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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 6293

Network Working Group                                         P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft                                            VPN Consortium
Intended status: Informational                          January 28, 2011
Expires: August 1, 2011


Requirements for Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker
              draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-05

Abstract

   The document gives a set of requirements for extending the IETF
   Datatracker to give individual IETF community members, including the
   IETF leadership, easy methods for tracking the progress of the
   Internet Drafts and RFCs of interest to them.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Usage Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Context for This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.3.  Definitions Used in This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     1.4.  Expected user interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     1.5.  Discussion of These Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.  Requirements for Tools Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.1.  Lists  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.1.1.  Requirement: Lists of drafts and RFCs can be large . .  7
       2.1.2.  Requirement: Every Datatracker user can create a
               list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.1.3.  Requirement: Read-only views of private lists can
               be made visible to others  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.1.4.  Requirement: The Datatracker must support optional
               publicly-readable lists for WGs and Area Directors . .  8
       2.1.5.  Requirement: Specifying the drafts and RFCs that
               are in a list must be simple . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.1.6.  Requirement: Adding groups of drafts to a list by
               attribute must be simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.1.7.  Requirement: These extensions must not make the
               Datatracker take up too many resources . . . . . . . . 10
       2.1.8.  Requirement: Private information must not be
               exposed in lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     2.2.  Notifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.2.1.  Requirement: Users can be notified when a draft
               changes status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.2.2.  Requirement: Every list has Atom feeds associated
               with it  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.2.3.  Requirement: Every list has mail streams
               associated with it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.2.4.  Requirement: Notifications need to specify which
               list caused the notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     2.3.  Display in the Datatracker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.3.1.  Requirement: Users can define how the rows are
               sorted in a display  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.3.2.  Requirement: Users can choose which attributes to
               display  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.3.3.  Requirement: Users can flag drafts with dates in
               the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.3.4.  Requirement: Users can specify highlighting of
               drafts and RFCs with recent changes  . . . . . . . . . 14
     2.4.  File Output  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.4.1.  Requirement: Users can get their current list as a
               single file  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   3.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15



Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


   5.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix A.  Possible Tracking of Other Documents  . . . . . . . . 16
     A.1.  Tracking WG Charter Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     A.2.  Tracking IANA Registry Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     A.3.  Tracking Changes in the Liason Statement Directory . . . . 16
     A.4.  Tracking Changes in Documents Outside the IETF Sphere  . . 16
   Appendix B.  Some Known Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Appendix C.  Ideas that Might Be Implemented Later . . . . . . . . 17
   Appendix D.  Differences Between -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18








































Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


1.  Introduction

   The IETF Datatracker is used by many IETF community members to find
   the status of Internet Drafts (I-Ds) and RFCs, and view drafts and
   RFCs that meet particular criteria.  The current Datatracker, found
   at <https://datatracker.ietf.org/>, allows anyone to search for
   active I-Ds and RFCs, and get a list matching the given criteria.
   (The Datatracker also allows for expired I-Ds, but those are not
   relevant to this discussion.)

   Users can search in the Datatracker by the filename of the draft,
   words in the draft's title, author, associated Working Group (WG) or
   IETF area, the responsible Area Director (AD), or IESG status.  They
   can search for RFCs by number or words in the title.  The returned
   list of drafts and/or RFCs includes five columns: filename or RFC
   number (with an active link to an HTMLized version maintained by the
   IETF tools team), the document's title, the date it was published,
   its status in the IETF or RFC process, and the responsible AD (if
   any).  For example, the output of a search in the current Datatracker
   can be seen at <http://imgur.com/DD3AL>.

   Instead of using the search capability of the Datatracker to manually
   find I-Ds and RFCs of interest, users might want to create a list of
   drafts that they normally follow.  Some users will want to keep their
   list to themselves, but others will want to allow others to view
   their list.

   Different users in the IETF community will have different ways that
   they want to get information on draft and RFC updates and status.
   Many users will want to be notified immediately, such as through an
   Atom feed (see [RFC4287]) or automatically-generated email.  Many
   users will want to only find out about updates when they go to a web
   page.  Many users might want to get the data for a list as input to
   other tools.  And, of course, some users will want all three.  All of
   these desires are related to the overall desire to track drafts
   through their lifecycle.

1.1.  Usage Scenarios

   The main motivation for these proposed changes to the Datatracker is
   to allow a variety of potential users to be able to track drafts and
   RFCs, and thus be better able to see when important events happen.  A
   few examples include:

   o  A WG chair might want to keep a list of all the drafts from other
      WGs that relate to active drafts in his or her WG.





Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


   o  That same WG chair might want to help WG members be able to follow
      the same drafts that he or she is following.

   o  Someone who cares about an established topic such as the DNS may
      want to follow the various drafts that might make changes to the
      DNS, as well as seeing if any of the DNS RFCs are later updated
      and/or have errata posted against them.  This would include not
      only drafts that are in the many WGs that directly are changing
      the DNS (DNSEXT, DNSOP, BEHAVE, and so on), but also individual
      submissions, IAB drafts, and even IRTF research.  It would also
      include RFCs from before when WGs were tracked.

   o  Developers who are not active in the IETF process might want to
      lightly follow drafts and RFCs on a particular topic to watch for
      things that might affect their implementations.

   o  An IETF "regular" might want to follow parts of the process by
      focusing on all the drafts that are being shepherded by a
      particular Area Director.

1.2.  Context for This Document

   This document describes the requirements for extending the
   Datatracker for such capabilities.  When complete, this document may
   be used to issue an RFP for the design and development of these
   enhancements to the Datatracker.  This document was prepared at the
   request of the IAOC.

   Some of the requirements in this document are listed as "later
   requirements".  This means that these requirements might not be part
   of the first RFP for adding these enhancements.

   The statement of work that led to this document says "The tools that
   will eventually be provided to individuals in the community include":

   o  the ability to create one or more (possibly large) lists of I-Ds
      that they want to follow

   o  the ability to get notifications when individual drafts from a
      list changes state

   o  the ability to see all of the state changes that have occurred on
      all the drafts in a list over a specified range of dates

   o  the ability to set the granularity of the changes (such as "every
      change", "just approvals and publication", and so on)





Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


   o  the ability to organize their views of a list in many fashions
      that would be useful to different types of community members

   o  the ability to share and merge lists with other community members

   Note that [RFC2026] describes the process that Internet Drafts go
   through before they either become RFCs or are abandoned.  The
   Datatracker does not control this process: instead, it simply reports
   on the current state of individual drafts as they go through the
   process.

1.3.  Definitions Used in This Document

   A "user" is an individual person who is member of the IETF community.

   A "list" is an unordered set of RFCs, Internet Drafts, and groups of
   Internet Drafts.  Lists are specified by users.  In some cases, the
   authors are role-based, such as a WG chair being the specifier of the
   list associated with that WG.

   An "attribute" is a feature of a draft or RFC, such as its filename
   or RFC number, its current state in the IETF or RFC process, and so
   on.  Attributes are usually displayed as columns in the Datatracker.

   A "row" is a set of attributes about a single draft or RFC that is
   displayed in the Datatracker.

   A "significant change in status" is all approvals and disposition of
   a draft.  Assuming that the changes to the Datatracker specified in
   [WGSTATES] and [ALTSTREAMS] are made, "all approvals" means the
   following:

   o  IETF stream: the WG states "Adopted by a WG", "In WG Last Call",
      "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-up", "Parked WG document", and
      "Dead WG document"; the IESG states "Publication Requested", "In
      Last Call", and "IESG Evaluation"

   o  IAB stream: "Active IAB Document", "Community Review", and "Sent
      to the RFC Editor"

   o  IRTF stream: "Active RG Document", "In RG Last Call", "Awaiting
      IRSG Reviews", "In IESG Review", "Sent to the RFC Editor", and
      "Document on Hold Based On IESG Request"

   o  ISE stream: "Submission Received", "In ISE Review", "In IESG
      Review", "Sent to the RFC Editor", and "Document on Hold Based On
      IESG Request"




Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


   o  All streams: in addition to the above, the disposition states
      "Approved", "RFC Published", and "Dead" are also included

   An "update to an RFC" is the announcement of a newer RFC that updates
   or obsoletes the base RFC, or an announcement of an errata posted for
   the base RFC.

1.4.  Expected user interactions

   When a user wants to follow a group of drafts and/or RFCs, he or she
   goes to the Datatracker and creates a new list.  The requirements for
   lists are given in Section 2.1.  After a list is created, the user
   has three ways that he or she might see when drafts and/or RFCs in
   the list are updated:

   o  By going to the Datatracker page for the list (see Section 2.3)

   o  By subscribing to the Atom feed for the list (see Section 2.2.2)
      in a feed reader that automatically fetches updates

   o  By subscribing to the mail stream for the list (see Section 2.2.3)
      and reading the stream in their mail reader

1.5.  Discussion of These Requirements

   This document is being discussed on the datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org
   mailing list.  For more information, see
   <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/datatracker-rqmts>.

   There will probably be virtual interim meetings to discuss this
   document in early 2011.


2.  Requirements for Tools Features

   This section defines the requirements for the tool described earlier
   in this document.  The eventual tool, if implemented, may have more
   features than are listed here; however, before this document is
   finished, it should contain as many requirements as possible upon
   which the IETF community can agree.

2.1.  Lists

2.1.1.  Requirement: Lists of drafts and RFCs can be large

   An active IETF participant might want to follow the status of
   hundreds of drafts and dozens of RFCs.  For example, some ADs have
   100 drafts in their area, and they may also want to follow drafts



Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


   outside their area that affect documents in their area.

2.1.2.  Requirement: Every Datatracker user can create a list

   When a user gets a Datatracker account, that account comes with an
   empty list pre-defined.  The list can normally be modified only by
   the owner of the account, although the Secretariat can also modify
   the list as part of its support role for the Datatracker.

   In order for this requirement to be met, it must be easy for any
   community member to get a Datatracker account.  Account setup must
   not involve any direct action on the part of the Secretariat.
   However, the Secretariat will be responsible for support of
   Datatracker accounts (lost passwords, odd interactions, and so on),
   so this addition of more Datatracker accounts will potentially
   increase the amount of work the Secretariat must do.

   The only person who can edit the contents of a private list is the
   person who knows the password to the account with which the list is
   associated.

2.1.3.  Requirement: Read-only views of private lists can be made
        visible to others

   Some users will want to make available a read-only view of their
   list.  Each private list will have a URL that leads to the
   Datatracker view of the list; that URL must be able to be safely
   shared with others.  In this case, "safely" means "will not help
   others be able to edit the list".  Similarly, the Atom feed
   associated with a private list should be able to be safely shared
   with others>

2.1.4.  Requirement: The Datatracker must support optional publicly-
        readable lists for WGs and Area Directors

   It is common in the IETF for users to follow the work of an entire
   WG, not just individual drafts and RFCs within a WG.  It is also very
   common that some work that is related to a WG happens outside the WG,
   either in other WGs or as individual efforts.  Many WG chairs monitor
   this outside-the-WG activity for various reasons.

   A smaller number of community members to follow an entire Area's
   worth of topics.  Again, these topics often happen within the WGs of
   an area, but not always; for example, some topics related to the
   Security Area happen in WGs in the Applications Area.

   Because of this, it would be useful for community members to be able
   to find a list which corresponds to the WGs or Areas in which they



Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


   are interested.  The WG lists could be maintained by the WG chairs;
   the Area lists would likely be maintained by the ADs.  Note that such
   lists are not mandatory; for example, a WG chair might not choose to
   maintain such a list for a WG whose topic is extremely broad.

   Both Working Group chairs and Area Directors currently already have
   Datatracker accounts, so fulfilling this requirement only involves
   associating those accounts with the role that controls the list.

2.1.5.  Requirement: Specifying the drafts and RFCs that are in a list
        must be simple

   When a user creates a new list, it must be easy to add individual
   drafts and RFCs to the list.  This could be done using the
   Datatracker's current search facility, and simply adding a "add to
   list" option for Further, when editing an existing list, it must be
   easy to add additional drafts and RFCs, and it must be easy to remove
   drafts and RFCs from a list.

2.1.6.  Requirement: Adding groups of drafts to a list by attribute must
        be simple

   Drafts have many attributes, and some users might want to follow all
   of the drafts that have a particular attribute.  Some, but not all,
   attributes have values that make sense in specifying lists.  It
   should be easy to add each of the following attributes when adding to
   or editing a list:

   o  All drafts associated with an individual WG

   o  All drafts associated with all WGs in an individual Area

   o  All drafts with a particular responsible AD

   o  All drafts with a particular author

   o  All drafts with a particular document shepherd

   o  All drafts that have a reference to a particular RFC

   o  All drafts that have a reference to a particular draft

   o  All drafts that are referenced by a particular RFC

   o  All drafts that are referenced by a particular draft

   o  All drafts that contain a particular text string




Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


   These attributes are dynamic, and thus the list of drafts that have a
   particular attribute will change after the user adds that attribute
   to a list.  The Datatracker should update lists with dynamic
   attributes as often as is sensible for the server environment, such
   as once an hour or more.

   Note that some of these attributes are derived by programs created by
   the IETF Tools Team that parse drafts and are therefore inherently
   not completely reliable.

2.1.7.  Requirement: These extensions must not make the Datatracker take
        up too many resources

   Currently, the only state that the Datatracker keeps for its users is
   a very small set of attributes assigned to a username-password pair.
   The extensions described here will cause the Datatracker to need to
   keep more information, namely lists.  Each list might have additional
   associated state as well.  This could lead to the Datatracker needing
   a larger amount of storage and other resources.  When this document
   is near completion, it would probably be good to list exactly which
   new state will be kept on the Datatracker server.

   In order to reduce the chance that these extensions would strain the
   Datatracker, some sort of denial-of-service prevention should be used
   when the extensions are added.

   Culling presents a problem, however, for user-based lists that are
   made public.  The creator of a list might no longer be using it, but
   others might be.  Thus, it is likely that the Datatracker needs to be
   be able to maintain lists long-term even if their creators are no
   longer using them.

2.1.8.  Requirement: Private information must not be exposed in lists

   Any private information in the Datatracker must be excluded from any
   displays of the lists or streams created in this document.  This
   private information includes private notes in the IESG balloting for
   a draft, and probably other data that currently is restricted to
   being seen by certain members of the IETF leadership.

2.2.  Notifications

2.2.1.  Requirement: Users can be notified when a draft changes status

   Some users do not want to go to the Datatracker's display page to
   find out when a draft or RFC has been updated.  Instead, they want to
   be notified immediately after the change.  The Datatracker needs to
   support this type of immediate notification, where "immediate" means



Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


   "within an hour of a change to any draft or RFC in the list".  This
   requirement can be met with Atom feeds and mail streams, as described
   in the next two sections.

   The Datatracker might create a generic "notifications engine" that
   can be used to generate the Atom feeds and mail streams.  This engine
   can then be used to later add other notification types, such as a
   Jabber feed.

2.2.2.  Requirement: Every list has Atom feeds associated with it

   The list will have two Atom feeds that are generated from the changes
   to the list: one for every change in status, and another for
   significant change of status.  Each Atom feed will have a stable URL
   that can be used by feed readers.

   Many IETF users are already using Atom feeds created by the IETF
   Tools Team for individual drafts.  Using the new feeds for lists
   described here will allow them to have better selection capabilities
   to reduce the number of feeds they need to follow.

2.2.3.  Requirement: Every list has mail streams associated with it

   A user can subscribe to two email streams that are generated from the
   changes to the list: one for every change in status, and another for
   significant change of status.

   Note that the mail streams are for each change; they are not batched
   (such as one message per day).  Users who want less frequent but
   batched notifications need to use the Atom feeds instead of the mail
   streams.

2.2.4.  Requirement: Notifications need to specify which list caused the
        notification

   Users might have feeds and/or subscriptions to multiple lists.  In
   order to disambiguate duplicate notifications from multiple lists,
   the body of the message in the Atom feed or mail stream needs to say
   which list generated the notification.  (Ideally, a user who wants
   notifications will make one list based on multiple lists, but if they
   subscribe to multiple lists, this requirement will at least suggest
   to them that they want to limit their overlapping subscriptions.)

2.3.  Display in the Datatracker







Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


2.3.1.  Requirement: Users can define how the rows are sorted in a
        display

   There are many ways that a user might want to see the Datatracker's
   HTML view of a list.  For example, a user might want to normally see
   it in alphabetical order by the drafts' filenames and RFC numbers,
   but after the user is of the net for a week, he or she might want to
   see the list in order of changes of status so that those drafts and
   RFCs changed recently appear at the top of the list.

   The default is to first list the groups first in alphabetical order
   by group name, then individual drafts in alphabetical order by draft
   filename, with RFCs at the end.  When displaying a list, the
   Datatracker should allow easy sorting of the drafts with the
   following collation orders:

   o  Alphabetical order by group name followed by individual drafts and
      RFCs (default)

   o  Alphabetical by draft filename and RFC number

   o  Alphabetical by document title

   o  Alphabetical by associated WG

   o  Date of publication of current version of the document

   o  Date of most recent change of status of any type

   o  Date of most recent significant change of status

   In displays, a particular draft or RFC should only included once; for
   example, if someone manually adds draft-ietf-cuteacronym-sometopic to
   his list and also specifies that all drafts from the "cuteacronym" WG
   are included in the list, that draft should only appear once in the
   display.  The column saying which included list(s) contain this draft
   helps alleviate this loss of information.

   The user might also want to group the drafts using the groupings in
   the list, such as "all drafts from this WG" and "all drafts that
   contain this word in the title".

   The Datatracker should save the last-chosen sorting for display with
   the definition of the list.







Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


2.3.2.  Requirement: Users can choose which attributes to display

   There are many attributes that might be displayed, and different
   users will have different information that they want to see.  Also,
   users will have different display technologies: someone might
   normally use a web browser on a large screen, but at other times use
   the browser on their phone.

   Choosing which attributes should be displayed should be simple for
   the user.  The Datatracker should save the last-chosen set of
   attributes for display with the definition of the list.  The default
   is to display is draft filename or RFC number, document title, date
   of current draft or RFC publication date, status in stream or RFC
   process, associated WG or RG, whether it was changed within the last
   7 days, and included list(s) which contain this draft.

   The Datatracker should support display of the following attributes:

   o  Draft filename

   o  Draft title

   o  Date of current draft

   o  Status in the IETF process

   o  Associated WG or RG

   o  Associated AD, if any

   o  Changed within the last 1 day

   o  Changed within the last 2 days

   o  Changed within the last 7 days

   There is some leeway for how the Datatracker might display these
   attributes.  For example, the "changed within" attributes might be
   shown with a check mark or a colored box.

2.3.3.  Requirement: Users can flag drafts with dates in the future

   When tracking drafts, some users want to be able to say "tell me if
   this draft has not changes state by a particular date" such as when a
   draft is starting a two-week last call or a draft author has promised
   a new version by the end of the week.  This feature gives the user a
   "dashboard" style capability.




Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


   For each draft in a list, the user should be able to set one date-
   based deadline.  When using the display version of the Datatracker,
   if that date has passed and no change in status happened between the
   time that the user set the deadline and the set date, the Datatracker
   will highlight the deadline in red.  It must also be easy to remove
   these deadlines.

2.3.4.  Requirement: Users can specify highlighting of drafts and RFCs
        with recent changes

   The Datatracker cannot easily keep track of when a user last looked
   at the page for a particular list.  Thus, it instead needs to let a
   user say which range of dates they are most interested in.  To that
   end, the user needs to be able to easily specify the amount of time
   they consider recent, either as "the past nnn hours", "the past nnn
   days", or "since this particular date".

2.4.  File Output

2.4.1.  Requirement: Users can get their current list as a single file

   Some users have their own tools for displaying and otherwise
   processing lists of drafts and RFCs.  To make this easier, users
   should be able to get a machine-parsable file that has a well-known
   format and syntax that contains all the data that was used to create
   the current display.  The order of the records in the file is not
   important because it is assumed that the user's program will sort the
   results themselves.  All attributes will be included because it is
   assumed that the user's programs will only deal with the ones the
   care about.

   When a list is marshaled into a data file, each record in the file
   format represents a single draft or RFC.  In a file, a particular
   draft or RFC is only included once; for example, if someone manually
   adds draft-ietf-cuteacronym-sometopic to his list and also specifies
   that all drafts from the "cuteacronym" WG are included in the list,
   that draft only appears once.

   This feature will allow anyone to create mash-ups of their own and
   create their own web sites based on the IETF data.  This is
   significantly easier than adding features to the Datatracker, and is
   able to cater to narrower audiences.


3.  IANA Considerations

   None.




Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


4.  Security Considerations

   A tool for tracking the status of Internet Drafts and RFCs can affect
   the privacy of its users.  Someone could possibly determine relevant
   information about a user if they knew what that user was tracking.

   Web applications, particularly those that store data on a web server,
   are a common source of security issues such as cross-site scripting
   attacks.  The tool described in this document might also use access
   control for lists, and access control and authentication also cause
   security issues if not implemented properly.


5.  Acknowledgements

   Ideas used in this document were contributed by Scott Bradner, Leslie
   Daigle, Spencer Dawkins, Aaron Falk, Russ Housley, Tero Kivinen,
   Barry Leiba, John Levine, Henrik Levkowetz, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andy
   Malis, Ray Pelletier, Blake Ramsdell, Julian Reschke, Jim Schaad,
   Yaron Sheffer, Robert Sparks, Andrew Sullivan, and Sean Turner.


6.  Informative References

   [ALTSTREAMS]
              Hoffman, P., "Data Tracker States and Annotations for the
              IAB, IRTF, and Independent Submission Streams",
              draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker (work in progress),
              September 2010.

   [CHARTERTOOL]
              Hoffman, P., "Requirements for a Working Group Charter
              Tool", draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool (work in progress),
              October 2010.

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

   [RFC4287]  Nottingham, M., Ed. and R. Sayre, Ed., "The Atom
              Syndication Format", RFC 4287, December 2005.

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






Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


Appendix A.  Possible Tracking of Other Documents

   It is not at all clear if any of these will be a requirement, a later
   requirement, or a non-requirement.  Further, even if one or more of
   these non-draft items is made a requirement, it is not clear whether
   they will be included in the same lists with drafts.  That is, if
   tracking IANA registry changes are considered a requirement, it is
   not clear whether a user would include the registries in a list that
   also contains draft, or whether they would need to create two lists,
   one for drafts and one for IANA registries.

A.1.  Tracking WG Charter Changes

   It will soon be easier to track changes in WG charters and
   milestones; see [CHARTERTOOL] for more information.  Someone
   subscribing to the stream for a WG would be able to see each of these
   changes.  With the expected changes, the Datatracker would be able to
   update WGs in a list without any polling.

A.2.  Tracking IANA Registry Changes

   Developers may need to get values from IANA registries for their
   software/hardware implementations.  They might want to know when the
   registry changes, such as additional entries or updates to current
   entries.  Thus, being able to be notified when a registry changes
   would be valuable to them.

   Adding this functionality may be tricky for some registries.  For
   example, if a developer cared about DKIM signature tags, they would
   have to subscribe to
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/dkim-parameters/> which (currently)
   covers a handful of registries, all related to DKIM.  Thus, a change
   to the DKIM hash algorithms would trigger a message showing that the
   registry had changed, even though the DKIM signature tags registry
   had not.

A.3.  Tracking Changes in the Liason Statement Directory

   Users might want to know when a new liaison statement is sent by the
   IETF, or when one is received by the IETF.

A.4.  Tracking Changes in Documents Outside the IETF Sphere

   Users might want to track documents that relate to IETF activities
   but are produced by other standards development organizations (SDOs)
   such as the W3C, the IEEE, the Unicode Consortium, the ITU, and
   others.  In order for the tracker to track these documents, it would
   need to poll occasionally and possibly scrape listings from HTML.



Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


Appendix B.  Some Known Open Issues

   This list is mostly meant to remind the author of topics that need to
   be updated in future versions of the document, and to spur readers to
   think of even more open issues.

   o  When an AD agrees to sponsor an individual submission, does the
      Datatracker consider that draft associated with the AD?  If not,
      that needs to be dealt with here.

   o  The format of the export file will be XML or JSON or tab-separated
      fields in a text file.  Regardless of the format chosen, a syntax
      will need to be specified.


Appendix C.  Ideas that Might Be Implemented Later

   The following are ideas for the new tool that are not currently being
   considered for the first round of development, but are being
   documented for possible future use.  Items here might move between
   this list and the list of requirements that are expected to be in the
   first round.

   o  The Datatracker could list all of the publicly-readable lists (or
      certainly at least the ones associated with IETF activities), and
      have links from WG pages in Datatracker to the publicly-readable
      lists maintained by the WG chairs.

   o  Earlier versions of this draft had a requirement that lists needed
      to be able to include other lists.  While this may still be
      desired, it was decided that implementing this in a safe and
      understandable way would be too difficult.  Later versions of the
      Datatracker might include this feature.

   o  In public lists, it might be useful for someone to be able to
      understand why particular drafts and/or groups are added.
      Allowing the user who put together the list to add a comment field
      would help someone else see the motivation.

   o  The Datatracker might cull lists if it seems that storing them on
      the Datatracker is taking too many resources.  The Datatracker can
      periodically send mail to the user reminding them to delete lists
      that are no longer needed.

   o  The normal Datatracker display could have a button to add a
      particular draft to the user's personal list.





Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     Datatracker Community Tracking Reqs      January 2011


   o  Allow each user to determine what "significant change in status"
      is for the list they create.  This could be done by a series of
      check boxes for every possible status change.

   o  A list creator can add a list-level comment about who might be
      interested in following the list.

   o  If the agendas for an upcoming meeting are scraped for draft
      names, it would be possible to add an attribute to a draft that
      lists that WG agenda(s) on which it appears.

   o  In the section on "Adding groups of drafts to a list by
      attribute", add an attribute for "all drafts that are referenced
      by any draft in a particular list".

   o  Make it possible to add all drafts that have a certain section to
      a list (non-trivial IANA considerations, ASN.1 modules in
      appendices, ...).

   o  Even though Atom feeds have been around for years, they are new to
      many Internet users, and even experienced users only know how to
      use them in limited ways.  The Datatracker should have at least a
      few paragraphs explaining how the Atom feeds that it provides can
      be used in different tools such as dedicated feed readers, online
      feed-display services, and so on.


Appendix D.  Differences Between -04 and -05

   Removed another "early" note from the intro.

   Moved "later" requirements from the body of the document to the
   appendix.

   Moved the open issue of the file format into the open issues list.

   Throughout, made RFC status part of what is in a list.


Author's Address

   Paul Hoffman
   VPN Consortium

   Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org






Hoffman                  Expires August 1, 2011                [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/