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]
