[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03                                                   
INTERNET-DRAFT                                      D. Meyer
draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-discuss-pilot-00.txt
Category                                       Informational
Expires: August 2004                           February 2004

        Pilot: Working Group Chair Followup of DISCUSS Comments
            <draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-discuss-pilot-00.txt>


Status of this Document

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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 document is a product of the Proto Team.  Comments should be
   addressed to the authors, or the mailing list at proto-team@ietf.org.


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.










Meyer, D.                                                       [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: August 2004             February 2004


                                Abstract


   As of this writing, many efforts aimed at streamlining various IETF
   processes are underway. One such effort is the Process and Tools, or
   PROTO Team. The PROTO Team is an IESG-driven activity focused  on
   improving the work flow of approval of documents, and the tools that
   support this work flow. This document describes a pilot process
   designed by the PROTO Team to streamline document flow by allowing
   working group chairs to coordinate the resolution IESG DISCUSS
   comments.








































Meyer, D.                                                       [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: August 2004             February 2004


                           Table of Contents


   1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2. Pilot Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
    3.1. Shepherding Working Group Chair (SWGC). . . . . . . . . . .   4
    3.2. Pilot Internet Draft (PID). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5. Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6. Pilot Process -- Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7. Pilot Termination and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   12. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
    12.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   13. Author's Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   14. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   15. Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   16. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11





























Meyer, D.                                                       [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: August 2004             February 2004


1.  Introduction


   As part of the currently ongoing effort to streamline various IETF
   processes, the PROTO team [PROTO] has designed a set pilot projects
   to test possible changes to current document flow processing.  This
   document describes a pilot project designed to allow working group
   chairs to follow up on IESG DISCUSS [IDTRACKER] comments, and thereby
   offload that function from shepherding Area Director (AD) and improve
   process efficiency.  Finally, see [KLENSIN] for one rationale
   supporting piloting of process changes.

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC 2119].



2.  Pilot Description


   This pilot is designed to allow a working group chair to follow up on
   and resolve the DISCUSS comments for a given internet draft, and by
   doing so increase the efficiency of the IETF document process flow.
   The next section defines the terminology used throughout the
   document, and remainder of the document describes the details of the
   pilot.



3.  Definitions




3.1.  Shepherding Working Group Chair (SWGC)


   The Shepherding Working Group Chair, or SWGC, is a working group
   chair that has been selected by the appropriate AD(s) to participate
   in the pilot described in this document.



3.2.  Pilot Internet Draft (PID)


   The Pilot Internet Draft, or PID, is an Internet draft which a



Meyer, D.                                         Section 3.2.  [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: August 2004             February 2004


   shepherding working group chair takes through the post-working group
   last call stages of the approval and publication process.  The
   approval of the responsible Area Director is necessary to make an
   Internet draft part of the pilot.



4.  Participants


   TBD



5.  Duration


   TBD




6.  Pilot Process -- Details



   In this section we detail the steps that a SWGC will take in
   resolving the DISCUSS items against a given PID. The steps are given
   below, in the order that they are to be executed.

    (i).   Immediately after the weekly IESG conference call, the
           SWGC queries the ID tracker [IDTRACKER] to collect any
           DISCUSS comments raised against the PID.

           Note: The ID tracker is capable of sending email on
                 change of state. For the duration of the pilot, it
                 would be desirable for the tracker to send email to
                 the SWGC when the PID changes state to the AD
                 Followup, Revised ID Need, or Do Not Publish
                 states. If this is not possible, the SWGC will have
                 to query the tracker to determine if there are
                 DISCUSS comments.









Meyer, D.                                           Section 6.  [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: August 2004             February 2004


    (ii).    The SWGC analyzes comments from the tracker, and
        initializes contact with any AD's who have placed
        comments (blocking or non-blocking) on a draft, notifying
        them that the SWGC is the current document shepherd and
        seeking any additional clarification necessary to
        understand the comment.


           +------+  Comments     +--------+  Comments      +-------+
           | (i)  |-------------> |  (ii)  | -------------> | (iii) |
           +------+  Collected    +--------+  Understood    +-------+
                                   /|\   |
                                    |    | Comments not fully understood
                                    |    | (Further AD/SWGC Discussion Required)
                                    +----+

    (iii). The SWGC then coordinates DISCUSS comments, and builds a
           a consistent interpretation the comments. This step may
           required iteration with step (ii). above. That is:


           +------+   Consistent     +-------+
           | (ii) |----------------> | (iii) |
           +------+ Interpretation   +-------+
             /|\                         |
              |                          | Further AD/SWGC Discussion
              |                          | Required
              +--------------------------+


    (iv).  The DISCUSS comments are then communicated to the working
        group.

    (v).   After the author(s) resolve the issues provided by the
           chair (the distilled DISCUSS issues), the SWGC reviews
           the updated document to ensure that (in her/his option)
           the DISCUSS issues have been resolved.

    (vi).  Finally, the SWGC prepares a summary of the resolution
        including new document text and notifies the responsible
        AD that the PID is ready to be reconsidered by the IESG.










Meyer, D.                                           Section 6.  [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: August 2004             February 2004


7.  Pilot Termination and Evaluation


   TBD



8.  Contributors


   TBD



9.  Acknowledgments


   Aaron Falk made many insightful comments on early versions of this
   document.
































Meyer, D.                                           Section 9.  [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: August 2004             February 2004


10.  Security Considerations


   This document specifies neither a protocol nor an operational
   practice, and as such, it creates no new security considerations.



11.  IANA Considerations


   This document creates a no new requirements on IANA namespaces
   [RFC2434].






































Meyer, D.                                          Section 11.  [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: August 2004             February 2004


12.  References


12.1.  Informative References


   [IDTRACKER]     https://datatracker.ietf.org

   [KLENSIN]       Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A model for IETF
                   Process Experiments", draft-klensin-process-july14-00.txt.
                   Work in progress.

   [PROTO]         http://psg.com/~mrw/PROTO-Team

   [RFC2119]       Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
                   Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March,
                   1997.

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

   [RFC2028]       Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations
                   Involved in the IETF Standards Process", RFC
                   2028/BCP 11, October, 1996.

   [RFC2434]       Narten, T., and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
                   Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
                   RFC 2434/BCP 26, October 1998.























Meyer, D.                                        Section 12.1.  [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: August 2004             February 2004


13.  Author's Address


   D. Meyer
   Email: dmm@1-4-5.net


14.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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 translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.


15.  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



Meyer, D.                                         Section 15.  [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: August 2004             February 2004


   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.


16.  Acknowledgement


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.





























Meyer, D.                                         Section 16.  [Page 11]