| State [View Diagram] |
Description |
Next State(s) |
| I-D Exists |
Initial (default) state for all internet drafts. Such documents are
not being tracked by the IESG as no request has been made of the
IESG to do anything with the document. |
- AD is watching
- Publication Requested
|
| Publication Requested |
A formal request has been made to advance/publish the document, following the procedures in Section 7.5 of RFC 2418. The request could be from a WG chair, from an individual through the RFC Editor, etc. (The Secretariat (iesg-secretary@ietf.org) is copied on these requests to ensure that the request makes it into the ID tracker.) A document in this state has not (yet) been reviewed by an AD nor has any official action been taken on it yet (other than to note that its publication has been requested. |
- AD Evaluation
- Dead
- AD is watching
|
| AD Evaluation |
A specific AD (e.g., the "Area Advisor" for the WG) has begun their
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. |
- Expert Review
- IESG Evaluation
- Last Call Requested
- AD is watching
|
| Expert Review |
An AD sometimes asks for an external review by an outside party as
part of evaluating whether a document is ready for advancement.
MIBs, for example, are reviewed by the "MIB doctors". Other types
of reviews may also be requested (e.g., security, operations impact,
etc.) Documents stay in this state until the review is complete and
possibly until the issues raised in the review are addressed. See
the "note" field for specific details on the nature of the review. |
|
| Last Call Requested |
The AD has requested that the Secretariat start an IETF Last Call,
but the the actual Last Call message has not been sent yet.
|
|
| In Last Call |
The document is currently waiting for IETF Last Call to
complete. Last Calls for WG documents typically last 2 weeks, those
for individual submissions last 4 weeks. |
- Waiting for Writeup
- Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
|
| Waiting for Writeup |
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. |
|
| 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 ID 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 in
the ID directory and ready for consideration by the IESG as a whole. |
|
| IESG Evaluation |
The document is now (finally!) 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 they may have. Unresolvable issues are documented as
"discuss" comments that can be forwarded to the authors/WG. See the
description of substates for additional details about the current
state of the IESG discussion.
|
- DNP-waiting for AD note
- Approved-announcement to be sent
- IESG Evaluation - Defer
|
| IESG Evaluation - Defer |
During a telechat, one or more ADs requested an additional 2 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. |
|
| Approved-announcement to be sent |
The IESG has approved the document for publication, but the
Secretariat has not yet sent out on official approval message. |
- Approved-announcement sent
|
| 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. |
|
| RFC Ed Queue |
The document is in the RFC editor Queue (as confirmed by
http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html) |
|
| RFC Published |
The ID has been published as an RFC. |
|
| DNP-waiting for AD note |
Do Not Publish: The IESG recommends against publishing the document,
but the writeup explaining its reasoning has not yet been produced.
DNPs apply primarily to individual submissions received through the
RFC editor. See the "note" field for more details on who has the
action item. |
- DNP-announcement to be sent
|
| DNP-announcement to be sent |
The IESG recommends against publishing the document, the writeup
explaining its reasoning has been produced, but the Secretariat has
not yet sent out the official "do not publish" recommendation
message. |
|
| AD is watching |
An AD is aware of the document and has chosen to place the document
in a separate state in order to keep a closer eye on it (for
whatever reason). Documents in this state are still not being
actively tracked in the sense that no formal request has been made
to publish or advance the document. The sole difference between
this state and "I-D Exists" is that an AD has chosen to put it in a
separate state, to make it easier to keep track of (for his or her
own reasons). |
|
| Dead |
Document is "dead" and is no longer being tracked. (E.g., it has
been replaced by another document with a different name, it has been
withdrawn, etc.) |
|
| Sub State Name | Description |
| Point Raised - writeup 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 - Writeup Needed" state until *ALL* IESG comments
that have been raised have been documented. |
| AD Followup |
A generic substate indicating that the shepherding AD has the action
item to determine 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 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.
|
| 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. |
| Revised ID Needed |
An updated ID is needed to address the issues that have been raised. |