Independent Submission Board Model

1.1. Motivation and Background

The model of a single ISE makes the Independent Submission stream unique amongst RFC streams in having a single person responsible for approvals of documents within an RFC stream. While the ISE can be supported by an Editorial Board for the purpose of advice and reviews, the ISE is directly responsible for the processing and approvals of all documents.¶

Additionally, the scope of documents for the Independent Submission stream is quite open-ended, and the potential community of interested parties is very large (including the IETF community and other communities and parties outside the IETF community).¶

The ISE model does not define a visible process or record for how decisions are made. When a single individual is responsible to an open-ended community for arbitrating decisions of what should be published, inevitably there are members of the community who will disagree with the decisions. In all other RFC streams, there are consensus-based processes that ensure that no single individual is entrusted with the decisions for publication. Placing this requirement on an individual is a burden to that individual as well as a potential source of conflict for the community.¶

The structure of the ISB is intended to make it easier to find and appoint willing volunteers who can share responsibilities and establish a process of consensus. By sharing the work of shepherding documents on the Independent Submission stream, each member of the ISB will have lesser responsibilities (time commitments, etc.) as compared to a single ISE.¶

Additionally, having an ISB composed of multiple members with staggered terms allows for more continuity when appointees step down. This improves both sharing of institutional knowledge and smooth processing of documents on the stream.¶

The ISB approves documents with a public, ballot-based record. This provides transparency to the interested communities (both the IETF community and the broader community of contributors to the Independent Submission stream) about document processing and approval rationale. The decision to approve or not also does not depend on a single individual.¶

The appointment structure and conflict review process for the ISB intentionally involves both the IESG and the IAB. The ISE model involved an appointment of an individual by the IAB, but documents go through conflict review only with the IESG [RFC5742].¶

RFCs published on the Independent Submission stream can be broadly grouped into:¶

• technical specifications that define protocols, register codepoints, etc., which could potentially overlap with IETF work; and¶

• broader informational documents that express opinions, architectural commentary, humor, etc., which could potentially overlap with either IETF or IAB work.¶

ISB members are appointed by both the IESG and IAB, and the ISB requests conflict reviews from the IESG, as well as the IAB when appropriate. This shares responsibility for review of the Independent Submission stream more broadly. This is not intended to reduce the independence of the stream in any way, but instead improve communication and awareness across the streams where potential overlaps might exist.¶

2.1. Qualifications of Appointees

Appointees to the ISB are expected to have the following qualifications:¶

1. Technical competence, i.e., broad technical experience and perspective across a wide range of Internet technologies and applications, and also the ability to work effectively with portions of that spectrum in which they have no personal expertise.¶

2. Thorough familiarity with the RFC series.¶

3. An ability to define and constitute advisory and document review arrangements.¶

4. Good standing in the technical community, in and beyond the IETF.¶

5. Demonstrated editorial skills, good command of the English language, and demonstrated history of being able to work effectively with technical documents and materials created by others.¶

6. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment with divided authority and responsibility similar to that described in [RFC6635].¶

2.2. Responsibilities

Members of the ISB share the following responsibilities:¶

• Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission stream.¶

• Reviewing, approving, and processing Independent Submissions. For each document on the stream, the ISB selects one of its members as the responsible ISB member to shepherd the document. The responsible ISB member solicits reviews and helps coordinate conflict reviews.¶

• Requesting conflict reviews from the IESG and IAB. All Independent Submission documents need to run conflict reviews with the IESG, as described in [RFC5742]. For all documents that the ISB determines to be relevant, it should also request conflict reviews from the IAB.¶

• Approving documents for publication on the Independent Submission stream. Approval is handled similarly to IESG and IRSG balloting on documents, where each ISB member indicates approval, no objection, or an abstain/discuss opinion. In order to be approved, documents require at least three approvals or no objection opinions (one of which must be an approval) and no more than one abstain/discuss opinion. Ballots and associated comments are publicly available.¶

• Forwarding approved draft RFCs in the Independent Submission stream to the RFC Production Center.¶

• Selecting the RSAB representative [RFC9920] for the Independent Submission stream, which will likely be an ISB member, but can also be another appointee.¶

• Reviewing and approving RFC errata for Independent Submissions.¶

• Coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies as specified by the IAB and RSE.¶

• Providing statistics and documentation as requested by the RSE and/or LLC.¶

The ISB sets it own schedule for meetings and teleconferences, used to discuss, process, and approve documents on the stream.¶

2.3. Appointments and Terms

Of the four ISB members, two are appointed by the IAB, and two are appointed by the IESG. The appointing bodies are expected to appoint members based on the qualifications listed above, after calling for community input.¶

Each appointment has a three-year term, which can be renewed up to a total of three consecutive terms. Terms are staggered such that no more than two appointments renew in the same year.¶

For the creation of the ISB, the lengths of the initial appointments will be set up to start staggered renewal. Specifically, there will be a one-year term appointed by the IAB, a two-year term appointed by the IESG, a three-year term appointed by the IAB, and a three-year term appointed by the IESG.¶

5.1. Normative References

[RFC5742]

Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5742>.

[RFC6635]

Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6635>.

[RFC8728]

Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed., "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728, DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8728>.

[RFC9920]

Hoffman, P. and A. Rossi, "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)", RFC 9920, DOI 10.17487/RFC9920, February 2026, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9920>.

5.2. Informative References

[RFC8730]

Brownlee, N., Ed. and R. Hinden, Ed., "Independent Submission Editor Model", RFC 8730, DOI 10.17487/RFC8730, February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8730>.