6. Editorial Stream

This section preserves the RFC text for the RFC Editor Model, including RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RSCE, IETF LLC, Editorial Stream, appeals, policy implementation, and historical RFC Series properties.

Original RFC Text

6.  Editorial Stream

   This document creates the Editorial Stream as a separate space for
   publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related
   information regarding the RFC Series as a whole.

   The Editorial Stream shall be used only to specify and update
   policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related information
   regarding the RFC Series as a whole; no other use of the Editorial
   Stream is authorized by this memo, and no other streams are so
   authorized.  This policy may be changed only by agreement of the IAB,
   IESG, and IETF LLC.

   All documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB shall be
   published as RFCs in the Editorial Stream with a status of
   Informational.  (Note that the Editorial Stream is not authorized to
   publish RFCs that are Standards Track or Best Current Practice, since
   such RFCs are reserved for the IETF Stream [RFC8729].)
   Notwithstanding the status of Informational, it should be understood
   that documents published in the Editorial Stream define policies for
   the RFC Series as a whole.

   The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams
   are outside the scope of this document.

6.1.  Procedures Request of the IETF Trust

   In [RFC9280], the IAB requested that the IETF Trust and its Trustees
   assist in meeting the goals and procedures set forth in this
   document.

   The Trustees were requested to publicly confirm their willingness and
   ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights
   (IPR) for the Editorial Stream.

   Specifically, the Trustees were asked to develop the necessary
   boilerplate to enable the suitable marking of documents so that the
   IETF Trust receives the rights as specified in [BCP78].  These
   procedures needed to also allow authors to indicate either no rights
   to make derivative works or, preferentially, the right to make
   unlimited derivative works from the documents.  It is left to the
   Trust to specify exactly how this shall be clearly indicated in each
   document.

6.2.  Patent and Trademark Rules for the Editorial Stream

   As specified above, contributors of documents for the Editorial
   Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process, complying
   therein with the rules specified in [BCP9].  This includes the
   disclosure of patent and trademark issues that are known, or can be
   reasonably expected to be known, to the contributor.

   Disclosure of license terms for patents is also requested, as
   specified in [BCP79].  The Editorial Stream has chosen to use the
   IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/
   about/) for this purpose.  It is preferred that the most liberal
   terms possible be made available for Editorial Stream documents.
   Terms that do not require fees or licensing are preferable.  Non-
   discriminatory terms are strongly preferred over those that
   discriminate among users.  However, although disclosure is required
   and the RSWG and the RSAB may consider disclosures and terms in
   making a decision as to whether to submit a document for publication,
   there are no specific requirements on the licensing terms for
   intellectual property related to Editorial Stream publication.

6.3.  Editorial Stream Boilerplate

   This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This
   Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream.  Any changes
   to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy
   Definition Process specified in Section 3 of this document.

   Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the
   first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
   specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].

   The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
   follows:

   |  This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition
   |  Process.  It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working
   |  Group approved by the RFC Series Approval Board.  Such documents
   |  are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see
   |  Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as
   specified in Section 3.5 of [RFC7841].