[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 21, 2010
Expires: November 21, 2010


             Definition of IETF Working Group Document States
                 draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-05.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 21, 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 21, 2010                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


Abstract

   The IETF Datatracker tool will be enhanced to make it possible for
   working group chairs to provide more transparency into the status
   and progression of working group documents to authors and other
   members of the IETF community.

   This document defines the states that may be used to describe the
   status of an Internet-Draft (I-D) that is associated with an IETF
   working group (WG).  The first state can be used to describe an I-D
   that is being considered for adoption by a working group, and the
   last state describes an I-D that has been submitted to the IESG.

   Appendix A describes states currently used to indicate the status of
   an I-D after it has been sent to the IESG for publication.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................4
   3. Document States................................................4
      3.1. Document Availability States..............................4
         3.1.1. Expired..............................................5
         3.1.2. Active...............................................5
      3.2. IESG Document States......................................5
         3.2.1. Publication Requested................................5
         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.............................6
         3.3.1. Candidate WG Document................................7
         3.3.2. 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 Document...................................8
         3.3.6. Dead WG Document.....................................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..................10
         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............................13
         3.5.4. Awaiting External Review............................13
         3.5.5. Awaiting Merge with Other Document..................13
         3.5.6. Author or Editor Needed.............................14
         3.5.7. Waiting for Referenced Document.....................14


Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


         3.5.8. Waiting for Referencing 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..........15
         3.5.12. Doc Shepherd Follow-Up Underway....................15
         3.5.13. 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. NULL................................................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...............................................20
      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

1. Introduction

   The IETF Datatracker is a web-based system for managing information
   about Internet-Drafts, 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 an I-D after it has been submitted to the IESG
   for evaluation and publication.



Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


   In contrast, the Datatracker currently has almost no information
   about the status of a working group I-D before it is sent to the
   IESG.  The tool can only report on the availability of an I-D and
   the name of the WG that the I-D is associated with (if any).  In
   some cases, the Datatracker cannot provide availability information,
   but just an indication that an "I-D Exists"; this is synonymous with
   an 'Active' I-D that has not been sent to the IESG.

   This document defines new states to be added to the Datatracker to
   make it possible for IETF working group chairs to indicate the
   status and progression of the 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 provides a summary of the status information that may
   be obtained about an I-D by querying the Datatracker today, and it
   defines several new states that need to be added to enable WG chairs
   to describe the status of I-Ds in their working groups in more
   detail.

3.1. Document Availability States

   The Datatracker can be queried about the availability status of
   every I-D submitted to the IETF.  The availability states are
   called:

     - Expired
     - Active
     - Replaced
     - Withdrawn by Submitter
     - Withdrawn by IETF
     - RFC





Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


  3.1.1. 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 I-D 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 undergoing official evaluation 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].

  3.1.2. Active

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

     An "Active" document may be an Individual I-D or a WG I-D.
     "Active" may also used to describe the status of an I-D under
     formal evaluation by the IESG or an I-D that is in the RFC Editor
     Queue, etc.

     Note that "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

   The IESG uses more than a dozen different states to describe the
   status and progression of I-Ds under evaluation by the IESG
   [IESGSTAT].  The following sections describe three of the IESG
   states which should be of interest to document authors and working
   group chairs.

  3.2.1. Publication Requested

     The "Publication Requested" state 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 specified in
     Section 7.5 of RFC 2418 [RFC2418].  Most working group documents
     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 (AD) and no official action has been
     taken on the I-D other than to note that its publication has been
     requested.




Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


  3.2.2. AD Evaluation

     The "AD Evaluation" state is used to describe an I-D that the
     responsible Area Director has begun to review.  The purpose of the
     review is to verify that 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 evaluating the document, the responsible Area Director may
     decide the I-D needs to be revised before it can progress further.
     The AD may send a working group I-D back to WG 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
     evaluated 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 to 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 [IESGSTAT].

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 working group status of an I-D.

   Working group chairs will have the option to use some, all or none
   of these working group document states to describe the status of
   some, all or none of the I-Ds associated with their WGs.

   The annotation tags defined in Section 3.5 may be used to provide
   additional visibility into why a WG document may be in the state it
   is in and/or the action needed to progress the document into its
   next state.

   When an I-D is submitted to the IETF, the submission is logged in a
   database that can be searched by the Datatracker.  The Datatracker
   examines the title of every submission to determine if the I-D is
   associated with an IETF working group.  An I-D that includes the


Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


   name of an IETF working group in its title is a WG document.  An I-D
   that does not include the name of a working group is not a WG
   document; it may belong to one of the other document streams (e.g.
   IAB, IRTF, Independent Submission) defined in RFC 4844 [RFC 4844].

   In the case where a working group chair does not manually update the
   status of a working group I-D, the Datatracker may be able to
   provide some visibility into the WG status of the I-D using a subset
   of the states defined in this section.

   The Datatracker may be enhanced to automatically generate a few
   state transitions for WG documents in cases where the chair does not
   manually input the status of the I-Ds.  For example, the Datatracker
   could automatically place an I-D into the "WG Document" state
   defined in Section 3.3.2 if the chair does not.  Similarly, the
   Datatracker could automatically move a "WG Document" into the
   "Submitted to IESG for Publication" state in the WG document state
   machine when the I-D enters the "Publication Requested" state in the
   IESG state machine.

  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 by a WG chair 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 working group chair asked an author to write;

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

     Note that a document author may "shop" an I-D to multiple working
     groups hoping to get the I-D adopted somewhere.  In order to have
     a way to track this, the Datatracker will allow an I-D to be in
     the "Candidate WG Document" state for more than one working group
     at a time; the Datatracker will maintain a separate state machine
     to track the status of I-Ds in every IETF working group.

  3.3.2. WG Document

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




Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


     A "WG Document" will be "Expired" or "Active" if its age is more
     or less than six months as described in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

     Every "WG Document" should have an "intended maturity level" (e.g.
     Informational, Proposed Standard, Experimental) associated with it
     as described in Section 3.6.  This information is regularly
     requested by the community and is now required by the IESG for
     every I-D that is sent to the IESG for publication.

     Under normal conditions, it should not be possible for an I-D to
     be in the "WG Document" state 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 a "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 working group will
     not actively develop the contents of the I-D or progress it for
     publication as an RFC.  The purpose of the I-D is to provide
     information for internal use by the working group.

  3.3.4. Not Adopted by a WG

     Some of the I-Ds considered for adoption by IETF working groups do
     not get adopted.  The "Not Adopted by a WG" state may be used to
     describe an I-D that was considered for adoption by one or more
     IETG working groups and was not adopted by any working group.

     The Datatracker may be programmed to automatically transition a
     "Candidate WG Document" into the "Not Adopted by a WG" state if no
     WG chair moves the I-D into some other state before the expiry of
     a 'must be adopted by a specified date or else' timer.  To
     facilitate this, the Datatracker could send an e-mail 'nudge' to
     the chair of every WG that identified the I-D as a candidate for
     adoption.  The nudge could warn that the Datatracker will
     automatically move the I-D into the "Not Adopted by a WG" state in
     a week's time unless some chair moves the document into a
     different state first (e.g., "WG Document", "Adopted for WG Info
     Only").

  3.3.5. Parked WG Document

     A "Parked WG Document" is an I-D that has lost its author or
     editor, is waiting for another document to be written or for a



Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


     review to be completed, or cannot be progressed by the working
     group for some other reason.

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

  3.3.6. Dead WG Document

     A "Dead WG Document" 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 Document" 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.

     Note that conducting a WGLC is an optional part of the IETF
     working group process, per section 7.4 of RFC 2418 [RFC2418]

     If a WG chair decides to conduct a WGLC on an I-D, he/she may use
     the "In WG Last Call" state to track the progress of the WGLC.
     The chair may program the Datatracker to send a WGLC message to
     one or more mailing lists when the chair moves the I-D into this
     state.

     A document in this state should remain "In WG Last Call" until the
     WG chair moves it to another state.  The WG chair may program the
     Datatracker to send an e-mail 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.

     It is possible for a WGLC to lead into another WGLC for the same
     document.  For example, an I-D that completed a WGLC as an
     "Informational" document may need another WGLC if a decision is
     taken to convert the I-D into a standards track document.

  3.3.8. Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead

     An IETF chair may wish to place an I-D that receives a lot of
     comments during a WGLC into the "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead"
     state.  This state describes an I-D that has undergone a WGLC;
     however, the chair is not yet ready to call consensus on the
     document.




Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


     If comments from the WGLC need to be responded to, or a revision
     to the I-D is needed, the chair may place an I-D into this state
     until 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 protocol 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.

     A WG chair may call consensus on an I-D without a formal WGLC, and
     transition an I-D that was in the "WG Document" state directly
     into this state.

     The name of this state includes the words "Waiting for Write-Up"
     because a good document shepherd write-up takes time to prepare.

  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.

     An I-D 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.
     The document may be "Dead" (in the IESG state machine) 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 names of 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 WG document state to
   any other WG document state by the chair or his/her delegate.  If an
   unusual or uncommon state change is made, some text to explain the
   transition should be entered in a comment log in the Datatracker.



Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |          + - - - - - - -  I-D Exists                             |
   |          |                    |                                  |
   |          v                    v                                  |
   |                                                                  |
   |     ADOPTED FOR  <-----  CANDIDATE WG  ----->  NOT ADOPTED       |
   |     WG INFO ONLY           DOCUMENT              BY A WG         |
   |                               |                                  |
   |                               |                                  |
   |                               v                                  |
   |                                                                  |
   |    PARKED WG  <---------->    WG      <--------> DEAD WG         |
   |    DOCUMENT         . - >  DOCUMENT              DOCUMENT        |
   |                   .                                              |
   |                 .         /      \                               |
   |               .          /        \                              |
   |             .           /          \                             |
   |            .           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                  |
   |                                        :                         |
   |                                        :                         |
   |                           (IESG States as in Appendix A)         |
   |                                        :                         |
   |                                        :                         |
   |                                        v                         |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+

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





Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


   The WG document states in Figure 1 will be implemented as a new
   state machine in the Datatracker.  WG chairs and their delegates
   will be able to identify the status of documents they have adopted
   independently from how the status of the same documents may be
   described by the IESG (after they are submitted to the IESG for
   evaluation and publication).  Appendix A describes the states used
   by the IESG to indicate the status of I-Ds sent to them.

   Note that Figure 1 includes an arc from the "Submitted to IESG for
   Publication" state back to the "WG Document" state.  This is one
   example of what can happen when an Area Director or the IESG as a
   whole sends an I-D back to a working group for revision.  An I-D
   that is deemed to need revision will have in one of the IESG states
   (in the IESG state machine) and it may also return to being in one
   of the states in the working group state machine for a while.

3.5. WG Document Status Annotation Tags

   In addition to indicating which state a working group document is
   in, the Datatracker will allow several substate conditions to be
   identified and tracked.  This section defines annotation tags that
   may be used to describe a condition that is affecting a document
   (e.g., why a document is in the state it is in) or to indicate an
   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.

  3.5.1. Awaiting Cross-Area Review

     This 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 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.




Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


     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 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.

     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 External Review

     This 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) 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.

     The Datatracker's regular 'Replaced-by' information should also be
     set for the old I-Ds to make it easier to find the new merged
     document from the old documents.

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




Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


  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. Waiting for Referenced Document

     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
     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. Waiting for Referencing Document

     This tag means that completion of the I-D is on-hold 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 is the inverse of 3.5.7.

     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 has 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.





Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


  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 has been
     sent back to the working group for revision.  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.

     When this annotation tag is set, it means the document shepherd
     has started work on the write-up for the I-D.  The absence or
     resetting of this annotation tag for an I-D in the "WG Consensus:
     Waiting for Write-up" state indicates the write-up has not yet
     been started, or has been put on-hold for some reason.

  3.5.13. 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"
     *  "Standard"
     *  "Historic"



Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 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

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

   [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 19, 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

   [IESGSTAT]  "Main I-D States", Web Application:
               https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/help/state/,
               May 19, 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.




Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


7. Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank Henrik Levkowetz and Allison Mankin
   for writing the original I-D [PROTO] used by the author as the
   starting point for earlier versions of this document.

   The author would also like to thank Henrik Levkowetz, Russ Housley,
   Alfred Hoenes, John Klensin, Pasi Eronen, Robert Sparks, Spencer
   Dawkins, Paul Hoffman, Mary Barnes, Glenn Parsons, Marc Blanchet,
   and Andy Malis for their many comments and helpful suggestions to
   improve this document.

   Finally, the author would also like to thank the IETF WG chairs, ADs
   and other participants 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 21, 2010               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft    IETF 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.  Most of the terms and definitions herein are as in
   [IESGSTAT].

   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. NULL

   Documents which are not tracked by the IESG (e.g. I-Ds for which no
   request has been made of the IESG) are in a NULL state with respect
   to the IESG state machine.  The IESG state of an I-D that has no
   value assigned to the IESG state variable in the Datatracker's
   database is 'NULL' or 'None'.

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.).


Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


   Documents remain in this state until the review is completed and
   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
   mechanism, and can only be invoked once, the first time the document
   comes up for discussion during a telechat.


Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


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).

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.).


Juskevicius           Expires November 21, 2010               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft    IETF Working Group Document States           May 2010


A.2. IESG Document Substates

   Note that the annotation tags described in this section were defined
   circa 2002.  If these conditioned were modelled today, they would
   most likely be modelled as annotation tags rather than as
   "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 21, 2010               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft    IETF 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 21, 2010               [Page 22]


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