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

Versions: (draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 6174

Proto                                                    E. Juskevicius
Internet Draft                                                TrekAhead
Intended status: Informational                          January 2, 2010
Expires: July 2, 2010



                Definition of Working Group Document States
                 draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-01.txt


Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 2, 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 BSD License.



Juskevicius              Expires July 2, 2010                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States          January 2010


   Abstract

   This document contains definitions for all of the different states
   that documents (viz. Internet-Drafts) may experience while
   associated with an IETF working group.  The first state occurs when
   an I-D is submitted for consideration as a working group item, and
   the last state is either when the I-D is sent to the IESG for
   publication, or declared as "dead".  The intended purpose of this
   Internet-Draft is to serve as a basis for defining requirements to
   update the I-D tracker tool, to permit WG Chairs and other persons
   to view the progression of documents through IETF working groups.



Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................2
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
   3. Definitions of Possible WG Document States.....................3
      3.1. WG Document States........................................3
         3.1.1. Candidate WG Document................................3
         3.1.2. Active WG Document...................................3
         3.1.3. Not a WG Document....................................4
         3.1.4. Parked WG Document...................................4
         3.1.5. In WG Last Call......................................4
         3.1.6. Waiting for WG Document Shepherd Write-Up............4
         3.1.7. Submitted to IESG for Publication....................4
         3.1.8. Dead WG Document.....................................4
      3.2. Straw Man State Diagram...................................5
      3.3. WG Document Sub-states....................................6
         3.3.1. Sub-state Annotations................................6
         3.3.2. Intended WG Document Status..........................6
   4. Security Considerations........................................7
   5. IANA Considerations............................................7
   6. References.....................................................7
      6.1. Normative References......................................7
      6.2. Informative References....................................7
   7. Acknowledgments................................................7

1. Introduction

   A deficiency of the current IETF I-D Tracker is that it has no
   information about the status of Internet Drafts (I-Ds), other than
   "I-D Exists" prior to the time when Working Groups (WGs) send
   documents to the IESG along for publication.



Juskevicius              Expires July 2, 2010                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States          January 2010


   This document contains definitions for all of the different states
   that documents written for consideration by IETF WGs may experience
   during their progression through the process.  The purpose of
   articulating these definitions is to enable community discussion on
   them, and on a state diagram for the 'preferred' path that most WGs
   use to progress I-Ds.

   A desired outcome of this initiative is to facilitate the coding of
   front-end extensions to the I-D Tracker tool, to allow WG Chairs and
   other members of the community to monitor the status of I-Ds as they
   progress through IETF working groups.  In order for the I-D Tracker
   to reflect WG document status information, new WG document states
   and sub-state "annotation tags" need to be defined, agreed, and then
   coded into the front-end of the tool.

2.  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 Error!
   Reference source not found..

3     3.      .         D        De         ef          fi           in            ni             it              ti               io                on                 ns                  s                     o                    of                     f                        P                       Po                        os                         ss                          si                           ib                            bl                             le                              e                                 W                                WG                                 G                                    D                                   Do                                    oc                                     cu                                      um                                       me                                        en                                         nt                                          t                                             S                                            St                                             ta                                              at                                               te                                                es                                                 s

   Section 3.1 defines the possible states that could apply to an I-D
   that has been submitted to an IETF working group.  Section 3.2
   illustrates the states in a state diagram.  Section 3.3 defines
   additional terms to describe various WG document sub-states

3.1. WG Document States

  3.1.1. Candidate WG Document

   This document is under consideration for becoming a working group
   document.  A document being in this state does not imply any
   consensus, and does not imply any precedence or selection.  The
   purpose of this state is simply to indicate that someone has asked
   for an existing I-D to be considered for acceptance as a working
   group document.

  3.1.2. Active WG Document

   This document has been adopted by a working group, and is being
   actively developed.





Juskevicius              Expires July 2, 2010                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States          January 2010


  3.1.3. Not a WG Document

   This document is not a WG Document.  An I-D may be in this state for
   a variety of reasons.  Some examples are:

   *  the I-D was a "Candidate WG Document" but was rejected by the WG;
   *  the I-D is an IAB or IRTF document, or an independent submission
      not intended to become a WG document

  3.1.4. Parked WG Document

   This document has lost its author or editor, is waiting for another
   document to be written, or cannot currently be progressed by the
   working group for some other reason.

  3.1.5. In WG Last Call

   A working group last call has been issued for this document, and is
   in progress.  After the last call is completed, the document may
   return to being an "Active WG Document" again, or be "Parked" for a
   variety of reasons, or enter the "Waiting for Document Shepherd
   Write-Up" state.

   Many members of the community ask for additional information to be
   forthcoming when the result of a WG Last Call is "Revised ID
   Needed".  See section 3.3.1 for a sub-state "annotation tag"
   intended to provide such additional information.

  3.1.6. Waiting for WG Document Shepherd Write-Up

   The working group last call has been completed and the document is
   waiting for the Document Shepherd to submit his/her write-up.

  3.1.7. Submitted to IESG for Publication

   The document has been submitted to the IESG for publication (and has
   not returned to the WG for further action).  The document may be
   under consideration by the IESG, it may have been approved and be in
   the RFC Editor's queue, or it may have been published as an RFC;
   this state does not distinguish between different states that may
   occur after the document has left the working group.

  3.1.8. Dead WG Document

   This document was a WG document, but has been abandoned.  Note that
   this does not have to be a final state.  If consensus is


Juskevicius              Expires July 2, 2010                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States          January 2010


   subsequently achieved in the working group, a Dead WG Document can
   be resurrected.

3.2. Straw Man State Diagram

   Figure 1 illustrates the different states defined in section 3.1,
   and some of the state transitions that an I-D may experience.

   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                                                  |
   |     I-D                                                          |
   |    Exists                                                        |
   |                                                                  |
   |      |                                                           |
   |      |                                                           |
   |      v                                                           |
   |                                                                  |
   | CANDIDATE WG  -------------->  NOT A WG                          |
   |   DOCUMENT                     DOCUMENT                          |
   |     _|                                                           |
   |      +----------------+                                          |
   |                       |                                          |
   |                       v                                          |
   |                                                   WAITING FOR    |
   |      +--------->  ACTIVE WG --->   IN WG   ---->  DOC SHEPHERD   |
   |      |             DOCUMENT      LAST CALL          WRITE-UP     |
   |      |               |                                 |         |
   |      |               |  ^   .                          |         |
   |                      |  |    .                         |         |
   |   PARKED WG  <-------+  |     .                        |         |
   |   DOCUMENT   <-----+    |      .                       v         |
   |                    |    |       .                                |
   |      |             |    |        .                 Submitted     |
   |      |             |    |         - - < - < - - -  (to IESG)     |
   |      |                  |                       For Publication  |
   |      +-------> DEAD WG DOCUMENT                                  |
   |                                                                  |
   |                                                                  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+

     Figure 1 - Diagram of I-D states relevant to IETG working groups








Juskevicius              Expires July 2, 2010                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States          January 2010


3.3. WG Document Sub-states

   In addition to identifying the state that each WG Document is in, it
   would be informative to indicate associated sub-states or conditions
   which may affect each WG Document.  These conditions do not change
   the state of WG documents, but they can be used, for example, to
   help the community to understand why a document is in the state it
   is in, and/or to indicate the next action needed for the document.

  3.3.1. Sub-state Annotations

   Each of the sub-state annotations defined here may be appropriate to
   indicate the sub-state of WG Documents at different times.  They
   are:

     *  "Awaiting Cross-Area Review"
     *  "Awaiting MIB Doctor Review"
     *  "Awaiting Security Review"
     *  "Awaiting Other Reviews"
     *  "Awaiting Merge with other Document"
     *  "Doc Shepherd Follow-up"
     *  "Editor Needed"
     *  "Held due to Dependency on other Document"
     *  "Held due to IESG concerns on this Document"
     *  "Revised ID Needed - based on WG consensus"
     *  "Revised ID Needed - after on WG last call"
     *  "Other - see Comment Log"

  3.3.2. Intended WG Document Status

   In addition to the sub-state annotation tags defined in section
   3.3.1, the intended maturity level of every WG Document should also
   be tracked.  The definition of the maturity levels are as in
   sections 4 and 5 of RFC 2026 [2].  They are:

     *  "Experimental"
     *  "Informational"
     *  "Best Current Practice"
     *  "Proposed Standard"
     *  "Draft Standard"
     *  "Full Standard"
     *  "Historic"






Juskevicius              Expires July 2, 2010                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States          January 2010


4. Security Considerations

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



5. IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any new number assignments from IANA,
   and does not define any new numbering spaces to be administered by
   IANA.

   RFC-Editor: Please remove this section before publication.



6. References

6.1. Normative References

   [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
         Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

6.2. Informative References

   [3]   Levkowetz, H., and Mankin, A., "Requirements on I-D Tracker
         Extensions for Working Group Chairs", draft-ietf-proto-
         wgchair-tracker-ext-03, February 8, 2007.



7. Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank Henrik Levkowetz and Allison Mankin
   for writing the original document [3] that this I-D borrows copious
   amounts of text from.

   The author would also like to thank Henrik Levkowetz, Pasi Eronen,
   Mary Barnes, Glenn Parsons, Russ Housley, Marc Blanchet and other WG
   chairs for useful discussions, comments and suggestions.

   This document was initially prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.



Juskevicius              Expires July 2, 2010                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States          January 2010




Author's Address

   Ed Juskevicius
   TrekAhead
   PO Box 491, Carp, ON
   CANADA

   Email: edj.etc@gmail.com







































Juskevicius              Expires July 2, 2010                  [Page 8]


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