INTERNET-DRAFT D. Meyer draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-discuss-pilot-01.txt Category Informational Expires: October 2004 April 2004 Pilot: Working Group Chair Followup of DISCUSS Comments <draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-discuss-pilot-01.txt> Status of this Document This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to 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/1id-abstracts.html 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 WG. 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: October 2004 April 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: October 2004 April 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Pilot Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Shepherding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Shepherding Working Group Chair (SWGC). . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Pilot Internet Draft (PID). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12.2. 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: October 2004 April 2004 1. Introduction As part of the ongoing effort to streamline various IETF processes, the PROTO team [PROTO] has designed a set of 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, [KLENSIN] describes the rationale for supporting piloting of process changes. 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 [MANKIN] defines the basic concept of document shepherding as "...a single person (an AD currently) to take responsibility for a document from the time the WG Chair(s) requests the IESG to publish it to the time that it is given final edits by the RFC Editor. The motivation is for the shepherd to provide needed coordination." 3.2. Shepherding Working Group Chair (SWGC) The Shepherding Working Group Chair, or SWGC, is a working group Meyer, D. Section 3.2. [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: October 2004 April 2004 chair that has been selected by the appropriate AD(s) to participate in the pilot described in this document. 3.3. Pilot Internet Draft (PID) The Pilot Internet Draft, or PID, is an Internet draft which a 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. Meyer, D. Section 6. [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: October 2004 April 2004 Notes: (i). 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. (ii). It may take a couple of days after the conference call to get all the ADs to insert their comments in the tracker. It is advised to check multiple times if new comments have been added, unless all the ADs have already registered their position and comment(s). (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. Note that the responsible AD must copied on this correspondence. +------+ 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 +--------------------------+ Meyer, D. Section 6. [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: October 2004 April 2004 (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. Note that the SWGC may also propose resolutions to these issues, file them in an issue tracker, or do other steps to streamline the resolution of the comments. (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. 7. Pilot Termination and Evaluation TBD 8. Contributors TBD 9. Acknowledgments Aaron Falk and Pekka Savola made many insightful comments on early versions of this document. Meyer, D. Section 9. [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: October 2004 April 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: October 2004 April 2004 12. References 12.1. Normative References [IDTRACKER] https://datatracker.ietf.org [MANKIN] Mankin, A., "A Not So Wild Sheep Chase - Definition of Shepherding", draft-ietf-proto-shepherding-00.txt. Work in Progress. [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC 2026/BCP 9, October, 1996. 12.2. Informative References [KLENSIN] Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A model for IETF Process Experiments", draft-klensin-process-july14-01.txt. Work in progress. [PROTO] http://psg.com/~mrw/PROTO-Team [RFC2434] Narten, T., and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434/BCP 26, October 1998. Meyer, D. Section 12.2. [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: October 2004 April 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: October 2004 April 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]