People usually think of RFCs as being the output of the IETF, and the IETF is the biggest contributor by far. Roughly half of the IETF's RFCs are standards or on what's called the "standards track" (most Internet standards are formally at the "Proposed Standard" rather than "Standard" level). The remainder have some other status such as "Informational".
However, there are also other entities that publish into the RFC Series, including the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). In addition, there is what's called the Independent Stream, in which an appointed editor just determines what documents can be published. Importantly, this last category hasn't gone through the IETF consensus process: they're just something someone wanted to publish as an RFC and the Independent Series Editor agreed. GNU Name System falls into this category.
This is correct.
I would like to add that the ISE also had us engage with a variety of stakeholders within the IETF (dnsop, for example, as part of discussions on RFC 9476) and also expected some third party reviews.
People usually think of RFCs as being the output of the IETF, and the IETF is the biggest contributor by far. Roughly half of the IETF's RFCs are standards or on what's called the "standards track" (most Internet standards are formally at the "Proposed Standard" rather than "Standard" level). The remainder have some other status such as "Informational".
However, there are also other entities that publish into the RFC Series, including the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). In addition, there is what's called the Independent Stream, in which an appointed editor just determines what documents can be published. Importantly, this last category hasn't gone through the IETF consensus process: they're just something someone wanted to publish as an RFC and the Independent Series Editor agreed. GNU Name System falls into this category.