Network Working Group P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft VPN Consortium
Intended status: Informational January 13, 2011
Expires: July 17, 2011
Requirements for a Working Group Charter Tool
draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool-04
Abstract
The IETF intends to provide a new tool to Area Directors for the
creation, re-chartering, and closing of Working Groups. The tool
will also allow the IETF community to view the status of the
chartering process. This document describes the requirements for the
proposed new tool, and it is intended as input to a later activity
for the design and development of such a tool.
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 July 17, 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
Hoffman Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft WG Charter Tool Reqs January 2011
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. WG Charter Process Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Discussion of These Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. WG Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Naming of Charter Text Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Wording of Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Access to the Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6. Showing Some Information Only to ADs and the
Secretariat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.7. Initializing the Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Creating and Rechartering WGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Chartering a New WG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Rechartering an Existing WG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Ballots for Charter Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Requesting the Closing of a WG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Searching and Comparing Charters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Viewing and Searching the Charter Database . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Seeing Differences between Versions of Pre-approval
Wordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Some Known Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B. Differences between -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Hoffman Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft WG Charter Tool Reqs January 2011
1. Introduction
[RFC2418] describes the guidelines and procedures for formation and
operation of IETF Working Groups (WGs). Since its publication in
1998, the IETF has started many dozen new WGs, has shut down many
dozen, and every WG that has had some (often dozens) of changes to
its charter.
Currently, virtually all of the tasks associated with creating,
rechartering, and closing a WG are performed manually. An Area
Director (AD) requests one of these actions by manually sending a
message to the Secretariat's ticket system. A member of the
Secretariat staff manually updates the internal Secretariat database
and the IETF Datatracker, manually places the WG on the IESG
teleconference agenda (when appropriate), and manually sends out all
of the required messages and announcements.
The IAOC would like to create a better tool for those tasks, and this
document lists the requirements for such a tool. When complete, this
document may be used to issue an RFP for the design and development
of the tool. This document was prepared at the request of the IAOC.
1.1. WG Charter Process Overview
As described in [RFC2418], a key responsibility of the IESG is the
creation, re-chartering, and closing of WGs. Creation and
rechartering of WGs is a multi-step process that involves internal
review of a draft charter by the IESG and IAB, an external review of
the draft charter by the IETF community, and (likely) approval of a
final charter by the IESG. The internal review by the IESG and IAB,
and the external review by the IETF community, often result in
revisions to the draft charter.
Closing of a WG does not require review or approval by the IESG.
Rather, a WG may be closed at the request of an AD, normally the Area
Advisor for the WG.
1.2. Discussion of These Requirements
This document is being discussed on the charter-tool@ietf.org mailing
list. See <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/charter-tool> for
more information.
2. General Requirements
The tool described here holds records for new WGs that are being
considered as well as for all WGs whose charter are under review.
Hoffman Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft WG Charter Tool Reqs January 2011
2.1. WG Records
A WG record contains the following fields:
o name of the WG
o WG's acronym
o names of WG chairs
o shepherding AD
o IETF area
o charter text
o mailing list address and archive location
o previous mailing list (if any)
In addition, a WG record contains the state of the WG in the review
process. That state has one annotation: whether or not the state is
for a proposed WG or for an existing WG undergoing rechartering.
Some changes in state cause messages to be sent to the Secretariat so
that the Secretariat can perform additional steps, such as sending
out mail to various parties about the current state.
Any AD can modify fields in an existing WG record. Any AD can use
the tool to change the review state of a WG record. The normal order
for steps is shown in this document.
2.2. Comments
During the reviews for WG creation and rechartering, ADs can comment
on the reviews. Any AD can add a comment to the record of a WG that
is under review. Each comment can be flagged as private, meaning
that it is only to be viewed by the IESG and IETF Secretariat. Also,
each comment can be flagged as either "discuss" (meaning blocking
forward movement until it is resolved) and "regular" (meaning that it
is non-blocking but informative).
2.3. Naming of Charter Text Proposals
Charter text proposals are to be kept for historical purposes. They
are kept in files with a specific naming pattern. The pattern for
charters before a WG is formed is wgacronym-proposal-nn, where
"wgacronym" is the acronym of the proposed WG, and "nn" is a two-
digit number assigned in sequence, starting at 00.
Hoffman Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft WG Charter Tool Reqs January 2011
When a WG is chartered, that charter gets the name whose pattern is
wgacronym-charter-nn, with the first charter having sequence number
00. When a WG exists and is being rechartered, the pattern is
wgacronym-recharter-ss-nn, where "ss" is the sequence number of the
current charter. For example, the first time a WG is rechartered,
the pattern would be wgacronym-recharter-00-nn.
2.4. Wording of Announcements
An AD can view and edit the standard "WG Review" and "WG Action"
announcements before they are sent out during the WG creation,
rechartering, and closing processes. If the AD edits the message,
the Secretariat is alerted to that fact when they receive the
request.
2.5. Access to the Tool
Area Directors and the IETF Secretariat currently have access to
performing some actions in the Datatracker that other community
members cannot; this access control continues to be used in many of
the extensions listed in this document. Further, the IETF
Secretariat and the IETF Chair can perform all actions that can be
performed by any AD in this tool.
2.6. Showing Some Information Only to ADs and the Secretariat
Some information, such as private comments, will be viewable only by
ADs and the IESG Secretariat. Some information might be private for
some charters but public for others; for example, some ADs have made
their choices for potential WG chairs public in some BoF charters.
2.7. Initializing the Tool
Records for all WGs that are being created, or are in the process of
charter updates, will be added before the tool is first publicly
deployed.
The database should also be initialized with historical data, namely
as much information as is currently known about closed WGs.
3. Creating and Rechartering WGs
3.1. Chartering a New WG
Any AD can create a new WG record using a simple web form. Creating
a record should succeed as long as there is no other WG with the same
name. The form comes with defaults of the AD who is filling in the
Hoffman Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft WG Charter Tool Reqs January 2011
form as the shepherding AD, that AD's area as the proposed area. The
AD can fill in all the fields for the propose WG.
Creating a new WG record causes the Datatracker state for this
potential new WG to be "Informal IESG review". When the record is
created, the AD proposes a length of time (in weeks) for the internal
review time; the default is one week.
The review states in which a WG can exist during its initial
chartering are:
o Informal IESG review -- This is the initial state, moved into by
the tool when an AD creates a WG record. When the WG record is
moved to this state, a message is sent to the Secretariat. The
normal next state is "Initial IESG and IAB review" if the idea is
accepted, or "Not currently under review" if the idea is
abandoned. The tool should prompt the AD if they try to move to
the next state in less than the minimum elapsed time is set by the
AD when creating the WG.
o Initial IESG and IAB review -- The IESG and IAB are reviewing the
early draft of the charter. When moved to this state, a note is
sent to the Secretariat to place this on the next IESG telechat
and to inform the IAB. The usual next state is "External review"
if the idea is adopted, or "Informal IESG review" if the IESG
decides the idea needs more work, or "Not currently under review"
if the idea is abandoned.
o External review -- The IETF community and possibly other SDOs are
reviewing the proposed charter. When moved to this state, a note
is sent to the Secretariat to send out the external review
announcement to the appropriate lists. The usual next state is
"IESG review", although it might move to "Not currently under
review" if the idea is abandoned during the external review.
o IESG review -- The IESG is reviewing the discussion from the
external review of the proposed charter. When moved to this
state, a note is sent to the Secretariat to schedule discussion
for the next IESG telechat. The usual next state is "WG exists",
or "Not currently under review" if the idea is abandoned.
o WG exists -- The WG was approved by the IESG. When moved to this
state, a note is sent to the Secretariat to publish the charter
and send the appropriate announcements. The WG remains in this
state until there is a request to update the charter.
o Not currently under review -- The proposed WG is not being
considered at this time. A proposed WG charter will remain in
Hoffman Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft WG Charter Tool Reqs January 2011
this state until an AD moves it to "Informan IESG review".
All states above, except for "WG exists", are given the annotation
"Initial chartering".
3.2. Rechartering an Existing WG
Any AD can request that a WG be rechartered using a simple web form.
This form prompts with the current charter and allows all fields to
be edited. Asking for a recharter causes the Datatracker state for
this WG to be "Informal IESG review". When the recharter record is
created, the AD proposes a length of time (in weeks) for the internal
review time; the default is one week.
The review states in which a WG can exist during rechartering are:
o Informal IESG review -- This is the initial state, moved into by
the tool when an AD asks for a WG to be rechartered. When the WG
record is moved to this state, a message is sent to the
Secretariat. The normal next state is "Initial IESG and IAB
review" if the idea is accepted, or "WG exists" if this attempt to
recharter is abandoned. The tool should prompt the AD if they try
to move to the next state in less than the minimum elapsed time is
set by the AD when asking to recharter the WG.
o Initial IESG and IAB review -- The IESG and IAB are reviewing the
proposed new charter. When moved to this state, a note is sent to
the Secretariat to place this on the next IESG telechat and to
inform the IAB. The usual next state is "External review" if the
idea is adopted, or "Informal IESG review" if the IESG decides the
idea needs more work, or "WG exists" if the current rechartering
abandoned.
o External review -- The IETF community and possibly other SDOs are
reviewing the proposed new charter. When moved to this state, a
note is sent to the Secretariat to send out the external review
announcement to the appropriate lists. The usual next state is
"IESG review", although it might move to "WG exists" if the
current rechartering is abandoned during the external review.
o IESG review -- The IESG is reviewing the discussion from the
external review of the recharter. When moved to this state, a
note is sent to the Secretariat to schedule discussion for the
next IESG telechat. The usual next state is "WG exists", or "Not
currently under review" if the idea is abandoned.
o WG exists -- There is no active rechartering effort for this WG.
Hoffman Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft WG Charter Tool Reqs January 2011
All states above, except for "WG exists", are given the annotation
"Rechartering".
3.3. Ballots for Charter Approval
The current Datatracker has facilities for ballots on adoption of
Internet Drafts to become RFCs. Those facilities need to be expanded
to allow balloting for initial chartering or rechartering during IESG
review.
4. Requesting the Closing of a WG
An AD can use the tool to request the Secretariat to close an
existing WG. The request action will prompt the AD to provide
instructions regarding the disposition of any active Internet-Drafts
(withdraw them or convert them to individual submissions), wording
for the closure announcement, and the status of the WG mailing list
(will it remain open or should it be closed).
5. Searching and Comparing Charters
5.1. Viewing and Searching the Charter Database
All members of the IETF community can view the public portions of the
charter database. They can also search for a WG record in the tool
based on one or more of the following criteria:
o WG name (full or partial)
o WG acronym
o WG charter state
o Shepherding AD
o Area
o Text in any of the fields
Further, all users can view all snapshots of earlier versions of a
WG's charter. Snapshots include the Area, AD, WG name, WG acronym,
chairs, and charter text
Hoffman Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft WG Charter Tool Reqs January 2011
5.2. Seeing Differences between Versions of Pre-approval Wordings
It needs to be easy to compare differences between different versions
of proposed charter language, up to and including the approved
version. Using the naming formats given in Section 2, this means
that it must be easy to compare wgacronym-charter-ss (for the highest
value of "ss") with wgacronym-recharter-ss-nn. It must also be
possible to compare any two versions of approved charters (that is,
of two values for "ss" in wgacronym-charter-ss).
6. IANA Considerations
None.
7. Security Considerations
Creating a new tool for tracking the charter of WGs does not affect
the security of the Internet in any significant fashion.
8. Acknowledgements
This document draws heavily on, including wholesale copying from,
earlier work done on this topic by other writers. They will be
acknowledged by name in a future version of this document if their
identities are ascertained.
Various members of the IESG contributed many suggestions to this
document. In particular David Harrington, Robert Sparks, and Russ
Housley contributed a great deal of wording and many ideas.
9. Normative References
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
Appendix A. Some Known Open Issues
There are actually many more open issues than are listed here. 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.
Hoffman Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft WG Charter Tool Reqs January 2011
o It is not yet clear whether the tool will have its own database or
use the current Datatracker database.
o There needs to be a requirement about Atom feeds for the charters.
Appendix B. Differences between -03 and -04
This is a total reorganization of the document. Instead of being a
jumble of requirements, it is now organized by action. This causes
some duplication across actions (notably between WG creation and
rechartering), but there are some subtle differences that makes this
duplication worthwhile.
Aligned the actions and states to the "Working Group Procedures"
document used by the IESG and IETF Secretariat. This caused many of
the states to change names.
Added a balloting procedure.
Added a charter numbering scheme.
Removed the "Requirement" part of the section headings because they
were not really requirements.
Removed "milestones" everywhere because it is part of the charter
text.
Author's Address
Paul Hoffman
VPN Consortium
Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
Hoffman Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 10]
