">
        <name slugifiedName="name-process">Process</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2-1">This section specifies the RFC Series Policy Definition Process,
which shall be followed in producing all Editorial Stream RFCs.</t>
        <section anchor="intent" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3.2.1">
          <name slugifiedName="name-intent">Intent</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.1-1">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 <xref target="workflow" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3.2.2"/>).</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.1-2">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 <xref target="RFC2418" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.1-3">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.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="workflow" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3.2.2">
          <name slugifiedName="name-workflow">Workflow</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-1">The following process shall be used to formulate or modify policies
related to the RFC Series:</t>
          <ol spacing="normal" type="1" indent="adaptive" start="1" pn="section-3.2.2-2"><li pn="section-3.2.2-2.1" derivedCounter="1.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.1.1">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 <xref target="BCP78" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="BCP78"/> and <xref target="BCP79" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="BCP79"/>) and asks
the RSWG to adopt the proposal as a working group item.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.2" derivedCounter="2.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.2.1">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 <xref target="RFC2418" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC2418"/>).</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.3" derivedCounter="3.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.3.1">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
<xref target="historical" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.4" derivedCounter="4.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.4.1">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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.5" derivedCounter="5.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.5.1">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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.6" derivedCounter="6.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.6.1">Once consensus is established in the RSWG, the RSAB shall issue
a community call for comments as further described in
<xref target="calls" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.7" derivedCounter="7.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.7.1">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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.8" derivedCounter="8.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.8.1">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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.9" derivedCounter="9.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.1">Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will poll its
members for their positions on the proposal.  Positions may be
as follows:  </t>
              <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.2">
                <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.2.1">
                  <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.2.1.1">YES: the proposal should be approved</t>
                </li>
                <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.2.2">
                  <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.2.2.1">CONCERN: the proposal raises substantial concerns that must
be addressed</t>
                </li>
                <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.2.3">
                  <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.2.3.1">RECUSE: the person holding the position has a conflict of
interest</t>
                </li>
              </ul>
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.3">
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.  </t>
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.4">
There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a position
of CONCERN:  </t>
              <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.5">
                <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.5.1">
                  <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.5.1.1">The RSAB member believes that the proposal represents a
serious problem for one or more of the individual streams.</t>
                </li>
                <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.5.2">
                  <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.5.2.1">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.</t>
                </li>
                <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.5.3">
                  <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.5.3.1">The RSAB member believes, based on the results of the
community call(s) for comments (<xref target="calls" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3.2.3"/>), that rough
consensus to advance the proposal is lacking.</t>
                </li>
              </ul>
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.9.6">
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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.10" derivedCounter="10.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.10.1">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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.11" derivedCounter="11.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.11.1">A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.12" derivedCounter="12.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.12.1">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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.13" derivedCounter="13.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.13.1">If the proposal is not approved, it is returned to the RSWG.
The RSWG can then consider making further changes.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.14" derivedCounter="14.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.14.1">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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.2-2.15" derivedCounter="15.">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.2-2.15.1">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.</t>
            </li>
          </ol>
        </section>
        <section anchor="calls" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3.2.3">
          <name slugifiedName="name-community-calls-for-comment">Community Calls for Comment</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-1">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
<eref target="mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" brackets="none">rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org</eref>
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).</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-2">In cases where a proposal has the potential to significantly modify
long-standing policies or historical characteristics of the RFC
Series as described in <xref target="historical" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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 <xref target="rswg-participation" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-3">The RSAB should maintain a public list of communities that are
contacted during calls for comments.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-4">A notice of a community call for comments contains the following:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-3.2.3-5">
            <li pn="section-3.2.3-5.1">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-5.1.1">A subject line beginning with 'Call for Comments:'</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.3-5.2">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-5.2.1">A clear, concise summary of the proposal</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.3-5.3">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-5.3.1">A URL pointing to the Internet-Draft that defines the proposal</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.3-5.4">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-5.4.1">Any explanations or questions for the community that the RSAB
deems necessary (using their usual decision-making procedures)</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.3-5.5">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-5.5.1">Clear instructions on how to provide public comments</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.3-5.6">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-5.6.1">A deadline for comments</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-6">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.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.3-7">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 <xref target="workflow" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3.2.2"/>)
lodging a position of CONCERN during RSAB balloting.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="appeals" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3.2.4">
          <name slugifiedName="name-appeals">Appeals</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.4-1">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.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.4-2">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 <xref target="resolution" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="anti-h" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3.2.5">
          <name slugifiedName="name-anti-harassment-policy">Anti-Harassment Policy</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.5-1">The <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-harassment-policy/" brackets="none">IETF anti-harassment policy</eref>
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 <xref target="RFC7154" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7154"/>, <xref target="RFC7776" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7776"/>, and
<xref target="RFC8716" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8716"/>.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="rfc-boilerplates" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3.2.6">
          <name slugifiedName="name-rfc-boilerplates">RFC Boilerplates</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.6-1">RFC boilerplates (see <xref target="RFC7841" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7841"/>) are part of the RFC Style Guide, as
defined in <xref target="working-practices" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-3.2.6-2">
            <li pn="section-3.2.6-2.1">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.6-2.1.1">The applicable stream, which approves that the boilerplate meets
its needs</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.6-2.2">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.6-2.2.1">The RSAB, which approves that the boilerplate is not in conflict
with the boilerplate used in the other streams</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.6-2.3">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.6-2.3.1">The RPC, which approves that the language of the boilerplate is
consistent with the RFC Style Guide</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-3.2.6-2.4">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2.6-2.4.1">The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly
states the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="rfc-consumers-definition" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-3.3">
        <name slugifiedName="name-rfc-consumers-2">RFC Consumers</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-1">(The text in this section is added by <xref target="rfc-consumers" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 1.2.3"/>.)</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-2">The IETF mission statement <xref target="RFC3935" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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:</t>
        <blockquote pn="section-3.3-3">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-3.1">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.</t>
        </blockquote>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-4"><xref target="intent" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-5">"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.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-6">The policy to be followed by the RFC publication streams and RFC Editor in respect to consumers of RFCs is as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-3.3-7">
          <li pn="section-3.3-7.1">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-7.1.1">Consumers of RFCs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> 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.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-3.3-7.2">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-7.2.1">The <eref target="https://www.rfc-editor.org" brackets="none">RFC Editor website</eref> <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be primarily focused on consumers of RFCs.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-3.3-7.3">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-7.3.1">Consumers of RFCs <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be required or expected to become IETF/IRTF participants unless they wish to extend, update, or modify an RFC.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="policy-implementation" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-4">
      <name slugifiedName="name-policy-implementation">Policy Implementation</name>
      <section anchor="roles-and-processes" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-4.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-roles-and-processes">Roles and Processes</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.1-1">Publication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC).</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.1-2">A few general considerations apply:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-4.1-3">
          <li pn="section-4.1-3.1">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.1-3.1.1">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.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.1-3.2">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.1-3.2.1">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 <xref target="resolution" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 4.4"/>.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.1-3.3">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.1-3.3.1">The RPC is overseen by the IETF LLC to ensure that it performs in
accordance with contracts in place.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.1-4">All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance
targets are between the RPC and IETF LLC.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.1-5">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.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.1-6">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.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.1-7">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.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.1-8">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.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.1-9">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 <xref target="RFC8711" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8711"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="working-practices" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-4.2">
        <name slugifiedName="name-working-practices">Working Practices</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.2-1">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:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-4.2-2">
          <li pn="section-4.2-2.1">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.2-2.1.1">Maintenance of a style guide that defines editorial standards for
RFCs; specifically, the RFC Style Guide consists of <xref target="RFC7322" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7322"/> and
the other documents and resources listed at <xref target="STYLEGUIDE" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="STYLEGUIDE"/>.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.2-2.2">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.2-2.2.1">Instructions regarding the file formats that are accepted as input
to the editing and publication process.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.2-2.3">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.2-2.3.1">Guidelines regarding the final structure and layout of published
documents.  In the context of the XML vocabulary <xref target="RFC7991" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7991"/>, such
guidelines could include clarifications regarding the preferred
XML elements and attributes used to capture the semantic content
of RFCs.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="rpc-responsibilities" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-4.3">
        <name slugifiedName="name-rpc-responsibilities">RPC Responsibilities</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-1">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:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1" indent="adaptive" start="1" pn="section-4.3-2"><li pn="section-4.3-2.1" derivedCounter="1.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.1.1">Editing documents originating from all RFC streams to ensure
that they are consistent with the editorial standards specified
in the RFC Style Guide.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.2" derivedCounter="2.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.2.1">Creating and preserving records of edits performed on documents.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.3" derivedCounter="3.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.3.1">Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact
and seeking necessary clarification.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.4" derivedCounter="4.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.4.1">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.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.5" derivedCounter="5.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.5.1">Creating and preserving records of dialogue with document
authors.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.6" derivedCounter="6.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.6.1">Requesting advice from the RSAB and RSCE as needed.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.7" derivedCounter="7.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.7.1">Providing suggestions to the RSAB and RSCE as needed.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.8" derivedCounter="8.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.8.1">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.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.9" derivedCounter="9.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.9.1">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.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.10" derivedCounter="10.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.10.1">Providing reports to the community on its performance and plans.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.11" derivedCounter="11.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.11.1">Consulting with the community on its plans.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.12" derivedCounter="12.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.12.1">Negotiating its specific plans and resources with the IETF LLC.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.13" derivedCounter="13.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.13.1">Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RPC
performance by the IETF LLC.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.14" derivedCounter="14.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.14.1">Coordinating with IANA to ensure that RFCs accurately document
registration processes and assigned values for IANA registries.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.15" derivedCounter="15.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.15.1">Assigning RFC numbers.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.16" derivedCounter="16.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.16.1">Liaising with stream approving bodies and other representatives
of the streams as needed.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.17" derivedCounter="17.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.17.1">Publishing RFCs, which includes:  </t>
            <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-4.3-2.17.2">
              <li pn="section-4.3-2.17.2.1">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.17.2.1.1">posting copies to the RFC Editor site both individually and
in collections</t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-4.3-2.17.2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.17.2.2.1">depositing copies with external archives</t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-4.3-2.17.2.3">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.17.2.3.1">creating catalogs and catalog entries</t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-4.3-2.17.2.4">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.17.2.4.1">announcing the publication to interested parties</t>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.18" derivedCounter="18.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.18.1">Providing online access to RFCs.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.19" derivedCounter="19.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.19.1">Providing an online system to facilitate the submission,
management, and display of errata to RFCs.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.20" derivedCounter="20.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.20.1">Maintaining the RFC Editor website.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.21" derivedCounter="21.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.21.1">Providing for the backup of RFCs.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.22" derivedCounter="22.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.22.1">Ensuring the storage and preservation of records.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.3-2.23" derivedCounter="23.">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-2.23.1">Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-3">(The text in the next two paragraphs is added by <xref target="tooling-code" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 1.2.1"/>.)</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-4">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.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.3-5">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 <xref target="resolution" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 4.4"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="resolution" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-4.4">
        <name slugifiedName="name-resolution-of-disagreements">Resolution of Disagreements between Authors and the RPC</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.4-1">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.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.4-2">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.</t>
        <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-4.4-3">
          <li pn="section-4.4-3.1">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.4-3.1.1">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.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.4-3.2">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.4-3.2.1">If there is a conflict with a cross-stream policy, the RPC should
consult with the RSAB to achieve a resolution.</t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-4.4-3.3">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-4.4-3.3.1">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.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.4-4">(The text in the next paragraph is added by <xref target="conflict-resolution" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 1.2.2"/>.)</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.4-5">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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="point-of-contact" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-4.5">
        <name slugifiedName="name-point-of-contact">Point of Contact</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.5-1">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
<eref target="mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" brackets="none">rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org</eref> 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).</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="administrative-implementation" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-4.6">
        <name slugifiedName="name-administrative-implementati">Administrative Implementation</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-4.6-1">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.</t>
        <section anchor="vendor-selection-for-the-rpc" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-4.6.1">
          <name slugifiedName="name-vendor-selection-for-the-rp">Vendor Selection for the RPC</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-4.6.1-1">Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under
the final authority of the IETF LLC.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-4.6.1-2">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 <xref target="rpc-responsibilities" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 4.3"/>), the
needs of the streams, and community input.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-4.6.1-3">The process to select and contract for the RPC and other RFC-related
services is as follows:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-4.6.1-4">
            <li pn="section-4.6.1-4.1">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-4.6.1-4.1.1">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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-4.6.1-4.2">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-4.6.1-4.2.1">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.</t>
            </li>
            <li pn="section-4.6.1-4.3">
              <t indent="0" pn="section-4.6.1-4.3.1">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.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
        </section>
        <section anchor="budget" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-4.6.2">
          <name slugifiedName="name-budget">Budget</name>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-4.6.2-1">Most expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses.  They
have been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-4.6.2-2">The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding
to support the RSCE, the RFC Production Center, and the Independent
Stream.</t>
          <t indent="0" pn="section-4.6.2-3">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.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="rsce" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-5">
      <name slugifiedName="name-rfc-series-consulting-edito">RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE)</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-5-1">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.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-5-2">The primary responsibilities of the RSCE are as follows:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-5-3">
        <li pn="section-5-3.1">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-5-3.1.1">Serve as a voting member on the RSAB</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-5-3.2">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-5-3.2.1">Identify problems with the RFC publication process and
opportunities for improvement</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-5-3.3">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-5-3.3.1">Provide expert advice within the RSWG regarding policy proposals</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-5-3.4">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-5-3.4.1">Provide expert advice to the RPC and IETF LLC</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-5-4">Matters on which the RSCE might provide guidance could include the
following (see also <xref section="4" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8729" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729#section-4" derivedContent="RFC8729"/>):</t>
      <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-5-5">
        <li pn="section-5-5.1">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-5-5.1.1">Editing, processing, and publication of RFCs</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-5-5.2">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-5-5.2.1">Publication formats for the RFC Series</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-5-5.3">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-5-5.3.1">Changes to the RFC Style Guide</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-5-5.4">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-5-5.4.1">Series-wide guidelines regarding document content and quality</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-5-5.5">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-5-5.5.1">Web presence for the RFC Series</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-5-5.6">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-5-5.6.1">Copyright matters related to the RFC Series</t>
        </li>
        <li pn="section-5-5.7">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-5-5.7.1">Archiving, indexing, and accessibility of RFCs</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-5-6">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.</t>
      <section anchor="rsce-selection" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-5.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-rsce-selection">RSCE Selection</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-5.1-1">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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="rsce-performance-evaluation" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-5.2">
        <name slugifiedName="name-rsce-performance-evaluation">RSCE Performance Evaluation</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-5.2-1">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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="temporary-rsce-appointment" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-5.3">
        <name slugifiedName="name-temporary-rsce-appointment">Temporary RSCE Appointment</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-5.3-1">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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="conflict-of-interest" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-5.4">
        <name slugifiedName="name-conflict-of-interest">Conflict of Interest</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-5.4-1">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.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-5.4-2">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.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="editorial-stream" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-6">
      <name slugifiedName="name-editorial-stream">Editorial Stream</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-6-1">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.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-6-2">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.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-6-3">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 <xref target="RFC8729" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-6-4">The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams
are outside the scope of this document.</t>
      <section anchor="procedures-request-of-the-ietf-trust" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-6.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-procedures-request-of-the-i">Procedures Request of the IETF Trust</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-6.1-1">In <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/>, the IAB requested that the IETF Trust and its Trustees assist in
meeting the goals and procedures set forth in this document.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-6.1-2">The Trustees were requested to publicly confirm their willingness and
ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) for the Editorial Stream.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-6.1-3">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 <xref target="BCP78" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="patent-and-trademark-rules-for-the-editorial-stream" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-6.2">
        <name slugifiedName="name-patent-and-trademark-rules-">Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-6.2-1">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 <xref target="BCP9" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="BCP9"/>.  This includes the
disclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can be
reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-6.2-2">Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as
specified in <xref target="BCP79" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="BCP79"/>.  The Editorial Stream has chosen to use the
<eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/" brackets="none">IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism</eref> 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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="editorial-stream-boilerplate" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-6.3">
        <name slugifiedName="name-editorial-stream-boilerplat">Editorial Stream Boilerplate</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-6.3-1">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 <xref target="policy-definition" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3"/> of this document.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-6.3-2">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 <xref section="A.2.1" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC7841" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7841#appendix-A.2.1" derivedContent="RFC7841"/>.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-6.3-3">The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
follows:</t>
        <blockquote pn="section-6.3-4">
          <t indent="0" pn="section-6.3-4.1">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.</t>
        </blockquote>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-6.3-5">The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
specified in <xref section="3.5" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC7841" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7841#section-3.5" derivedContent="RFC7841"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="historical" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-7">
      <name slugifiedName="name-historical-properties-of-th">Historical Properties of the RFC Series</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-7-1">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 <xref target="workflow" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="3.2.2"/> and <xref target="calls" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
      <section anchor="availability" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-7.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-availability">Availability</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-7.1-1">Documents in the RFC Series have been available for many decades,
with no restrictions on access or distribution.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="accessibility" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-7.2">
        <name slugifiedName="name-accessibility">Accessibility</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-7.2-1">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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="language" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-7.3">
        <name slugifiedName="name-language">Language</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-7.3-1">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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="diversity" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-7.4">
        <name slugifiedName="name-diversity">Diversity</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-7.4-1">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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="quality" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-7.5">
        <name slugifiedName="name-quality">Quality</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-7.5-1">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 <xref target="RFC7322" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7322"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="stability" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-7.6">
        <name slugifiedName="name-stability">Stability</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-7.6-1">(The text in this section is updated by <xref target="reissued" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 1.3.1"/>.)</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-7.6-2">Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but the semantic content of publication versions shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, as described in <xref section="2.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9720" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9720#section-2.2" derivedContent="RFC9720"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="longevity" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-7.7">
        <name slugifiedName="name-longevity">Longevity</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-7.7-1">RFC Series documents have been published in a form intended to be
comprehensible to humans for decades or longer.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="consistency" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-7.8">
        <name slugifiedName="name-consistency">Consistency</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-7.8-1">(The text in this section is added by <xref target="consistency-policy" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 1.3.2"/>.)</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-7.8-2">RFCs are copyedited, formatted, and then published.
They may be reissued to maintain a consistent presentation.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="updates-to-this-document" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-8">
      <name slugifiedName="name-updates-to-this-document">Updates to This Document</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-8-1">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.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="changes" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-9">
      <name slugifiedName="name-changes-from-version-2-of-t">Changes from Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-9-1">The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs have
changed significantly over the years.  Most recently, in 2009,
<xref target="RFC5620" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5620"/> defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1), and in 2012,
<xref target="RFC6635" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC6635"/> defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), which was then
modified slightly in 2020 by <xref target="RFC8728" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8728"/>.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-9-2">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.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-9-3">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.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-9-4"><xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> was the result of discussion within the original Program and
described version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining
consistent with <xref target="RFC8729" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8729"/>.
As stated earlier, this document obsoletes <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/>.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-9-5">The following sections describe the changes from version 2 in more
detail.</t>
      <section anchor="rfc-editor-function" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-9.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-rfc-editor-function">RFC Editor Function</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-9.1-1">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 (<xref section="2.1.1" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8728" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8728#section-2.1.1" derivedContent="RFC8728"/>), representation of the RFC Series (<xref section="2.1.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8728" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8728#section-2.1.2" derivedContent="RFC8728"/>), development of RFC production and publication
(<xref section="2.1.3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8728" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8728#section-2.1.3" derivedContent="RFC8728"/>), development of the RFC Series
(<xref section="2.1.4" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8728" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8728#section-2.1.4" derivedContent="RFC8728"/>), operational oversight (<xref section="3.3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8729" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729#section-3.3" derivedContent="RFC8729"/>), policy oversight (<xref section="3.4" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8729" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729#section-3.4" derivedContent="RFC8729"/>), the editing,
processing, and publication of documents (<xref section="4.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8729" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729#section-4.2" derivedContent="RFC8729"/>),
and development and maintenance of guidelines and rules that apply to
the RFC Series (<xref section="4.4" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8729" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729#section-4.4" derivedContent="RFC8729"/>).  Among other things, this
changes the dependency on the RFC Series Editor (RSE) included in
<xref section="2.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8730" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8730#section-2.2" derivedContent="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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="rfc-series-editor" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-9.2">
        <name slugifiedName="name-rfc-series-editor">RFC Series Editor</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-9.2-1">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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="rfc-publisher" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-9.3">
        <name slugifiedName="name-rfc-publisher">RFC Publisher</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-9.3-1">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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="iab" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-9.4">
        <name slugifiedName="name-iab">IAB</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-9.4-1">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
(<xref target="RFC2850" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC2850"/>, as updated by <xref target="RFC9283" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9283"/>).  Under version 2 of the RFC
Editor Model, the IAB delegated some of its authority to the RFC
Series Oversight Committee (see <xref target="rsoc" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="rsoc" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-9.5">
        <name slugifiedName="name-rfc-series-oversight-commit">RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-9.5-1">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, <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/>
dispensed with the RSOC.  References to the RSOC in documents such as
<xref target="RFC8730" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8730"/> are obsolete.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="rfc-series-advisory-group-rsag" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-9.6">
        <name slugifiedName="name-rfc-series-advisory-group-r">RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-9.6-1">Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model <xref target="RFC5620" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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, <xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.)</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="editorial-stream-1" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-9.7">
        <name slugifiedName="name-editorial-stream-2">Editorial Stream</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-9.7-1">This document specifies the Editorial Stream in addition to the streams
already described in <xref target="RFC8729" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8729"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-10">
      <name slugifiedName="name-security-considerations">Security Considerations</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-10-1">The same security considerations as those in <xref target="RFC8729" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="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.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-10-2">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.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-11">
      <name slugifiedName="name-iana-considerations">IANA Considerations</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-11-1">The RPC is responsible for coordinating with the IANA to ensure that
RFCs accurately document registration processes and assigned values
for IANA registries.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-11-2">The IETF LLC facilitates management of the relationship between the
RPC and IANA.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-11-3">This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any
values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references" pn="section-12">
      <name slugifiedName="name-references">References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references" pn="section-12.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-normative-references">Normative References</name>
        <referencegroup anchor="BCP78" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78" derivedAnchor="BCP78">
          <reference anchor="RFC5378" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378" quoteTitle="true">
            <front>
              <title>Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust</title>
              <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Bradner"/>
              <author fullname="J. Contreras" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Contreras"/>
              <date month="November" year="2008"/>
              <abstract>
                <t indent="0">The IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are designed to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to retain as many rights as possible. This memo details the IETF policies on rights in Contributions to the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo obsoletes RFCs 3978 and 4748 and, with BCP 79 and RFC 5377, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="78"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5378"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5378"/>
          </reference>
        </referencegroup>
        <referencegroup anchor="BCP79" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79" derivedAnchor="BCP79">
          <reference anchor="RFC8179" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179" quoteTitle="true">
            <front>
              <title>Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology</title>
              <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
              <author fullname="J. Contreras" initials="J." surname="Contreras"/>
              <date month="May" year="2017"/>
              <abstract>
                <t indent="0">The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as early as possible in the development process. The policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR holders. This document sets out the IETF policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This document updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 5378, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This document also obsoletes RFCs 3979 and 4879.</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="79"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8179"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8179"/>
          </reference>
        </referencegroup>
        <referencegroup anchor="BCP9" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9" derivedAnchor="BCP9">
          <reference anchor="RFC2026" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026" quoteTitle="true">
            <front>
              <title>The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3</title>
              <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
              <date month="October" year="1996"/>
              <abstract>
                <t indent="0">This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of documents used during this process. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="9"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2026"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2026"/>
          </reference>
          <reference anchor="RFC5657" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5657" quoteTitle="true">
            <front>
              <title>Guidance on Interoperation and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft Standard</title>
              <author fullname="L. Dusseault" initials="L." surname="Dusseault"/>
              <author fullname="R. Sparks" initials="R." surname="Sparks"/>
              <date month="September" year="2009"/>
              <abstract>
                <t indent="0">Advancing a protocol to Draft Standard requires documentation of the interoperation and implementation of the protocol. Historic reports have varied widely in form and level of content and there is little guidance available to new report preparers. This document updates the existing processes and provides more detail on what is appropriate in an interoperability and implementation report. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="9"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5657"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5657"/>
          </reference>
          <reference anchor="RFC6410" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410" quoteTitle="true">
            <front>
              <title>Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels</title>
              <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/>
              <author fullname="D. Crocker" initials="D." surname="Crocker"/>
              <author fullname="E. Burger" initials="E." surname="Burger"/>
              <date month="October" year="2011"/>
              <abstract>
                <t indent="0">This document updates the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026. Primarily, it reduces the Standards Process from three Standards Track maturity levels to two. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="9"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6410"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6410"/>
          </reference>
          <reference anchor="RFC7100" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7100" quoteTitle="true">
            <front>
              <title>Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Summary Document</title>
              <author fullname="P. Resnick" initials="P." surname="Resnick"/>
              <date month="December" year="2013"/>
              <abstract>
                <t indent="0">This document updates RFC 2026 to no longer use STD 1 as a summary of "Internet Official Protocol Standards". It obsoletes RFC 5000 and requests the IESG to move RFC 5000 (and therefore STD 1) to Historic status.</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="9"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7100"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7100"/>
          </reference>
          <reference anchor="RFC7127" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7127" quoteTitle="true">
            <front>
              <title>Characterization of Proposed Standards</title>
              <author fullname="O. Kolkman" initials="O." surname="Kolkman"/>
              <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
              <author fullname="S. Turner" initials="S." surname="Turner"/>
              <date month="January" year="2014"/>
              <abstract>
                <t indent="0">RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) on IETF Proposed Standard RFCs and characterizes the maturity level of those documents. This document updates RFC 2026 by providing a current and more accurate characterization of Proposed Standards.</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="9"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7127"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7127"/>
          </reference>
          <reference anchor="RFC7475" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7475" quoteTitle="true">
            <front>
              <title>Increasing the Number of Area Directors in an IETF Area</title>
              <author fullname="S. Dawkins" initials="S." surname="Dawkins"/>
              <date month="March" year="2015"/>
              <abstract>
                <t indent="0">This document removes a limit on the number of Area Directors who manage an Area in the definition of "IETF Area". This document updates RFC 2026 (BCP 9) and RFC 2418 (BCP 25).</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="9"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7475"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7475"/>
          </reference>
          <reference anchor="RFC8789" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8789" quoteTitle="true">
            <front>
              <title>IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus</title>
              <author fullname="J. Halpern" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Halpern"/>
              <author fullname="E. Rescorla" initials="E." role="editor" surname="Rescorla"/>
              <date month="June" year="2020"/>
              <abstract>
                <t indent="0">This document requires that the IETF never publish any IETF Stream RFCs without IETF rough consensus. This updates RFC 2026.</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="9"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8789"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8789"/>
          </reference>
          <reference anchor="RFC9282" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9282" quoteTitle="true">
            <front>
              <title>Responsibility Change for the RFC Series</title>
              <author fullname="B. Rosen" initials="B." surname="Rosen"/>
              <date month="June" year="2022"/>
              <abstract>
                <t indent="0">In RFC 9280, responsibility for the RFC Series moved to the RFC Series Working Group and the RFC Series Approval Board. It is no longer the responsibility of the RFC Editor, and the role of the IAB in the RFC Series is altered. Accordingly, in Section 2.1 of RFC 2026, the sentence "RFC publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the general direction of the IAB" is deleted.</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="9"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9282"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9282"/>
          </reference>
        </referencegroup>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2418" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC2418">
          <front>
            <title>IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="September" year="1998"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This document describes the guidelines and procedures for formation and operation of IETF working groups. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="25"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2418"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2418"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7154" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7154">
          <front>
            <title>IETF Guidelines for Conduct</title>
            <author fullname="S. Moonesamy" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Moonesamy"/>
            <date month="March" year="2014"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This document provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction in the Internet Engineering Task Force. The guidelines recognize the diversity of IETF participants, emphasize the value of mutual respect, and stress the broad applicability of our work.</t>
              <t indent="0">This document is an updated version of the guidelines for conduct originally published in RFC 3184.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="54"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7154"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7154"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7322" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7322">
          <front>
            <title>RFC Style Guide</title>
            <author fullname="H. Flanagan" initials="H." surname="Flanagan"/>
            <author fullname="S. Ginoza" initials="S." surname="Ginoza"/>
            <date month="September" year="2014"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This document describes the fundamental and unique style conventions and editorial policies currently in use for the RFC Series. It captures the RFC Editor's basic requirements and offers guidance regarding the style and structure of an RFC. Additional guidance is captured on a website that reflects the experimental nature of that guidance and prepares it for future inclusion in the RFC Style Guide. This document obsoletes RFC 2223, "Instructions to RFC Authors".</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7322"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7322"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7776" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7776">
          <front>
            <title>IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures</title>
            <author fullname="P. Resnick" initials="P." surname="Resnick"/>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <date month="March" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">IETF Participants must not engage in harassment while at IETF meetings, virtual meetings, or social events or while participating in mailing lists. This document lays out procedures for managing and enforcing this policy.</t>
              <t indent="0">This document updates RFC 2418 by defining new working group guidelines and procedures. This document updates RFC 7437 by allowing the Ombudsteam to form a recall petition without further signatories.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="25"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7776"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7776"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7841" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7841" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7841">
          <front>
            <title>RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates</title>
            <author fullname="J. Halpern" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Halpern"/>
            <author fullname="L. Daigle" initials="L." role="editor" surname="Daigle"/>
            <author fullname="O. Kolkman" initials="O." role="editor" surname="Kolkman"/>
            <date month="May" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title page header, standard boilerplates, and copyright/IPR statements. This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source of RFC creation and review. This document obsoletes RFC 5741, moving detailed content to an IAB web page and preparing for more flexible output formats.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7841"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7841"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7991" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7991">
          <front>
            <title>The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary</title>
            <author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
            <date month="December" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This document defines the "xml2rfc" version 3 vocabulary: an XML-based language used for writing RFCs and Internet-Drafts. It is heavily derived from the version 2 vocabulary that is also under discussion. This document obsoletes the v2 grammar described in RFC 7749.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7991"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7991"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7992" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7992" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7992">
          <front>
            <title>HTML Format for RFCs</title>
            <author fullname="J. Hildebrand" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Hildebrand"/>
            <author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
            <date month="December" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">In order to meet the evolving needs of the Internet community, the canonical format for RFCs is changing from a plain-text, ASCII-only format to an XML format that will, in turn, be rendered into several publication formats. This document defines the HTML format that will be rendered for an RFC or Internet-Draft.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7992"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7992"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7993" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7993" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7993">
          <front>
            <title>Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Requirements for RFCs</title>
            <author fullname="H. Flanagan" initials="H." surname="Flanagan"/>
            <date month="December" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">The HTML format for RFCs assigns style guidance to a Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) specifically defined for the RFC Series. The embedded, default CSS as included by the RFC Editor is expected to take into account accessibility needs and to be built along a responsive design model. This document describes the requirements for the default CSS used by the RFC Editor. The class names are based on the classes defined in "HTML for RFCs" (RFC 7992).</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7993"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7993"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7994" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7994" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7994">
          <front>
            <title>Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs</title>
            <author fullname="H. Flanagan" initials="H." surname="Flanagan"/>
            <date month="December" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">In 2013, after a great deal of community discussion, the decision was made to shift from the plain-text, ASCII-only canonical format for RFCs to XML as the canonical format with more human-readable formats rendered from that XML. The high-level requirements that informed this change were defined in RFC 6949, "RFC Series Format Requirements and Future Development". Plain text remains an important format for many in the IETF community, and it will be one of the publication formats rendered from the XML. This document outlines the rendering requirements for the plain-text RFC publication format. These requirements do not apply to plain-text RFCs published before the format transition.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7994"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7994"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7995" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7995" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7995">
          <front>
            <title>PDF Format for RFCs</title>
            <author fullname="T. Hansen" initials="T." role="editor" surname="Hansen"/>
            <author fullname="L. Masinter" initials="L." surname="Masinter"/>
            <author fullname="M. Hardy" initials="M." surname="Hardy"/>
            <date month="December" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This document discusses options and requirements for the PDF rendering of RFCs in the RFC Series, as outlined in RFC 6949. It also discusses the use of PDF for Internet-Drafts, and available or needed software tools for producing and working with PDF.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7995"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7995"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7996" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7996" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7996">
          <front>
            <title>SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC</title>
            <author fullname="N. Brownlee" initials="N." surname="Brownlee"/>
            <date month="December" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This document specifies SVG 1.2 RFC -- an SVG profile for use in diagrams that may appear in RFCs -- and considers some of the issues concerning the creation and use of such diagrams.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7996"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7996"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7997" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7997" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7997">
          <front>
            <title>The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs</title>
            <author fullname="H. Flanagan" initials="H." role="editor" surname="Flanagan"/>
            <date month="December" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">In order to support the internationalization of protocols and a more diverse Internet community, the RFC Series must evolve to allow for the use of non-ASCII characters in RFCs. While English remains the required language of the Series, the encoding of future RFCs will be in UTF-8, allowing for a broader range of characters than typically used in the English language. This document describes the RFC Editor requirements and gives guidance regarding the use of non-ASCII characters in RFCs.</t>
              <t indent="0">This document updates RFC 7322. Please view this document in PDF form to see the full text.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7997"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7997"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8711" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8711">
          <front>
            <title>Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0</title>
            <author fullname="B. Haberman" initials="B." surname="Haberman"/>
            <author fullname="J. Hall" initials="J." surname="Hall"/>
            <author fullname="J. Livingood" initials="J." surname="Livingood"/>
            <date month="February" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) was originally established in 2005. In the years since then, the needs of the IETF evolved in ways that required changes to its administrative structure. The purpose of this RFC is to document and describe the IETF Administrative Support Activity, version 2.0 (IASA 2.0). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administration LLC Board (IETF LLC Board), the IETF Executive Director, and the Internet Society in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IETF LLC Board.</t>
              <t indent="0">This document obsoletes RFC 4071, RFC 4333, and RFC 7691.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="101"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8711"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8711"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8716" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8716">
          <front>
            <title>Update to the IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF Administration LLC</title>
            <author fullname="P. Resnick" initials="P." surname="Resnick"/>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <date month="February" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">The IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures are described in RFC 7776.</t>
              <t indent="0">The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has been replaced by the IETF Administration LLC, and the IETF Administrative Director has been replaced by the IETF LLC Executive Director. This document updates RFC 7776 to amend these terms.</t>
              <t indent="0">RFC 7776 contained updates to RFC 7437. RFC 8713 has incorporated those updates, so this document also updates RFC 7776 to remove those updates.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="25"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8716"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8716"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8729" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8729">
          <front>
            <title>The RFC Series and RFC Editor</title>
            <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Housley"/>
            <author fullname="L. Daigle" initials="L." role="editor" surname="Daigle"/>
            <date month="February" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This document describes the framework for an RFC Series and an RFC Editor function that incorporate the principles of organized community involvement and accountability that has become necessary as the Internet technical community has grown, thereby enabling the RFC Series to continue to fulfill its mandate. This document obsoletes RFC 4844.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8729"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8729"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8730" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8730" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8730">
          <front>
            <title>Independent Submission Editor Model</title>
            <author fullname="N. Brownlee" initials="N." role="editor" surname="Brownlee"/>
            <author fullname="R. Hinden" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Hinden"/>
            <date month="February" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This document describes the function and responsibilities of the RFC Independent Submission Editor (ISE). The Independent Submission stream is one of the stream producers that create draft RFCs, with the ISE as its stream approver. The ISE is overall responsible for activities within the Independent Submission stream, working with draft editors and reviewers, and interacts with the RFC Production Center and Publisher, and the RFC Series Editor (RSE). The ISE is appointed by the IAB, and also interacts with the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (LLC).</t>
              <t indent="0">This version obsoletes RFC 6548 to replace all references to the Internet Administrative Support Activity (IASA) and related structures with those defined by the IASA 2.0 structure.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8730"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8730"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9280" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9280" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC9280">
          <front>
            <title>RFC Editor Model (Version 3)</title>
            <author fullname="P. Saint-Andre" initials="P." role="editor" surname="Saint-Andre"/>
            <date month="June" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">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 establishes the Editorial Stream for publication of future policy definition documents produced through the processes defined herein.</t>
              <t indent="0">This document obsoletes RFC 8728. This document updates RFCs 7841, 8729, and 8730.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9280"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9280"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9720" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9720" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC9720">
          <front>
            <title>RFC Formats and Versions</title>
            <author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
            <author fullname="H. Flanagan" initials="H." surname="Flanagan"/>
            <date month="January" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">In order to improve the readability of RFCs while supporting their archivability, the definitive version of the RFC Series transitioned from plain-text ASCII to XML using the RFCXML vocabulary; different publication versions are rendered from that base document. This document describes how RFCs are published.</t>
              <t indent="0">This document obsoletes RFC 7990. This document also updates the stability policy in RFC 9280.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9720"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9720"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references" pn="section-12.2">
        <name slugifiedName="name-informative-references">Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC2850" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC2850">
          <front>
            <title>Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)</title>
            <author>
              <organization abbrev="IAB" showOnFrontPage="true">Internet Architecture Board</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="B. Carpenter" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Carpenter"/>
            <date month="May" year="2000"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This memo documents the composition, selection, roles, and organization of the Internet Architecture Board. It replaces RFC 1601. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="39"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2850"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2850"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC3935" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC3935">
          <front>
            <title>A Mission Statement for the IETF</title>
            <author fullname="H. Alvestrand" initials="H." surname="Alvestrand"/>
            <date month="October" year="2004"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This memo gives a mission statement for the IETF, tries to define the terms used in the statement sufficiently to make the mission statement understandable and useful, argues why the IETF needs a mission statement, and tries to capture some of the debate that led to this point. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="95"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3935"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3935"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5620" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5620" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC5620">
          <front>
            <title>RFC Editor Model (Version 1)</title>
            <author fullname="O. Kolkman" initials="O." role="editor" surname="Kolkman"/>
            <author>
              <organization abbrev="IAB" showOnFrontPage="true">Internet Architecture Board</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="August" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out by various persons or entities. The RFC Editor model presented in this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into four functions: The RFC Series Editor, the Independent Submission Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. It also introduces the RFC Series Advisory Group and an (optional) Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board. The model outlined here is intended to increase flexibility and operational support options, provide for the orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of the RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality and timely processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost transparency. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5620"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5620"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6635" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC6635">
          <front>
            <title>RFC Editor Model (Version 2)</title>
            <author fullname="O. Kolkman" initials="O." role="editor" surname="Kolkman"/>
            <author fullname="J. Halpern" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Halpern"/>
            <author>
              <organization abbrev="IAB" showOnFrontPage="true">Internet Architecture Board</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="June" year="2012"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">The RFC Editor model described in this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into three functions: the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight via the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship between the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC. This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", documented in RFC 5620, and obsoletes that document. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6635"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6635"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8700" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8700" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8700">
          <front>
            <title>Fifty Years of RFCs</title>
            <author fullname="H. Flanagan" initials="H." role="editor" surname="Flanagan"/>
            <date month="December" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This RFC marks the fiftieth anniversary for the RFC Series. It includes both retrospective material from individuals involved at key inflection points as well as a review of the current state of affairs. It concludes with thoughts on possibilities for the next fifty years for the Series. This document updates the perspectives offered in RFCs 2555 and 5540.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8700"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8700"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8728" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8728" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8728">
          <front>
            <title>RFC Editor Model (Version 2)</title>
            <author fullname="O. Kolkman" initials="O." role="editor" surname="Kolkman"/>
            <author fullname="J. Halpern" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Halpern"/>
            <author fullname="R. Hinden" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Hinden"/>
            <date month="February" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">The RFC Editor model described in this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into three functions: the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight via the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship between the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company and the RSOC. This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", documented in RFC 5620; and obsoletes RFC 6635 to replace all references to the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) and related structures with those defined by the IASA 2.0 Model.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8728"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8728"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8874" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8874" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8874">
          <front>
            <title>Working Group GitHub Usage Guidance</title>
            <author fullname="M. Thomson" initials="M." surname="Thomson"/>
            <author fullname="B. Stark" initials="B." surname="Stark"/>
            <date month="August" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This document provides a set of guidelines for working groups that choose to use GitHub for their work.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8874"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8874"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9283" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9283" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC9283">
          <front>
            <title>IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor Model</title>
            <author fullname="B. Carpenter" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Carpenter"/>
            <date month="June" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This document updates the IAB Charter (RFC 2850) to be consistent with version 3 of the RFC Editor Model (RFC 9280).</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="39"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9283"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9283"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9896" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9896" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC9896">
          <front>
            <title>SVG in RFCs</title>
            <author fullname="A. Rossi" initials="A." surname="Rossi"/>
            <author fullname="N. Brownlee" initials="N." surname="Brownlee"/>
            <author fullname="J. Mahoney" initials="J." surname="Mahoney"/>
            <author fullname="M. Thomson" initials="M." surname="Thomson"/>
            <date month="January" year="2026"/>
            <abstract>
              <t indent="0">This document defines policy for the inclusion of Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) in the definitive versions of RFCs and relevant publication formats. It contains policy requirements from RFC 7996 but removes all requirements related to using a specific SVG profile or implementation code. It also makes the RFC Production Center (RPC) responsible for decisions about SVG tooling and implementation.</t>
              <t indent="0">This document obsoletes RFC 7996.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9896"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9896"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="STYLEGUIDE" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="STYLEGUIDE">
          <front>
            <title>Style Guide</title>
            <author>
              <organization showOnFrontPage="true">RFC Editor</organization>
            </author>
            <date/>
          </front>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-appendix.a">
      <name slugifiedName="name-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a-1">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 <xref target="changes-to-9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 1.1"/>.
The authors are indebted to them for their contributions.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a-2"><xref target="RFC9280" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9280"/> was authored by <contact fullname="Peter Saint-Andre"/>.
It had additional, extensive acknowledgments.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="authors-addresses" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-appendix.b">
      <name slugifiedName="name-authors-addresses">Authors' Addresses</name>
      <author initials="P." surname="Hoffman" fullname="Paul Hoffman">
        <organization showOnFrontPage="true">ICANN</organization>
        <address>
          <email>paul.hoffman@icann.org</email>
        </address>
      </author>
      <author initials="A." surname="Rossi" fullname="Alexis Rossi">
        <organization showOnFrontPage="true">RFC Series Consulting Editor</organization>
        <address>
          <email>rsce@rfc-editor.org</email>
        </address>
      </author>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
