Proto H. Levkowetz Internet-Draft Ericsson Intended status: Informational P. Roberts Expires: August 12, 2007 Motorola A. Falk ISI February 8, 2007 Requirements on I-D Tracker Extensions for IAB and IRTF Document Shepherds draft-ietf-proto-iab-irtf-tracker-ext-01 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 August 12, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract This document describes the states which need to be added to the I-D tracker to make it possible for IAB and IRTF document shepherds (whoever the IAB and IRTF designate, e.g. the IAB Chair, RG Chairs) to update the I-D tracker during document shepherding. It is a Levkowetz, et al. Expires August 12, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IAB and IRTF Tracker Requirements February 2007 companion document of draft-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext which describes additional requirements for the chairs to use the I-D tracker for managing WG documents from their earliest stages. 1. Introduction In order to make it possible for IAB and IRTF document shepherds to do the full duties of shepherding it is necessary for them to be able to enter document state changes and issue resolutions into the I-D tracker. However, at the time of writing, only area directors have the necessary write access to the tracker. The requirements for providing sufficient write access to document shepherds in general, and the new states needed for working group chairs acting as shepherds in particular are described in draft-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext [I-D.ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext]. This document describes the additional tracker states which are specific to the IAB and the IRTF document flow. 1.1. Terminology In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements of the specification. These words are often capitalised. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. The requirements in this document are specified using a set of requirements. These requirements are English phrases ending with an "(R-nnn)" indication, where "nnn" is a unique requirement number. 2. New Document States In order to be able to provide appropriate document state indications for documents which are IAB documents or IRTF documents and have not yet been submitted for publication as RFC, an additional state variable (see Section 2.1), and an additional tagging field (see Section 2.2 for respective document type (IAB / IRTF) is needed in the tracker. These are described in the following sections. 2.1. IAB Document States A new state variable or field to hold IAB Document states will be added to the tracker. This field will track the IAB state of the document, and will be updated by the IAB designated document shepherd for IAB documents. Levkowetz, et al. Expires August 12, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IAB and IRTF Tracker Requirements February 2007 Defined IAB States: * Accepted IAB Document This document has been adopted by the IAB and is being actively developed. (R-101) * Parked IAB Document This document has lost its author or editor, is waiting for another document to be written, or cannot currently be worked on by the IAB for some other reason. (R-102) * Partner Feedback The IAB often produces documents that need socialising with outside organisations (such as the IEEE) or other internal organisations (such as the IESG or the IAOC). This document has been sent out for feedback from one of these partner groups. (R-103) * Internal Consensus This document is awaiting the IAB itself to agree that this document is done and ready for community review. (R-104) * Community Review This document is under community review. (R-105) * Sent to the RFC Editor The IAB processing of this document is complete and it has been sent to the RFC Editor for publication. The document may be in the RFC Editor's queue, or it may have been published as an RFC; this state doesn't distinguish between different states occurring after the document has left the IAB. (R-106) * Dead IAB Document This document was an active IAB document, but for one reason or another is no longer being pursued. It is however possible that the document might be revived. (R-107) * Not an IAB Document This document is not an IAB document. (R-108) Levkowetz, et al. Expires August 12, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IAB and IRTF Tracker Requirements February 2007 2.2. IAB State Annotation Tags The use of a separate tagging or annotation field makes it possible to capture a number of specific conditions for a draft, where these conditions can exist in parallel. These conditions also does not really change the IAB state of the document, but are still useful to show for instance what action is needed next for the document. The tracker should provide a means to set one or more of these annotation tags for a document, for instance by use of a multiple-choice selection box in a web interface (R-110). These annotation tags are similar to the existing sub-states of the IESG state, but may be a more appropriate mechanism to show additional information which is not directly related to the document state. Defined IAB state annotation tags (R-111): * "Editor Needed" * "Held for Dependency on other Document" * "Awaiting Reviews" * "Revised ID Needed" * "Doc Shepherd Followup" * "Other - see Comment Log" The annotation tag "Revised ID Needed" should be automatically cleared when a new revision of a document is made available (R-112). 2.3. IRTF Document States The following states should be added to the tracker, for use for IRTF documents. Defined IRTF Document States: * Candidate IRTF Document This document is under consideration for becoming a IRTF document. A document being in this state does not imply any consensus, and does not imply any precedence or selection. It's simply a way to indicate that somebody has asked for a document to be considered for adoption. (R-201) * Active IRTF Document This document has been adopted by a IRTF, and is being actively developed. (R-202) Levkowetz, et al. Expires August 12, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IAB and IRTF Tracker Requirements February 2007 * Parked IRTF Document This document has lost its author or editor, is waiting for another document to be written, or cannot currently be worked on by the IRTF for some other reason. (R-203) * In IRTF Last Call An IRTF last call has been issued for this document, and is in progress. When the last call has completed, a document would normally enter either the "Active IRTF Document" or the "Waiting for Document Shepherd Write-up" state, depending on the nature of the IRTF Last Call comments received. In both cases, an annotation of "Revised ID Needed" might also be appropriate, based on the comments received. (R-204) * Waiting for Document Shepherd Write-up The IRTF last call has been completed, and the document is waiting for the Document Shepherd to complete his write-up. (R-211) * Submitted IRTF Document The document has been submitted for publication (and not returned to the IRTF for further action). The document may be in the RFC Editor's queue, or it may have been published as an RFC; this state doesn't distinguish between different states occurring after the document has left the IRTF. (R-205) * Dead IRTF Document This document has been a IRTF document, but has been killed or abandoned. (R-207) * Not a IRTF Document This document is not a IRTF document. This means that the IESG state for the document is either "I-D Exists" or "AD is watching". The document may have various other states set, such as various IAB or IRTF document states; but if so it is not reflected in the IRTF document state which simply will indicate "Not a IRTF Document". (R-206) 2.4. IRTF State Annotation Tags The use of a separate tagging or annotation field makes it possible to capture a number of specific conditions for a draft, where these conditions can exist in parallel. These conditions also does not Levkowetz, et al. Expires August 12, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IAB and IRTF Tracker Requirements February 2007 really change the IRTF state of the document, but are still useful to show for instance what action is needed next for the document. The tracker should provide a means to set one or more of these annotation tags for a document, for instance by use of a multiple-choice selection box in a web interface (R-208). These annotation tags are similar to the existing sub-states of the IESG state, but may be a more appropriate mechanism to show additional information which is not directly related to the document state. Defined IRTF state annotation tags (R-210): * "Editor Needed" * "Held for Dependency on other Document" * "Awaiting Reviews" * "Revised ID Needed" * "Doc Shepherd Followup" * "Other - see Comment Log" The annotation tag "Revised ID Needed" should be automatically cleared when a new revision of a document is made available (R-209). 3. 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. 4. Security Considerations This document does not propose any new internet mechanisms, and has no security implications for the internet. 5. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [I-D.ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext] Levkowetz, H. and A. Mankin, "Requirements on I-D Tracker Extensions for Working Group Chairs", draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-02 (work in progress), January 2007. Levkowetz, et al. Expires August 12, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IAB and IRTF Tracker Requirements February 2007 Authors' Addresses Henrik Levkowetz Ericsson Torsgatan 71 Stockholm S-113 37 SWEDEN Phone: +46 708 32 16 08 Email: henrik@levkowetz.com Phil Roberts Motorola 1301 E Algonquin Rd Schaumberg, IL 60196 USA Email: phil.roberts@motorola.com Aaron Falk USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 USA Phone: +1-310-448-9327 Email: falk@isi.edu URI: http://www.isi.edu/~falk Levkowetz, et al. Expires August 12, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IAB and IRTF Tracker Requirements February 2007 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Levkowetz, et al. Expires August 12, 2007 [Page 8]