The Independent Submission Stream allows RFC publication for some documents that are outside the official processes of the IETF, IAB, and IRTF but are relevant to the Internet community and achieve reasonable levels of technical and editorial quality. RFC 8730, “Independent Submission Editor Model”, as updated by RFC 9280, describes the roles of
The Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) is currently Eliot Lear, who can be reached at rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org.
SubmissionTo be considered for publishing as an RFC, a document must first be posted online as an Internet-Draft. (The exception is a document that is submitted for consideration as an April 1st RFC.) See I-D Author Resources for guidance on posting an Internet-Draft.
After posting the document as an Internet-Draft, the author should send an email message to the ISE: rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org. This message should include the following information:
The ISE uses the IETF Datatracker through all stages of Independent Submission Stream document handling. The Datatracker page for a given draft shows its ISE state. RFC 6322 provides descriptions of these states. In addition, a complete list showing the ISE state for all documents in the Independent Submission Stream is available here.
The procedures and requirements for handling rights (including copyright and IPR) in the Independent Submission Stream are documented in RFC 5744.
Document ReviewsThe ISE may make general and/or specific suggestions to the author(s) about improvements in the editorial quality of the document or violations of the format and content rules. As with other streams in the RFC Series, documents in the Independent Submission Stream should follow the NIST guidance for the use of inclusive language. The author(s) will be expected to make the suggested updates, submit a new version, and inform the ISE.
Each independent submission will receive at least one review, under the reviewer guidelines. Reviewers may be members of the Independent Submissions Editorial Board (ISEB) or some person known to the ISE or the ISEB to be competent in the subject of the document. Results of the review(s), including editorial and content problems, will be returned to the document author(s) and perhaps shared with the ISEB.
An independent submission that contains material outside the (rather broad) scope of the RFC Series (for example, it must be somehow related to the Internet) or that contains excessively bad writing will be rejected. The ISE generally applies a liberal standard if a document is at all relevant and interesting to some potential readers. In most cases, the ISE will request that the author(s) revise and resubmit their document.
General rules for independent submissions are found in RFC 4846. The details of the review procedures in that document are approximately defined by the state diagram and a detailed explanation of states for the pre-publication review process.
IESG Process ReviewAs a document progresses through the independent submission process, the IESG will consider whether it conflicts with the IETF standards process; see RFC 5742 for details. The IESG makes a recommendation to the ISE.
Documents submitted independently are sometimes remanded to an IETF working group that is already working on the same subject; in these cases, the author will be asked to work within the IETF to develop the document, and it will be removed from the Independent Submission Stream.
The IESG may recommend that the document not be published or that publication be delayed (RFC 5742). In these cases, the ISE will weigh carefully the IESG’s recommendation against other considerations and make a final decision.
Conflict of Interest PolicyFrom time to time, the Independent Submissions Editor may have a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest, with regard to a particular draft. This can occur for a number of reasons, including when submissions are received from people who are employed by the ISE’s employer or its competitors. Such relationships in and of themselves may not lead to variance in the editorial process, but they must be disclosed.
When the ISE believes that there may be a conflict of interest, or if authors or others believe that there is a conflict of interest, the matter will be referred to the Independent Submissions Editorial Board. They will advise the ISE as to what should happen at the various stages of the publication process. The ISE will inform the community and authors of such conflicts, and any actions to be taken as a result.
An Overview of Publishing RFCs via the Independent Submissions Process IntroductionNot all RFCs are published through the IETF. Some are published as independent submissions. These documents do not require, nor do they carry, community consensus, and they are not standards or best practices.
The Independent Stream covers a number of classes of submissions, including discussions of technologies, options, or experience with protocols; humor; documentation of vendor-specific protocols; introduction of new ideas that may not yet be ripe for standardization; critiques of the IETF process; and a few other areas.
The current independent submissions editor looks at a document through the lens of three questions:
Not every submission needs to hit all three points.
Documents must be well written, understandable, and appropriate for the readership of the RFC series. They must adhere to any IANA rules for code point allocation, and in general may not create new IANA registries. Internal implementation descriptions are generally not accepted, nor are foundational formats upon which standards are expected to be built.
If a document is not appropriate as an independent submission, the Independent Submissions Editor will attempt to assist the authors to find a more appropriate home. That could be the IETF, the IRTF, some other standards organization, a blog, or an academic publication. The criteria to be applied is simple: what would best serve the community?
An independent RFC should generally provide an open license to implement and deploy some or all of the technology described in the document; text from that document is available to be reused for any purpose.
Everything begins with an Internet-Draft. You can use the same tooling that is used by the IETF to create and publish it onto the Datatracker. See authors.ietf.org for more information about authoring tools.
The rest of the process is summarized as follows:
It’s important to note that many drafts do not make it past Step 4, and that every step after submission may be iterated or repeated. For instance, if external review indicates that substantial amounts of work are needed, authors are expected to improve the document in discussions with reviewers and the Independent Submissions Editor.
Information about the current state of an independent submission can be found on the Datatracker page for that draft.
Note that a document can sometimes appear to go “backwards” in the process. This is not unusual, indicating that either additional reviews require more work on someone’s part.
The Independent Submissions Editor is responsible for making decisions about each submission, in accordance with the guidance set forth in RFC 4846. The Independent Submissions Editor is appointed by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and serves at their pleasure. Anyone may send comments to the IAB about the Independent Submissions Editor.
The Independent Submissions Editor is ably assisted by the Independent Submissions Editorial Board, who also sometimes perform document reviews.
The Independent Submissions Editor seeks review of the work through individuals who are knowledgeable about the topic discussed in the draft. Authors are encouraged to submit suggestions, but some reviews will be conducted outside of that list. In addition, anyone is welcome to comment on a draft that is being considered by the Independent Submissions Editor.
Unless they have been submitted anonymously, reviews will be found on the Datatracker page associated with your draft.
In general, submissions should not conflict with IETF work or established best practices. RFC 5742 provides the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) the opportunity to comment about whether this is the case. Most of the time a document will not get to the stage of the IESG even being consulted if such a conflict is likely. If the IESG determines that there is a conflict of some form, the ISE will attempt to work with authors and the IESG to resolve it satisfactorily.
The Independent Submissions Editor takes into account the preponderance of reviews, as well as the IESG’s input, in making a publication determination as to whether the document can be published. If it cannot, in some cases, this may be rectified with additional work by the authors. In other cases, the publication decision is final.
The Independent Submissions Editor reserves the right to not publish any work up until the point that it has been released as an RFC.
Authors may seek further review of their work, either by the Independent Submissions Editor or by the IAB, who may choose to review a document or not. If it does, then the IAB will advise the Independent Submissions Editor as to their views. In all cases, the Independent Submissions Editor makes the final decision.
No. RFCs are all but immutable. However, anyone may submit an erratum about any RFC, and those that are accepted will be noted on the RFC Editor web page.
We are happy to answer any questions you might have. Contact us here.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4