[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 6359

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         S. Ginoza
Internet-Draft                                                       AMS
Intended Status: Informational                                 M. Cotton
Expires: August 25, 2011                                           ICANN
                                                               A. Morris
                                                                     AMS
                                                       February 25, 2011


                       Datatracker Extensions to
           Include IANA and RFC Editor Processing Information
        <draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-00.txt>

Abstract

   This document captures the requirements for integrating IANA and RFC
   Editor state information into the Datatracker to provide the
   community with a unified tool to track the status of their document
   as it progresses from Internet-Draft (I-D) version -00 to RFC.
   Extending the Datatracker to hold document data from I-D version -00
   to RFC allows for increased automation between the Datatracker, IANA,
   and RFC Editor, thus reducing manual labor, processing errors, and
   potential delay.  Therefore, this document also describes the
   requirements to make such automation possible.

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."












Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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

   The IETF Datatracker is a web-based system for managing information
   about Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) and RFCs, IPR disclosures, liaison
   statements, and several other important aspects of the document
   process [IDTRACKER].

   The Datatracker is used to report on the status of I-Ds that have
   been submitted to the IESG for evaluation and publication.  The
   Datatracker will be extended, according to the requirements defined
   in [WGDOCUMENT-STATES] and [ALT-STREAMS], to include tracking
   information about a document during its progression from version -00
   to it being requested for IESG evaluation.  However, the Datatracker,
   ICANN (peforming the IANA function), and RFC Editor operate on
   separate systems with varying degrees of visibility into the
   processing that takes place once the stream managers have approved a
   document for publication.  This document defines the requirements for
   extending the Datatracker to include increased IANA and RFC Editor
   state information, so that the Datatracker covers the lifetime of an
   I-D from version -00 to RFC publication.




Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


   Additionally, this document lists the processes between the IANA, RFC
   Editor, and Secretariat (via the Datatracker) that should be
   automated for accuracy and timely processing.  While this document
   includes some details of the IANA, RFC Editor, and Secretariat
   process, this document does not define any of the processes.  The
   processes are continually reviewed for process optimization and need
   to remain flexible to adapt to new changes in policy and environment.
   Processes are defined and set by each of the entities respectively.

2.  Integration of Data between the IANA and Datatracker

2.1.  IANA Information To Be Added to the Datatracker

   Currently, IANA reviews and touches documents at 4 different stages
   in the process from I-D to RFC: Last Call, IESG Review, Document
   Approval (for publication), and RFC Publication.  Most of these state
   changes and issues are not captured in the Datatracker.  This section
   specifies the requirements for including additional IANA information
   in the Datatracker.

   -  Last Call Comments

      Currently, IANA reviews I-Ds that have been sent to IETF Last
      Call, inputs comments in their data system, and then emails their
      comments to authors, WG chairs, and then to the IESG.  These
      comments are also manually entered into the Datatracker for the
      public record.  However, it is difficult to determine whether the
      IANA issues have been resolved.  To help facilitate tracking of
      IANA issues, 5 new substates will be added to the Datatracker:

      1) IANA Review Needed

         This flag will allow the community, Secretariat, and IANA to
         easily track which documents have or have not been reviewed by
         IANA.   If this state is NOT set to 1) IANA Not OK or 2) IANA
         OK, the state should be set to "IANA review needed" by default.

      2) IANA OK -- Actions Needed

         This substate covers documents that require IANA actions and
         the IANA considerations section indicates the details of the
         actions correctly.

      3) IANA OK -- No Actions Needed

         This substate covers document that require no IANA actions and
         the IANA considerations section indicates this correctly.




Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


      NOTE: The substate will be set to "IANA OK -- Action Needed" or
      "IANA OK -- No Actions Needed" (from "IANA Not OK") once any
      outstanding issues have been resolved.  The comments section will
      be used to provide details in the History log about whether there
      are no IANA actions, the text is OK, or the issues have been
      resolved.

      4) IANA Not OK

         If IANA has issues with the text of the IANA Considerations
         section of a document, the substate should be set to "IANA Not
         OK" and the comment field should be populated with a
         description of the issues and questions.  In addition to any
         questions IANA may have, IANA will also include in the comments
         field whether expert review is required, if the doc is
         dependent on another doc (e.g., doc B registers values in a
         registry created by doc A, which hasn't been published yet),
         and if there is a registry expert appointment required.

      5) Version Changed -- Review Needed

         This flag will allow the community, Secretariat, and IANA to
         easily track which documents have  been reviewed and
         subsequently when a version of an Internet-Draft has changed,
         therefore requiring a second review of the document by IANA to
         ensure that either the IANA Considerations have not changed or
         that any changes made to the document affecting IANA actions
         are clear.  This flag applies to I-Ds that have previously been
         marked as "IANA OK -- Action Needed" or "IANA Not OK".

   Information providing the status of the IANA review (one of the 4
   substates listed above) should be included as part of the evaluation
   message (sent to the IESG) so that IANA can determine if and what
   further action is required.

   All comments will be recorded in the History log.  However, to reduce
   redundancy and manual effort, the Datatracker should provide the
   ability to receive state information and related comments from the
   IANA tracking system.  There should be a notification that comments
   have been entered in the IANA-maintained system, and entry of those
   comments into the datatracker and distribution of those comments to
   the authors should be automated.

   - IESG Review

      As not all documents receive a Last Call, this substate is
      sometimes the first time that IANA reviews a document.  For a
      document that wasn't Last Called, IANA reviews the document,



Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


      enters comments in their own tracking system, distributes email to
      authors, WG chairs, and ADs (all interested parties), and then
      enters those same comments into the Datatracker, where they are
      recorded in the History log.  In cases where a document was Last
      Called, IANA checks for and reviews version changes and re-reviews
      documents to ensure that any flagged IANA issues have been
      resolved.

      Comments will continue to be recorded in the History log.
      However, to reduce redundancy and manual effort, the Datatracker
      should provide the ability for IANA to enter state information and
      related comments into the IANA tracking system, and distribution
      of those comments to the authors and entry into the Datatracker
      should be automated.

      Ideally, the authors will have responded to and resolved any IANA
      issues prior to the document being slated for an IESG telechat.
      However, if any document continues to have an "IANA Not OK",
      ""Version Changed - Review Needed", or "IANA Review needed" flag
      and is slated for the IESG telechat, it should be called out in
      the Agenda Package.  For example, it could appear as follows:

       o draft-example-00
         Title of Internet-Draft
         Note: John Doe (jdoe@example.com) is the document shepherd.
         Token: Jane Doe
         IANA: IANA Not OK

      This will ensure that IANA and the ADs are aware that there are
      still IANA considerations issues to be addressed prior to
      publication, or that initial or follow-up IANA Review is required
      and not yet completed (in cases where the state is listed as "IANA
      review needed" or "Version Revision - Review Needed").

   -  Document Approved for Publication

      Once a document has been approved for publication, the document
      enters the IANA queue and is tracked using IANA-defined states.
      This state information is not currently available via the
      Datatracker.  In order for the community to view the IANA
      processing states without being redirected to the IANA queue, the
      Datatracker should be extended to include IANA state information
      as defined by IANA.  For example, IANA state information could
      appear in the metadata portion of the document as follows:







Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


      Document type:         Active Internet-Draft (FOO WG document)
      Last updated:          2010-09-20
      State:                 RFC Ed Queue
                             RFC Editor State: EDIT IANA
                             IANA State: In Progress
      Intended status:       Proposed Standard

      IANA state-change information will link to the IANA queue, and
      will be captured as a line item in the History log.  IANA will
      notify the Datatracker when changes are made in the IANA queue.

      Once the IANA actions have been completed, the Datatracker History
      log will be updated to include the actions completed by IANA (the
      author-approved actions).  This will include the same information
      that is sent to the RFC Editor once the actions upon completion of
      IANA actions.

      The IANA State field may be any of the states defined by IANA.
      The list of IANA state names in use at the time this document was
      published is provided in Appendix A; however, IANA states are
      defined by IANA and are subject to change.  If there are any
      discrepancies between the state names listed in this document and
      those listed on the IANA queue page
      (http://www.iana.org/about/performance/ietf-draft-status/), the
      IANA queue is definitive.  States may be added or removed by IANA;
      IANA will work with the IAOC to update the Datatracker as
      necessary.

   -  RFC Publication

      References to I-Ds are updated to refer to the RFC once published,
      and minor updates may be made to match the published RFC.  This
      data will be tracked in the Datatracker to show when the
      references in the IANA registries were updated to include the
      newly assigned RFC Number.

2.2.  Future IANA Information To Be Available Via the Datatracker

   The document "Definition of IETF Working Group Document States"
   [WGDOCUMENT-STATES] includes the following:

      4.3.1. Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised

         This tag means that someone (e.g. an author or editor of the WG
         draft, or a WG Chair) has initiated an expert review of the
         document and the review has not yet been completed and/or the
         resolution of issues raised by the review has not yet been
         completed.  Examples of expert reviews include cross-area



Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


         reviews, MIB Doctor reviews, security expert reviews, and IANA
         reviews.

         WG drafts tagged with this annotation should retain the tag
         until the review is complete and possibly until any issues
         raised in the review are addressed.

   IANA is in the process of documenting how an expert review is
   conducted during the lifetime of an Internet-Draft.  Once the process
   has been defined, the Datatracker should be updated to indicate if a
   document requires Expert Review [RFC5226] (either for the entire
   document or a portion thereof), if the Expert Reviewer has issues
   with what they are being requested to review, and if applicable
   whether the Expert Reviewer has approved or rejected the requested
   registration(s).  There may be a need to complete expert reviews
   again before publication of a document if there have been changes to
   the text relevant to the review by the expert.  In cases where a new
   registry is being created in the document, an indicator of whether an
   expert needs to be appointed by the IESG would also be useful.

2.3.  Permissions to Change IANA State Information

   IANA state changes should be automated, but IANA should have the
   ability to log in to the Datatracker to manually update the system as
   well.

   Additionally, the IETF Secretariat should also have the ability to
   change the IANA state if necessary.

3.  Integration of Data between the RFC Editor and Datatracker

   For quite some time, the RFC Editor was seen as a black box, where
   documents were submitted for publication, went through some process,
   and came out as RFCs.  Over time, the community asked for a more
   transparent process; thus, state information was made available on
   the RFC Editor website.  Currently, some of that state information is
   available from the Datatracker.  However, for additional transparency
   about the RFC Editor process, the Datatracker should be extended to
   hold supplementary RFC Editor state and process (e.g., MISSREF)
   information.  This section defines the requirements for RFC Editor
   state information to be added to the Datatracker to provide more
   transparency and allow for a unified end-to-end tracking system.

3.1.  RFC Editor Information To Be Added to the Datatracker

   Once a document has been approved for publication, the document
   enters the RFC Editor queue and is tracked using RFC-Editor-defined
   states.  Some RFC Editor state information is currently available via



Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


   the Datatracker, but the information is not stored in the History
   log.  RFC-Editor-defined state information will continue to be shown
   as is done currently.  In addition, a line item will be entered into
   the History log each time a document changes state.  The RFC Editor
   shall continue to provide a queue file to allow data extraction; in
   addition, there will be a machine-readable notification to the
   Datatracker when state changes are made.

   RFC Editor state information should continue to appear in the
   metadata portion of the document available using the Datatracker.
   For example, an entry might look as follows (including the IANA State
   information):

      Document type:         Active Internet-Draft (TLS WG document)
      Last updated:          2010-09-20
      State:                 RFC Ed Queue
      RFC Editor State:      EDIT IANA
      IANA State:            In Progress
      Intended status:       Proposed Standard

   The RFC Editor State field may be any of the states defined by the
   RFC Editor.  The list of RFC Editor state names in use at the time
   this document was published is provided in Appendix B, but RFC Editor
   states are defined by the RFC Editor and are subject to change.  If
   there are any discrepancies between the state names listed in this
   document and those listed on the RFC Editor queue page
   (http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html), the RFC Editor queue is
   definitive.  States may be added or removed by the RFC Editor; the
   RFC Editor will work with the IAOC to update the Datatracker as
   necessary.

   Although RFC Editor state information is already available in the
   Datatracker, the Datatracker should be updated to include some
   additional data that may help individuals understand the status of
   their document.  In particular, the Datatracker should be updated to
   include the following data:

   1) links to AUTH48 pages

      AUTH48 pages provide information about which authors have approved
      the document for publication, whether AD approval is required, and
      sometimes a summary of issues that need to be resolved before the
      document can move forward.








Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


   2) links to the cluster pages

      Clusters are defined as documents with normative reference
      dependencies, and documents that have been requested for
      simultaneous publication.  (For more information, see
      http://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_def.html.)   The cluster pages
      provide a view of the entire set of state information for
      clustered documents.

      Note: The RFC Editor has been working with the cluster data to
      provide the community with accurate state information at the
      appropriate level of detail.  The RFC Editor database may require
      significant updates before this data can be integrated with the
      Datatracker.

   3) RFC metadata upon publication

      The RFC Editor will notify the Datatracker when a new RFC has been
      published, and the Datatracker should have the ability to
      automatically update the relevant fields with data related to the
      published RFC.  In particular, the RFC number will be recorded in
      the Datatracker.  However, note that all fields are subject to
      change during editing and should be updated; for example, document
      title and the list of authors are sometimes changed, and character
      counts and page counts are always changed.

4.  Other Updates to the Datatracker

   While the primary goal of this document is to update the Datatracker
   to display the IANA and RFC Editor process state information, the
   Datatracker could hold additional data for use by IANA and the RFC
   Editor that would allow for increased automation, thus reducing the
   potential for delays and processing errors.  This section defines
   requirements for updates to the Datatracker to eliminate some of the
   administrative tasks currently performed by staff.

4.1.  Datatracker to IANA

   When a document is approved for publication, data will be provided in
   a machine-readable format and will include (in addition to the usual
   Document/Protocol Action emails) the data requested by the RFC Editor
   in Section 4.2.

4.2.  Datatracker to RFC Editor

   When a document is approved for publication, data will be provided in
   a machine readable format and will include the following (in addition
   to the usual document/protocol action emails):



Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


      - I-D string
      - Document Title
      - Author List
      - Author Email Addresses
      - Author Organizations (if available)
      - Expedited goal date (if applicable)
        Note: this field needs to be editable for post-approval changes.
      - Publication Status (as defined in [RFC2026])
      - Consensus (yes/no)
      - Source (Working Group or Research Group name, Individual,
        or alternate stream name)
        Note: The RFC Editor database may require updates before Research
        Group data can be received from the Datatracker.
      - IESG Contact
      - Document Shepherd <email>
        Note: this is the individual currently listed in the "Personnel" section of
        a Document/Protocol action.
      - IANA actions required

   Most of these items are already stored in the Datatracker.  However,
   the following fields/flags need to be added:

      - Expedited goal date
      - Consensus (yes/no)
      - Document Shepherd <email>
      - IANA actions required

   "Consensus" is as used in [RFC5741]; it determines the appropriate
   Status of This Memo text to be applied to IETF and IRTF documents.
   The Consensus field should be set by the responsible individuals and
   it should be listed in the Agenda Package provided before an IESG
   telechat so that the Area Directors can quickly review the status of
   the documents under review and correct the field if Consensus was not
   received.

   Additionally, the Agenda Package provided before an IESG telechat
   should show the expiration date of the Last Call.  This will be
   helpful for the ADs and the Secretariat to track the Last Call
   timeline.

   When a document has been added to the RFC Editor queue (i.e., shows
   an RFC Editor state in the Datatracker), an automated note should be
   sent to the Secretariat as acknowledgment that the announcement has
   been received.







Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


4.2.1.  Notifications

   The Datatracker should notify the RFC Editor and the Sponsoring AD
   when a version of an I-D has been made available after the document
   has been approved for publication.

4.2.2.  Datatracker Extensions for Alternate Streams

   Once the Datatracker has been updated for the alternate streams
   [ALT-STREAMS], the Datatracker should be updated so that the
   following are automated:

   -  the Datatracker should not expire any I-Ds that are under ISE
      review.

   -  the Datatracker should automatically notify the ISE when an I-D
      that is under ISE review has been updated (i.e., a new version has
      been made available).

   -  the Datatracker should be updated to list I-Ds according to the
      stream that requested publication in the Agenda Package.  This
      should help provide additional clarity during IESG reviews, as
      there will be a clear indication of from which stream a document
      originates.

4.2.2.1.  Publication Requests

   "Data Tracker States and Annotations for the IAB, IRTF, and
   Independent Submission Streams" [ALT-STREAMS] lists the requirements
   for extending the Datatracker to account for alternate stream states
   and annotations.  In particular, the document introduces the "Sent to
   the RFC Editor" state, which means the document is complete and has
   been sent to the RFC Editor for publication.

   The Datatracker will provide a means for the alternate streams to
   generate a uniform publication request.  The stream managers should
   be able to create an email message that contains the relevant
   information for any approved I-D, and the Datatracker will provide
   the data (same data provided for any IETF publication request -- see
   Section 4.2) in a machine-readable format.  This data will be
   available to the IANA and RFC Editor, so that data entry into the
   IANA and RFC Editor systems can be automated.

   This update will allow the IANA and RFC Editor to handle documents in
   a similar manner, regardless of the document's stream.






Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


4.3.  Reporting Requirements

   The Datatracker should have a "Show Discrepancies" feature.  It
   should show all records in the Datatracker that fit certain criteria
   (that seem to be a discrepancy).  In addition to showing data on
   screen, it should send an email to defined interested parties at
   regular intervals (e.g., weekly).  This feature will only be
   available to a subset of individuals (namely, IANA, RFC Editor, and
   the Secretariat), to ensure that our queues are in sync.  This will
   be especially helpful as the Datatracker is extended (now and in the
   future), to ensure that all parties are receviing the correct
   messages/data.

   An initial set of discrepancies should be defined, and additional
   discrepancies could be defined over time.  For example, the initial
   set of discrepancies could include:

   -  Show drafts that have passed through the state "Approved
      Announcement sent" but do not have an RFC Editor state.

   -  Show drafts that have IANA state "In Progress" but RFC Editor
      State is not equal to "IANA" or does not contain "*A" (see
      Appendix B).

   -  Show drafts that have IANA state "Waiting on RFC Editor" or "RFC-
      Ed-Ack", but RFC Editor State is "IANA" or contains "*A" (See
      Appendix B).

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not request any IANA registrations.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not propose any new Internet mechanisms, and has
   no security implications for the Internet.















Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


Appendix A.  Current IANA States and Definitions

   The currently defined IANA states are listed below.

      * No value (blank) - A new document has been received by IANA, but
        no actions have been taken
      * In Progress - IANA is currently processing the actions for this
        document
      * Waiting on Authors - IANA is waiting on the document's authors
        to respond
      * Waiting on ADs - IANA is waiting on the IETF Area Directors to
        respond
      * Waiting on WGC - IANA is waiting on the IETF Working Group
        Chairs to respond
      * Waiting on RFC Editor - IANA has notified the RFC Editor that
        the actions have been completed
      * RFC-Ed-Ack - Request completed. The RFC Editor has acknowledged
        receipt of IANA's message that the actions have been completed
      * On Hold - IANA has suspended work on the document
      * No IC - Request completed. There were no IANA actions for this
        document

   IANA states are defined by IANA and are subject to change.  If there
   are any discrepancies between the state names listed in this document
   and those listed on the IANA queue page
   (http://www.iana.org/about/performance/ietf-draft-status/), the IANA
   queue is definitive.

Appendix B.  Current RFC Editor States and Definitions

   The currently defined RFC Editor Queue states are listed below.

      * AUTH = Awaiting Author Action
      * AUTH48 = Awaiting final author approval
      * EDIT = Approved by the stream manager (e.g., IESG, IAB, IRSG,
        ISE), awaiting processing and publishing
      * IANA = RFC-Editor/IANA Registration Coordination
      * IESG = Holding for IESG Action
      * ISR = Independent Submission Review by the ISE
      * ISR-AUTH = Independent Submission awaiting author update, or in
      * discussion between author and ISE
      * REF = Holding for normative reference (followed by I-D string of
      * referenced document)
      * RFC-EDITOR = Awaiting final rfc-editor review before AUTH48
      * TO = Time-out period during which the IESG reviews document for
      * conflict/concurrence with other IETF working group work
        (followed by date)
      * MISSREF = Awaiting missing normative reference.



Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


   RFC Editor states are defined by the RFC Editor and are subject to
   change.  If there are any discrepancies between the state names
   listed in this document and those listed on the RFC Editor queue page
   (http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html), the RFC Editor queue is
   definitive.

   Currently, there are also a couple of state annotations used in RFC
   Editor state-change emails.  These do not alter the Datatracker in
   any way, but are listed here for completeness:

      *A = indicates that IANA actions are required
      *R = indicates potential REFerence holds

Normative References

   [IDTRACKER]         "The IETF Datatracker tool", Web Application:
                       https://datatracker.ietf.org/, September 15,
                       2010.

   [WGDOCUMENT-STATES] Juskevicius, E., "Definition of IETF Working
                       Group Document States", draft-ietf-proto-
                       wgdocument-states, October 2010.

   [ALT-STREAMS]       Hoffman, P., "Data Tracker States and Annotations
                       for the IAB, IRTF, and Independent Submission
                       Streams", draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker,
                       September 2010.

   [RFC2026]           Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
                       Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC 5226]          Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
                       Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
                       BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.

   [RFC5741]           Daigle, L., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC
                       Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741,
                       December 2009.













Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the following indivduals for their
   input:

   Amanda Baber
   Glen Barney
   Alice Hagens
   Paul Hoffman
   Russ Housley
   Ed Juskevicius
   Henrik Levkowetz
   Cindy Morgan
   Ray Pelletier
   Amy Vezza




































Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          More Datatracker Updates           February 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Sandy Ginoza
   Association Management Solutions
   48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117
   Fremont, CA 94538
   United States

   Phone: +1 (510) 492-4000
   EMail: sginoza@amsl.com
   URI: http://www.amsl.com/


   Michelle Cotton
   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
   4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
   Marina del Rey, CA 90292
   United States

   Phone: +310-823-9358
   EMail: michelle.cotton@icann.org
   URI:   http://www.iana.org/


   Alexa Morris
   Association Management Solutions
   48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117
   Fremont, CA 94538
   United States

   Phone: +1 (510) 492-4000
   EMail: amorris@amsl.com
   URI: http://www.amsl.com/


















Ginoza, et al.           Expires August 25, 2011               [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/