[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                              May 2, 2010
Expires: November 2, 2010



                Definition of Working Group Document States
                 draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-03.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 November 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 Simplified BSD License.



Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


Abstract

   This document defines different states that an Internet-Draft (I-D)
   may be in while associated with an IETF working group.  The first
   state describes an I-D that is being considered for adoption by a
   working group.  One of several possible last states describes an I-D
   that has been sent to the IESG for publication.

   The IETF Datatracker tool will be enhanced to make it possible for
   working group chairs to indicate the status of working group
   documents in order to provide more feedback and transparency to
   document authors and to the IETF community.

   Appendix A describes different states used by IETF Area Directors to
   indicate the status of I-Ds sent to the IESG for review and
   publication.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................4
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................4
   3. Document States................................................4
      3.1. Document Validity States..................................4
         3.1.1. I-D Exists...........................................5
         3.1.2. Expired..............................................5
         3.1.3. Active...............................................5
      3.2. IESG Document States......................................5
         3.2.1. Publication Requested................................6
         3.2.2. AD Evaluation........................................6
         3.2.3. IESG Evaluation......................................6
         3.2.4. Other IESG Document States...........................6
      3.3. Working Group Document States.............................7
         3.3.1. Candidate WG Document................................7
         3.3.2. Active WG Document...................................7
         3.3.3. Adopted For WG Info Only.............................8
         3.3.4. Not Adopted by a WG..................................8
         3.3.5. Parked WG Draft......................................8
         3.3.6. Dead WG Draft........................................9
         3.3.7. In WG Last Call......................................9
         3.3.8. Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead........................9
         3.3.9. WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up...................9
         3.3.10. Submitted to IESG for Publication..................10
      3.4. Working Group Document State Diagram.....................10
      3.5. WG Document Status Annotation Tags.......................12
         3.5.1. Awaiting Cross-Area Review..........................12
         3.5.2. Awaiting MIB Doctor Review..........................12
         3.5.3. Awaiting Security Review............................12


Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


         3.5.4. Awaiting Other Review...............................13
         3.5.5. Awaiting Merge with Other Document..................13
         3.5.6. Author or Editor Needed.............................13
         3.5.7. Held due to Dependency *on* other Document..........13
         3.5.8. Held due to Dependency *by* other Document..........14
         3.5.9. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG Last Call...14
         3.5.10. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD............14
         3.5.11. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG..........14
         3.5.12. Doc Shepherd Follow-Up Underway....................15
         3.5.13. Not Intended for Publication.......................15
         3.5.14. Other - see Comment Log............................15
      3.6. Intended Maturity Level of WG Documents..................15
   4. Security Considerations.......................................16
   5. IANA Considerations...........................................16
   6. References....................................................16
      6.1. Normative References.....................................16
      6.2. Informative References...................................16
   7. Acknowledgments...............................................17
   Appendix A: "IESG Document" States...............................18
      A.1. Definition of "IESG Document" States.....................18
         A.1.1. I-D Exists..........................................18
         A.1.2. Publication Requested...............................18
         A.1.3. AD Evaluation.......................................18
         A.1.4. Expert Review.......................................18
         A.1.5. Last Call Requested.................................19
         A.1.6. In Last Call........................................19
         A.1.7. Waiting for Write-up................................19
         A.1.8. Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.............................19
         A.1.9. IESG Evaluation.....................................19
         A.1.10. IESG Evaluation - Defer............................19
         A.1.11. Approved - Announcement to be sent.................20
         A.1.12. Approved - Announcement sent.......................20
         A.1.13. RFC Ed Queue.......................................20
         A.1.14. RFC Published......................................20
         A.1.15. DNP - Waiting for AD note..........................20
         A.1.16. DNP - Announcement to be sent......................20
         A.1.17. AD is Watching.....................................20
         A.1.18. Dead...............................................21
      A.2. IESG Document Substates..................................21
         A.2.1. Point Raised - Write-up needed......................21
         A.2.2. AD Follow-up........................................21
         A.2.3. External Party......................................22
         A.2.4. Revised I-D Needed..................................22






Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


1. Introduction

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

   The Datatracker can provide a lot of information about the status
   and progression of Internet-Drafts that have been sent to the IESG
   for review and publication.  In contrast, the Datatracker has almost
   no information about the status of IETF working group documents.
   The Datatracker can only report on the validity of I-Ds until they
   are sent to the IESG (e.g. "I-D Exists", "Expired", "Active").

   This document defines new states to be added to the Datatracker to
   make it possible for working group chairs to indicate the status and
   progression of Internet-Drafts in their working groups.

2. Conventions used in this document

   The phrase "working group document" is to be interpreted as being
   synonymous with "working group I-D" and "working group draft".  The
   same is true for the plural case of each phrase.

   The phrase "working group document" is not intended to apply to any
   other document that may be reviewed, discussed, or produced by an
   IETF working group.  Working group meeting materials such as Blue
   Sheets, agendas, jabber logs, scribe's notes, minutes, and
   presentation slides are not to be considered as "working group
   documents" in the context of this document.

3. Document States

   This section summarizes existing document states in the Datatracker
   and it describes several new states that need to be added in order
   to provide status information about IETF working group drafts.

3.1. Document Validity States

   The Datatracker can be queried for validity status information about
   every I-D.  There are three validity states:

     - I-D Exists
     - Expired
     - Active





Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


  3.1.1. I-D Exists

     When an I-D is submitted to the IETF, the submission is logged in
     a database that can be searched by the Datatracker.

     "I-D Exists" is a default state manufactured by the Datatracker to
     describe every I-D that exists in the database for which no other
     status information can be found.

     A document described as "I-D Exists" may or may not be a working
     group document.  "I-D Exists" may apply to an I-D in any of the
     document streams (e.g. IETF, IAB, IRTF, Independent Submission)
     defined in RFC 4844 [RFC4844] and RFC 5742 [RFC5742].

  3.1.2. Expired

     An "Expired" I-D is a document that is more than six months old
     and that has not been updated or replaced by a newer version.

     Every Internet-Draft has a normal lifespan of 185 days.  An I-D
     will expire and be deleted from the I-D repository after six
     months unless it is updated or replaced by a newer version.  One
     exception is that an I-D under official review by the IESG will
     not be expired before its status is resolved (e.g. the I-D is
     published as an RFC).  IESG states that do not relate to a formal
     request to publish a document (e.g. "AD is Watching") do not
     prevent an I-D from expiring [AUTHGUIDE].

  3.1.3. Active

     An "Active" I-D is a document that is not expired and for which
     the Datatracker has some additional status information.

     An "Active" document may be an Individual Draft or an I-D that the
     Datatracker believes to be associated with an IETF working group
     (e.g. because the filename includes the name of a WG).  "Active"
     may also used to describe an I-D under formal review by the IESG
     or an I-D that is in the RFC Editor Queue, etc.

     "Active" is not a reliable indicator of whether an I-D is being
     actively developed in an IETF working group [WGDTSPEC].

3.2. IESG Document States

   There are more than a dozen states in the IESG state machine.  They
   are used to indicate the status and progression of I-Ds under review
   by the IESG [IDSTATES].  The following sections describe three


Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


   states which should be of interest to document authors and working
   group chairs.

  3.2.1. Publication Requested

     "Publication Requested" describes an I-D for which a formal
     request has been sent to the IESG to advance/publish the Internet-
     Draft as an RFC, following the procedures described in Section 7.5
     of RFC 2418 [RFC2418].  Most working group documents sent to the
     IESG enter the IESG state machine at this point.

     An I-D in the "Publication Requested" state has not (yet) been
     reviewed by an Area Director and no official action has been taken
     on the I-D other than to note that its publication has been
     requested.

  3.2.2. AD Evaluation

     "AD Evaluation" is used to describe an I-D that the responsible
     Area Director has begun to review.  The purpose of the review is
     to verify the I-D is ready for advancement before an IETF Last
     Call is started or before the document is progressed to the IESG
     as a whole.

     After completing her/his evaluation, the Area Director may decide
     the I-D needs to be revised before it can progress further.  The
     AD may send the I-D back to working group that created it for
     revision.

  3.2.3. IESG Evaluation

     "IESG Evaluation" is another state that may cause an I-D to be
     sent back to an IETF working group for revision.

     "IESG Evaluation" describes a document that is being formally
     reviewed by the entire IESG.  Every Area Director is expected to
     review the document and to air any issues he/she may have.  Issues
     that cannot be resolved are documented as "discuss" comments that
     can be forwarded to the document author and/or the WG chair.  A
     "discuss" with serious issues may cause the I-D to be returned to
     the working group for revision.

  3.2.4. Other IESG Document States

     See Appendix A and [IDSTATES].




Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


3.3. Working Group Document States

   This section describes new states to be added to the Datatracker to
   make it possible for working group chairs and/or their delegates to
   indicate the status of working group drafts.

   Each working group chair will have the option to use some, all or
   none of the working group document states to describe the status of
   some, all or none of the I-Ds associated with his/her working group.

   WG document states may be augmented by the use of one or more of the
   annotation tags in Section 3.5.  Annotation tags provide more
   information about the status of an I-D and/or about an action that
   may be needed to progress the document.

  3.3.1. Candidate WG Document

     The "Candidate WG Document" state may be used to describe an I-D
     that is being considered for adoption by an IETF working group.
     An I-D in this state has not (yet) achieved consensus, preference
     or selection in a working group.

     This state may be used to describe:

       - an I-D that someone has asked to be considered by a working
         group, if the chair has agreed with the request;

       - an I-D that the WG chair asked an author to write; or

       - an I-D listed as a 'candidate draft' in the WG charter.

     An I-D may be a "Candidate WG Document" for more than one working
     group at a time.  This is to identify and track a document that
     its author is 'shopping' to multiple working groups hoping to get
     the draft adopted somewhere.

  3.3.2. Active WG Document

     An "Active WG Document" is an I-D that has been adopted by an IETF
     working group and is being actively developed.

     Note the "Active WG Document" state is not the same as the
     "Active" validity state described in Section 3.1.3.  There are
     several differences.  One is that a WG chair will be able to enter
     additional information about an "Active WG Document" into the
     Datatracker.  For example, a WG chair will be able to indicate the
     intended maturity level of the document (e.g. Informational,


Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


     Proposed Standard).  This information is often requested by the
     community and it is now required by the IESG for all documents
     sent to them for publication.

     Under normal conditions, it should not be possible for an I-D to
     be active in more than one working group at a time.  That being
     said, documents may be transferred from one working group to
     another.  The Datatracker will make it possible to track when an
     "Active WG Document" is transferred from one IETF working group to
     another.

  3.3.3. Adopted For WG Info Only

     The "Adopted For WG Info Only" state describes a document that
     contains useful information for the working group, however the
     document will not be published as an RFC.  The only purpose of
     the draft is to provide information for internal use by the
     working group.

  3.3.4. Not Adopted by a WG

     Some of the I-Ds written for consideration by IETF working groups
     do not get adopted.  The "Not Adopted by a WG" state describes an
     I-D that had been considered for adoption by one or more working
     groups and was not adopted by any working group.

     A candidate draft may be moved into "Not Adopted by a WG" at any
     time by a WG chair or automatically by the Datatracker (eg. after
     expiry of a 'must be adopted by a specified date or else' timer).

     An I-D that was a candidate in two or more working groups should
     only be moved into this state after it is clear that no working
     group will adopt it.  In this scenario, the Datatracker may be
     programmed to send an e-mail nudge to each working group chair to
     warn that the I-D will be moved into the "Not Adopted by a WG"
     state unless the document in placed into a different state soon
     (e.g. Active WG Document, Adopted for WG Info Only).

  3.3.5. Parked WG Draft

     A "Parked WG Draft" is an I-D that has lost its author or editor,
     is waiting for another document to be written or for a review to
     be completed, or cannot be progressed by the working group for
     some other reason.





Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


     This state may be used in conjunction with the annotation tags
     described in Section 3.5 to indicate why the I-D was parked,
     and/or what may need to happen for the I-D to be un-parked.

  3.3.6. Dead WG Draft

     A "Dead WG Draft" is an I-D that has been abandoned.  Note that
     dead is not always a final state for a working group draft.  If
     consensus is subsequently achieved, a "Dead WG Draft" may be
     resurrected.

  3.3.7. In WG Last Call

     A document "In WG Last Call" is an I-D for which a Working Group
     Last Call (WGLC) has been issued, and is in progress.

     A document in this state should remain "In WG Last Call" until the
     WG chair moves it to another state.  The Datatracker may be
     programmed (at the start of a WGLC) to send an e-mail to the chair
     after a specified period of time to remind or 'nudge' the chair to
     conclude the WGLC and to determine the next state for the
     document.

     Note that working group last calls are an optional part of the
     IETF working group process, per section 7.4 of RFC 2418 [RFC2418].

  3.3.8. Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead

     An I-D which receives a lot of comments during a working group
     last call may be placed into the "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead"
     state to indicate the last call has ended, however the chair is
     not yet ready to call consensus on the document.

     If comments from the WGLC need to be responded to, or a revision
     to the I-D is needed, then the chair may wish to put the I-D into
     this state until he/she can verify all of the WGLC comments are
     adequately addressed and the (possibly revised) document is in the
     I-D directory.

  3.3.9. WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up

     A document in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up" state has
     essentially completed its development within the working group,
     and is nearly ready to be sent to the IESG for publication.  The
     last thing to be done is the preparation of a write-up by a
     document shepherd.  The IESG requires that a document shepherd
     write-up be completed before publication of the I-D is requested.


Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


     A WG chair may call consensus on a draft without a formal working
     group last call.  An "Active WG Document" may be progressed into
     this state if the chair has rough consensus on the document.

     Alternatively, an I-D may traverse the "In WG Last Call" and/or
     the "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead" state before consensus on it
     is called.

     This state includes 'waiting for write-up' because document
     shepherds need time to prepare good write-ups.

  3.3.10. Submitted to IESG for Publication

     This state describes a WG document that has been submitted to the
     IESG for publication and that has not been sent back to the
     working group for revision.

     A document in this state may be under review by the IESG, or it
     may have been approved and be in the RFC Editor's queue, or it may
     have been published as an RFC.  Other possibilities exist too
     (e.g. the document may be "Dead" or in a "Do Not Publish" state).

3.4. Working Group Document State Diagram

   Figure 1 illustrates all of the WG documents states and many of the
   state transitions that an I-D may experience during its tenure as a
   WG document.  The WG document states are capitalized for clarity.

   Not every possible state transition is illustrated in the diagram.
   The absence of an explicit path between two states does not mean the
   state transition is precluded.

   A working group document may be moved from any state to any other
   state by the WG chair or his/her delegate.  If an unusual or
   uncommon state change is made, some text to explain the transition
   may be entered in a comment log in the Datatracker.

   Note that the state diagram includes an arc from "IESG States" to
   "ACTIVE WG DOCUMENT".  This illustrates that the IESG may send an
   I-D back to working group for revision.  Section 3.2 describes the
   relevant IESG states.








Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                          I-D Exists                              |
   |                               |                                  |
   |                               v                                  |
   |                                                                  |
   |     ADOPTED FOR  <-----  CANDIDATE WG  ----->  NOT ADOPTED       |
   |     WG INFO ONLY           DOCUMENT              BY A WG         |
   |                               |                                  |
   |                               |                                  |
   |                               v                                  |
   |                                                                  |
   |    PARKED WG  <----------> ACTIVE WG  <-------->  DEAD WG        |
   |      DRAFT          . - -> DOCUMENT                DRAFT         |
   |                   .                                              |
   |                 .         /      \                               |
   |               .          /        \                              |
   |             .           /          \                             |
   |            .           v            \                            |
   |           .                          \                           |
   |          .         IN WG   --+        v                          |
   |                  LAST CALL   |                                   |
   |         ^            |       +->  WG CONSENSUS:                  |
   |         '            |             WAITING FOR                   |
   |         '            v       +-->   WRITE-UP                     |
   |         ^                    |         |                         |
   |         '       WAITING FOR  |         |                         |
   |         '        WG CHAIR  --+         |                         |
   |         ^        GO-AHEAD              v                         |
   |          .                                                       |
   |                                    SUBMITTED                     |
   |    (revision needed)                TO IESG                      |
   |            .                    FOR PUBLICATION                  |
   |             .                          |                         |
   |               .                        v                         |
   |                 .                                                |
   |                    - - - < - - IESG States [IDSTATES]            |
   |                                        |                         |
   |                                        v                         |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+

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



Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


3.5. WG Document Status Annotation Tags

   In addition to indicating the state of working group documents, the
   Datatracker will allow different substate conditions to be described
   and tracked.  This section defines several annotation tags that may
   be used to clarify why a document is in the state it is in, and/or
   to indicate the next action needed to progress the document.

   Annotation tags do not change the state of WG documents.

   Each of the annotation tags defined herein may be used to provide
   more information about the status of any WG document in any state,
   if it makes sense to do so.

   Each annotation tag may be used by itself, or in combination with
   other tags, to clarify the status of a working group document.

  3.5.1. Awaiting Cross-Area Review

     This tag may be most often associated with an "Active" or "Parked"
     WG document.  The tag means that someone (e.g. an author or editor
     of the document, or a WG chair) has initiated a cross-area review
     of the document, and the review has not (yet) been completed.

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

  3.5.2. Awaiting MIB Doctor Review

     This tag may be most often associated with an "Active" or "Parked"
     WG document.  The tag means that means that someone (e.g. an
     author or editor of the document, or the WG chair) has initiated a
     review of the document by a MIB Doctor, and the review has not
     (yet) been completed.

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

  3.5.3. Awaiting Security Review

     This tag may be most often associated with an "Active" or "Parked"
     WG document.  The tag means that means that someone (e.g. an
     author or editor of the document, or a WG chair) has initiated a
     review of security considerations in the document, and the review
     has not (yet) been completed.


Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


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

  3.5.4. Awaiting Other Review

     This tag may be most often associated with an "Active" or "Parked"
     WG document.  The tag means that someone (e.g. an author or editor
     of the document, or a WG chair) has initiated some other review of
     the document (e.g. sent it to another Standards Development
     Organization (SDO) for comments via a formal or informal liaison
     process [MPLSTPDP]) and the review has not (yet) been completed.

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

  3.5.5. Awaiting Merge with Other Document

     This tag means that a decision has been made by someone (e.g. the
     document author, editor, or the WG chair) to merge the I-D with
     one or more other I-Ds from the same (or other) working group.

     If the result of the merge is a new I-D having a different title,
     then the old I-D may be declared as being a "Dead WG Draft".  In
     such a case the annotation tag should be changed from "Awaiting
     Merge with Other Document" to "Other - see Comment Log" and a
     description of the merge should be entered in the log for
     posterity.

     If the result of the merge operation is a revision to the old I-D,
     then this tag should be cleared when the revised (merged) I-D is
     submitted to the working group.

  3.5.6. Author or Editor Needed

     This tag means an I-D has lost a primary author or editor, and
     that further work on the I-D cannot continue in an effective or
     efficient manner until a new author or editor is found.

  3.5.7. Held due to Dependency *on* other Document

     This tag will be most often associated with an "Active" or
     "Parked" WG draft.

     This tag means that completion of the I-D is on-hold because the
     draft has a dependency on one or more other documents.  A typical


Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


     example is where an I-D depends on another IETF document that has
     not yet progressed to a point where it may be referenced; the
     dependency may be on one or more documents in other IETF working
     groups or on work-in-progress in other SDOs.

     This tag should be removed after the dependency is cleared.

  3.5.8. Held due to Dependency *by* other Document

     This tag is the inverse of 3.5.7, and will also be most often
     associated with an "Active" or a "Parked" WG document.

     This tag means that the I-D has been "Parked" because one or more
     other documents are dependent on it, and the chair wants to submit
     all of documents to the IESG (for publication) simultaneously.

     This tag should be removed after the dependency is cleared.

  3.5.9. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG Last Call

     This annotation means the I-D needs to be revised to address
     issues raised during a working group last call.

     This annotation may also be used to indicate when the I-D is in
     the process of being revised.

     This tag should be removed after a revised version of the I-D is
     submitted to the WG.

  3.5.10. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD

     This annotation means the responsible AD raised one or more issues
     with the I-D during "AD Evaluation" and that the AD sent the
     document back to the working group for revision.

     This annotation may also be used to indicate when the I-D is in
     the process of being revised.

     This tag should be removed after the revised version of the I-D is
     submitted to the WG.

  3.5.11. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG

     This annotation means that one or more IESG members had issues
     with the I-D during "IESG Evaluation" and the document was sent
     back to the working group for revision.



Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


     This annotation may also be used to indicate that the revision to
     the I-D is in process.

     This tag should be removed after the revised version of the I-D is
     submitted to the WG.

  3.5.12. Doc Shepherd Follow-Up Underway

     This annotation tag may be used to indicate that the shepherd for
     the WG document has begun working on the write-up required to
     submit the document (to the IESG) for publication.

     It is possible that too many I-Ds may arrive in a shepherd's queue
     in too short a time, and the shepherd cannot create satisfactory
     write-ups for all of the documents simultaneously.  The presence
     of this tag may be used to confirm that a write-up for the I-D has
     been started; the absence of this tag may be interpreted to mean
     the opposite.

  3.5.13. Not Intended for Publication

     This annotation tag may be used to clarify that the document
     adopted by the working group will be used for internal
     informational purposes only, and that the working group will not
     actively develop its contents or progress it for publication as an
     RFC.

  3.5.14. Other - see Comment Log

     This annotation tag is a catch-all to indicate that someone (e.g.
     an author or editor of the document, the WG chair, the document
     shepherd) has entered one or more comments about the current
     status of the I-D into the IETF Datatracker.

3.6. Intended Maturity Level of WG Documents

   In addition to the annotation tags defined in section 3.5, the
   intended maturity level of every WG document should also be tracked.
   Maturity levels are defined in sections 4 and 5 of RFC 2026
   [RFC2026].  They are:

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



Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


     *  "Standard"
     *  "Historic"

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

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

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

   [RFC2418]   Bradner, S., Ed., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.

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

6.2. Informative References

   [IDTRACKER] "The IETF Datatracker tool", Web Application:
               https://datatracker.ietf.org/, May 1, 2010.

   [AUTHGUIDE] Housley, R., Ed., for the IESG, "Guidelines to Authors
               of Internet-Drafts", February 9, 2010,
               http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt.

   [WGDTSPEC]  Juskevicius, E., "Minutes of wgdtspec BOF", Proceedings
               of IETF 77, March 26, 2010,
               http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/minutes/wgdtspec




Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


   [IDSTATES]  "Main I-D States", Web Application:
               https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/help/state/,
               April 20, 2010.

   [MPLSTPDP]  Farrel, A., et al, "IETF Multi-Protocol Label Switching
               (MPLS) Transport Profile (MPLS-tp) Document Process",
               work-in-progress draft-IETF-MPLS-tp-process-05.txt,
               Section 2.3, January 24, 2010.

   [PROTO]     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 I-D [PROTO] that provided copious amounts
   of text and the basic structure of this document.

   The author would also like to thank Henrik Levkowetz, Alfred Hoenes,
   John Klensin, Pasi Eronen, Robert Sparks, Spencer Dawkins, Russ
   Housley, Paul Hoffman, Mary Barnes, Glenn Parsons, Marc Blanchet,
   Andy Malis, other WG chairs, and everyone who participated in the
   wgdtspec BOF at IETF 77 for their insights, discussions, comments
   and suggestions.

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




















Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


Appendix A: "IESG Document" States

   This Appendix describes the status information currently stored in
   the IETF Datatracker tool for every I-D submitted to the IESG for
   publication.  The terms and definitions herein are as in [IDSTATES].

   It must be noted that I-Ds sent to the IESG for publication (termed
   "IESG Documents" in this Appendix) do not stay with the IESG until
   the day they are published as RFCs.  After evaluation, the IESG may
   declare that some I-Ds deserve a "Do Not Publish" label.  Other I-Ds
   may become "Dead".  Some I-Ds may get sent back to their originators
   (WGs or otherwise), and the rest may go into the RFC Editor queue.

A.1. Definition of "IESG Document" States

A.1.1. I-D Exists

   This is an initial (default) state for all newly submitted Internet-
   Drafts.  Such documents are not tracked by the IESG as no request
   has been made of the IESG to do anything with an I-D in this state.

A.1.2. Publication Requested

   A formal request has been made to advance/publish the document,
   following the procedures in Section 7.5 of RFC 2418 [RFC2418]; the
   request could be from a WG Chair, or from an individual.  Note: the
   Secretariat (iesg-secretary@ietf.org) is copied on these requests to
   ensure that the request makes it into the Datatracker.  A document
   in this state has not (yet) been reviewed by an Area Director nor
   has any official action been taken yet, other than to note that its
   publication has been requested.

A.1.3. AD Evaluation

   A specific Area Director (AD) for the working group has begun
   his/her review of the document to verify that it is ready for
   advancement.  The shepherding AD is responsible for doing any
   necessary review before starting an IETF Last Call or sending the
   document directly to the IESG as a whole.

A.1.4. Expert Review

   An AD may ask for an expert review by an external party as part of
   evaluating whether a document is ready for advancement.  MIBs, for
   example, are reviewed by "MIB doctors".  Other types of reviews may
   also be requested (e.g., security, operations impacts, etc.).
   Documents remain in this state until the review is completed and


Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


   possibly until the issues raised in the review are addressed.
   Specific details on the nature of the review may be found in the
   "note" field associated with this state (i.e. within the
   Datatracker).

A.1.5. Last Call Requested

   The AD has requested that the Secretariat start an IETF Last Call,
   but the actual Last Call message has not been sent yet.

A.1.6. In Last Call

   The document is currently waiting for IETF Last Call to complete.
   Last Calls for WG documents typically last 2 weeks, and those for
   individual submissions last 4 weeks.

A.1.7. Waiting for Write-up

   Before a standards-track or BCP document is formally considered by
   the entire IESG, the AD must write-up a protocol action.  The
   protocol action is included in the approval message that the
   Secretariat sends out when the document is approved for publication
   as an RFC.

A.1.8. Waiting for AD Go-Ahead

   As a result of the IETF Last Call, comments may need to be responded
   to and a revision of the I-D may be needed as well.  The AD is
   responsible for verifying that all Last Call comments have been
   adequately addressed and that the (possibly revised) document is
   ready for consideration by the IESG as a whole.

A.1.9. IESG Evaluation

   The document is being formally reviewed by the entire IESG.
   Documents are discussed in email or during a bi-weekly IESG
   telechat.  In this phase, each AD reviews the document and airs any
   issues she/he may have.  Unresolvable issues are documented as
   "discuss" comments that can be forwarded to the authors/WG.  See the
   description of IESG substates in Section A.2 for additional details
   about the current state of the IESG discussion.

A.1.10. IESG Evaluation - Defer

   During a telechat, one or more ADs requested an additional two weeks
   to review the document.  A defer is designed to be an exception



Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


   mechanism, and can only be invoked once, the first time the document
   comes up for discussion during a telechat.

A.1.11. Approved - Announcement to be sent

   The IESG has approved the document for publication, but the
   Secretariat has not (yet) sent an official approval message.

A.1.12. Approved - Announcement sent

   The IESG has approved the document for publication, and the
   Secretariat has sent out the official approval message to the RFC
   editor.

A.1.13. RFC Ed Queue

   The document is in the RFC editor Queue (as confirmed by
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html)

A.1.14. RFC Published

   The I-D has been published as an RFC.

A.1.15. DNP - Waiting for AD note

   Do Not Publish: The IESG recommends against publishing the document,
   but the write-up explaining its reasoning has not yet been produced.
   DNPs apply primarily to individual submissions.  More information on
   who has the action item should be recorded in the "note" field
   associated with this state (i.e. within the Datatracker).

A.1.16. DNP - Announcement to be sent

   The IESG recommends against publishing the document.  A write-up
   explaining the IESG's reasoning has been produced, but the
   Secretariat has not yet sent out the official "do not publish"
   recommendation message.

A.1.17. AD is Watching

   An AD is aware of the document and has chosen to place the document
   in a separate state in order to monitor it (for whatever reason).
   Documents in this state are not actively tracked by the IESG in the
   sense that no formal request has been made to publish or advance the
   document.  The AD has chosen to put the I-D into this state, to make
   it easier to keep track of (for his or her own reasons).



Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


A.1.18. Dead

   The document is "Dead" and is no longer being tracked (e.g., it has
   been replaced by another document having a different name, it has
   been withdrawn, etc.).

A.2. IESG Document Substates

A.2.1. Point Raised - Write-up needed

   IESG discussions on the document have raised some issues that need
   to be brought to the attention of the authors/WG, but those issues
   have not been written down yet. (It is common for discussions during
   a telechat to result in such situations.  An AD may raise a possible
   issue during a telechat and only decide as a result of that
   discussion whether the issue is worth formally writing up and
   bringing to the attention of the authors/WG).

   A document stays in the "Point Raised - write-up needed" substate
   until *ALL* IESG comments that were raised have been documented.

A.2.2. AD Follow-up

   "AD Follow-up" is a generic substate indicating that the shepherding
   AD has the action to determine the appropriate next steps.  In
   particular, the appropriate steps (and the corresponding next state
   or substate) depend entirely on the nature of the issues that were
   raised and can only be decided with active involvement of the
   shepherding AD.

   Examples include:

  - if another AD raises an issue, the shepherding AD may first
     iterate with the other AD to get a better understanding of the
     exact issue.  Or, the shepherding AD may attempt to argue that
     the issue is not serious enough it to bring to the attention of
     the authors/WG.

  - if a documented issue is forwarded to a WG, some further iteration
     may be needed before it can be determined whether a new revision
     is needed or whether the WG response to an issue clarifies the
     issue sufficiently.

  - when a new revision appears, the shepherding AD will first look
     at the changes to determine whether they believe all outstanding
     issues have been raised satisfactorily, prior to asking the ADs
     who raised the original issues to verify the changes.


Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      Working Group Document States              May 2010


A.2.3. External Party

   The document is awaiting review or input from an external party
   (i.e, someone other than the shepherding AD, the authors, or the
   WG). See the "note" field for more details on who has the action.

A.2.4. Revised I-D Needed

   An updated I-D is needed to address the issues that have been
   raised.



Author's Address

   Ed Juskevicius
   TrekAhead
   PO Box 491, Carp, ON
   CANADA

   Email: edj.etc@gmail.com




























Juskevicius            Expires November 2, 2010               [Page 22]


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