[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03                                                   
INTERNET-DRAFT                                      D. Meyer
draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-discuss-pilot-02.txt
Category                                       Informational
Expires: October 2004                             April 2004

        Pilot: Working Group Chair Followup of DISCUSS Comments
            <draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-discuss-pilot-02.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
    3.4. Responsible AD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
    3.5. DISCUSSing AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5. Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6. Pilot Process -- Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7. Pilot Termination and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   12. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
    12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
    12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   13. Author's Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   14. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   15. Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   16. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

























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. Note that the Working Group
   Secretary (if such exists) may also serve as the SWGC.



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.



3.4.  Responsible AD


   The responsible AD is the Area Director who is responsible for the
   draft.



3.5.  DISCUSSing AD


   The DISCUSSing AD is the Area Director who has raised the DISCUSS
   comments (as documented in the ID Tracker).



4.  Participants


   TBD



5.  Duration


   TBD







Meyer, D.                                           Section 5.  [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: October 2004               April 2004


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. In order to
            accomplish this, the SWGC's email address must be added
            to the "State Change Notice To:" field in the ID tracker.
            This will result in an email to the SWGC when the
            document is moved from the "IESG Evaluation" state to
            the "IESG Evaluation/New ID Needed state", which occurs
            after the IESG teleconference. This notification indicates
            to the the SWGC that, for most past, the all of the
            DISCUSS comments have been registered.

            Note that there may be exceptional cases when DISCUSS
            comments are registered after the IESG teleconference.
            In these cases, the DISCUSSing AD should notify the SWGC
            that new comments have been entered.

    (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:






Meyer, D.                                           Section 6.  [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: October 2004               April 2004


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


    (vi).   The SWGC communicates the resolution-so-far to the
            responsible AD and the DISCUSSing AD(s).

    (vii).  DISCUSSing AD removes DISCUSS comment, or tells the WG
            why the comment is not resolved.

            If the DISCUSS comment in question was not resolved to
            the satisfaction of the DISCUSSing and responsible ADs,
            two possibilities exist:

            (a). The process returns to step (iii), or

            (b). The working group can appeal in accordance with the
                 procedures described in RFC 2418 [RFC2418].

            Otherwise, the process continues with step (viii).

    (viii). The responsible AD moves document to APPROVED state, or
            sends it back to the IESG for re-review (if the changes
            are deemed significant).




7.  Pilot Termination and Evaluation


   TBD



8.  Contributors


   TBD







Meyer, D.                                           Section 8.  [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: October 2004               April 2004


9.  Acknowledgments


   Harald  Alvestrand, Brian Carpenter, Aaron Falk and Pekka Savola made
   many insightful comments on early versions of this document.














































Meyer, D.                                           Section 9.  [Page 8]


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 9]


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", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October, 1996.

   [RFC2418]       Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
                   Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.




12.2.  Informative References


   [KLENSIN]       Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A model for IETF
                   Process Experiments", draft-klensin-process-july14-02.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 10]


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 11]


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 12]