[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-ietf-proto-iab-irtf-tracker-ext) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 RFC 6322

Network Working Group                                         P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft                                            VPN Consortium
Intended status: Informational                             June 23, 2010
Expires: December 25, 2010


 Data Tracker States and Annotations for the IAB, IRTF, and Independent
                           Submission Streams
                  draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker-01

Abstract

   This document describes extending the IETF Data Tracker to capture
   and display the progression of Internet Drafts that are intended to
   be published as RFCs by the IAB, IRTF, or Independent Submissions
   Editor.  The states and annotations that are to be added to the data
   tracker will be applied to a draft as soon as any of these streams
   identify the draft as a potential eventual RFC, and will continue
   through the lifetime of the draft.  The goal of adding this
   information to the Data Tracker is to give the community more
   information about the status of these drafts and the status of the
   streams themselves.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 25, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.


1.  Introduction

   As described in Section 5 of [RFC4844], there are currently four
   streams that feed into the RFC publication process: the IETF document
   stream, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) document stream, the
   Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) document stream, and the
   Independent Submissions Editor (ISE).  Each of these streams consist
   of Internet Drafts (often abbreviated "I-Ds") that have been
   identified by an organization or role as being part of their stream.
   Each stream maintainer progresses documents towards RFC publication
   in its own fashion.

   In recent years, there has been a desire by IETF participants and
   others to see more of the process used by each stream.  For example,
   some people want to know how close the IAB is finishing a particular
   document; IETF participants might want to know the progress of IRTF
   research documents that are in areas that are similar to their
   engineering work; people who have asked for the ISE to publish their
   document want to track its progress.  If the IETF Data Tracker
   ("tracker") has more information about each stream's states, this
   information is much more easily accessible.

   This document describes the additional tracker states which are
   specific to each of the IAB, the IRTF, and the ISE document flows.  A
   document might also have one or more annotations assigned as well.
   Because each stream is controlled by a different organization, this
   document separates out the proposed states and annotations for each
   stream, and associates specific semantics stream-by-stream.

   Annotations may be applied at any time to a document that is intended
   for the particular stream.  A document may have more than one
   annotation applied to it.  It is likely that the comments for these
   annotations will supply valuable information about the annotation.

   This document does not describe which person in each stream might be
   able to edit these states and annotations; it is assumed that this is
   a simple enough task that it can be negotiated between each stream
   administrator and whomever administers the tracker.  Also, this
   document assumes that whomever is making the edits to the state and
   annotations can enter comments that will be publicly visible.

   Note that this document does not discuss documents in the IETF
   stream.  The states and permissions for IETF stream documents that
   have been requested for publication are already implemented in the
   tracker.  A separate set of documents, [WGSTATES] and
   [WGREQUIREMENTS], describe the tracker states and associated
   permissions proposed for documents in the IETF stream that have been
   adopted, or are being considered for adoption, but IETF Working
   Groups.


2.  IAB Stream

   This section describes the desired states and annotations for the IAB
   stream.

2.1.  States for the IAB Stream

   o  Proposed IAB Document -- This document is by an IAB member who
      wants the IAB to consider it for the IAB stream.

   o  Accepted IAB Document -- This document has been adopted by the IAB
      and is being actively developed.

   o  Parked IAB Document -- This document has lost its author or
      editor, is waiting for another document to be written, or cannot
      currently be worked on by the IAB for some other reason.
      Annotations probably explain why this document is parked.

   o  IAB Review -- This document is awaiting the IAB itself to come to
      internal consensus.

   o  Community Review -- This document has completed internal consensus
      within the IAB and is now under community review.  (The IAB
      normally allows community input during earlier stages of the
      process.)

   o  Approved by IAB, To Be Sent to RFC Editor -- The consideration of
      this document is complete, but it has not yet been sent to the RFC
      Editor for publication (although that is going to happen soon).

   o  Sent to a Different Organization for Publication -- The IAB does
      not expect to publish the document itself, but has passed it on to
      a different organization that might continue work on the document.
      The expectation is that other organization will publish the
      eventual document.

   o  Sent to the RFC Editor -- The IAB processing of this document is
      complete and it has been sent to the RFC Editor for publication.
      The document may be in the RFC Editor's queue, or it may have been
      published as an RFC; this state doesn't distinguish between
      different states occurring after the document has left the IAB.

   o  Dead IAB Document -- This document was an active IAB document, but
      for some reason it is no longer being pursued for the IAB stream.
      It is possible that the document might be revived later.

2.2.  Annotations for the IAB Stream

   o  Editor Needed -- The document has lost its editor but it still
      intended to be part of the IAB stream.

   o  Waiting for Dependency on Other Document -- Activity on this
      document is expected to be low or non-existent while waiting for
      another document (probably listed in the comments) progresses.

   o  Waiting for Partner Feedback -- The IAB often produces documents
      that need socializing with outside organisations (such as the
      IEEE) or other internal organisations (such as the IESG or the
      IAOC).  This document has been sent out for feedback from one of
      these partner groups.

   o  Awaiting Reviews -- Activity on this document is expected to be
      low or non-existent while waiting for reviews that were solicited
      by the IAB.

   o  Revised Draft Needed -- Comments that will cause changes have been
      submitted, and no processing is expected until a new draft is
      issued.

   o  Document Shepherd Followup-- [[ NOT SURE; ADOPTED FROM EARLIER
      WORDING]]


3.  IRTF Stream

   This section describes the desired states and annotations for the
   IRTF stream.  Some of the steps take place in IRTF Research Groups
   (RGs), while others take place in the Internet Research Steering
   Group (IRSG).

3.1.  States for the IRTF Stream

   o  Candidate RG Document -- This document is under consideration in
      an RG for becoming a IRTF document.  A document being in this
      state does not imply any RG consensus, and does not imply any
      precedence or selection.  It's simply a way to indicate that
      somebody has asked for a document to be considered for adoption by
      an RG.

   o  Active RG Document -- This document has been adopted by an RG, and
      is being actively developed.

   o  Parked RG Document -- This document has lost its author or editor,
      is waiting for another document to be written, or cannot currently
      be worked on by the RG which adopted it for some other reason.

   o  In RG Last Call -- The document is in its final review in the RG.

   o  Waiting for Document Shepherd Write-up -- IRTF documents have
      document shepherds who help RG documents through the process after
      the RG has finished with the document.  The document's shepherd
      write-up is being prepared.

   o  Awaiting IRSG Reviews -- The document shepherd has taken the
      document to the IRSG and solicited reviews from one or more IRSG
      members.

   o  In IRSG Poll -- The IRSG is taking a poll on whether or not the
      document is ready to be published.

   o  In IESG Review -- The IRSG has asked the IESG to do an review of
      the document, as described in [RFC5742].

   o  Submitted IRTF Document The document has been submitted for
      publication (and not returned to the IRTF for further action).
      The document may be in the RFC Editor's queue, or it may have been
      published as an RFC; this state doesn't distinguish between
      different states occurring after the document has left the IRTF.

3.2.  Annotations for the IRTF Stream

   o  Editor Needed -- The document has lost its editor but it still
      intended to be the output of an RG.

   o  Waiting for Dependency on Other Document -- Activity on this
      document is expected to be low or non-existent while waiting for
      another document (probably listed in the comments) progresses.

   o  Revised Draft Needed -- Discussion has ensued that is expected to
      cause changes, and no progress is expected until a new draft is
      issued.

3.3.  Access Control for IRTF States and Annotations

   An RG Chair needs to be able to set the states and annotations for an
   IRTF document before the RG has sent the document to the IRSG for
   review.  The RG Chair also needs to be able to give the same ability
   to a shepherd that is assigned by the RG chair.  This access control
   is similar to the access control that is specified in
   [WGREQUIREMENTS] for IETF WG chairs and their document shepherds.

   It is expected that RG chairs will usually only set state and
   annotation status for IRTF stream documents before they have gone to
   the IRSG for review ("Candidate RG Document", "Active RG Document",
   "Parked RG Document", "In RG Last Call", "Waiting for Document
   Shepherd Write-up" and "Awaiting IRSG Reviews").  However, they
   should be able to set the state and annotations for a draft at any
   time before it has been sent to the RFC Editor.  Given that RG chairs
   are sometimes delinquent, the IRTF chair should be able to modify the
   state and annotations for any IRTF document at any time.


4.  Independent Submission Stream

   This section describes the desired states and annotations for the
   Independent Submission stream.

4.1.  States for the Independent Submission Stream

   o  Submission Received -- The draft has been sent to the ISE with a
      request for publication.

   o  Finding Reviewers -- The ISE is finding initial reviewers for the
      document.

   o  In ISE Review -- The ISE is actively working on the document.

   o  New Version Requested -- One or more reviews have been sent to the
      author(s), and the ISE is awaiting response.

   o  In IESG Review -- The ISE has asked the IESG to do a review on the
      document, as described in [RFC5742].

   o  Sent to the RFC Production Center -- The ISE processing of this
      document is complete and it has been sent to the RFC Production
      Center for publication.  The document may be in the RFC Editor's
      queue, or it may have been published as an RFC; this state doesn't
      distinguish between different states occurring after the document
      has left the ISE.

   o  No Longer In Independent Submission Stream -- This document was
      actively considered in the Independent Submission stream, but the
      ISE chose not to publish it.  It is possible that the document
      might be revived later.

4.2.  Annotations for the Independent Submission Stream

   o  Waiting for Dependency on Other Document -- Activity on this
      document is expected to be low or non-existent while waiting for
      another document (probably listed in the comments) progresses.
      The other documents may or may not be in the Independent
      Submission stream.

   o  Awaiting Reviews -- Activity on this document is expected to be
      low or non-existent while waiting for reviews that were solicited
      by the ISE.

   o  Revised Draft Needed -- Requests for revisions have been sent to
      the author(s), and no further ISE processing is expected until a
      new draft is issued.


5.  IANA Considerations

   None.


6.  Security Considerations

   Changing the states in the Data Tracker does not affect the security
   of the Internet in any significant fashion.


7.  Acknowledgements

   This document draws heavily on, including wholesale copying from,
   earlier work done by Henrik Levkowetz, Phil Roberts, and Aaron Falk.
   Additional significant input has been received from Aaron Falk and
   Nevil Brownlee.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4844]  Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
              Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5742]  Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
              Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
              BCP 92, RFC 5742, December 2009.

   [WGREQUIREMENTS]
              Juskevicius, E., "Requirements to Extend the Datatracker
              for WG Chairs and Authors",
              draft-juskevicius-datatracker-wgdocstate-reqts (work in
              progress), May 2010.

   [WGSTATES]
              Juskevicius, E., "Definition of IETF Working Group
              Document States", draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states (work
              in progress), May 2010.


Author's Address

   Paul Hoffman
   VPN Consortium

   Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/