Proto E. Juskevicius
Internet Draft TrekAhead
Intended status: Informational January 2, 2010
Expires: July 2, 2010
Definition of Working Group Document States
draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and 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 July 2, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the BSD License.
Juskevicius Expires July 2, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States January 2010
Abstract
This document contains definitions for all of the different states
that documents (viz. Internet-Drafts) may experience while
associated with an IETF working group. The first state occurs when
an I-D is submitted for consideration as a working group item, and
the last state is either when the I-D is sent to the IESG for
publication, or declared as "dead". The intended purpose of this
Internet-Draft is to serve as a basis for defining requirements to
update the I-D tracker tool, to permit WG Chairs and other persons
to view the progression of documents through IETF working groups.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
3. Definitions of Possible WG Document States.....................3
3.1. WG Document States........................................3
3.1.1. Candidate WG Document................................3
3.1.2. Active WG Document...................................3
3.1.3. Not a WG Document....................................4
3.1.4. Parked WG Document...................................4
3.1.5. In WG Last Call......................................4
3.1.6. Waiting for WG Document Shepherd Write-Up............4
3.1.7. Submitted to IESG for Publication....................4
3.1.8. Dead WG Document.....................................4
3.2. Straw Man State Diagram...................................5
3.3. WG Document Sub-states....................................6
3.3.1. Sub-state Annotations................................6
3.3.2. Intended WG Document Status..........................6
4. Security Considerations........................................7
5. IANA Considerations............................................7
6. References.....................................................7
6.1. Normative References......................................7
6.2. Informative References....................................7
7. Acknowledgments................................................7
1. Introduction
A deficiency of the current IETF I-D Tracker is that it has no
information about the status of Internet Drafts (I-Ds), other than
"I-D Exists" prior to the time when Working Groups (WGs) send
documents to the IESG along for publication.
Juskevicius Expires July 2, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States January 2010
This document contains definitions for all of the different states
that documents written for consideration by IETF WGs may experience
during their progression through the process. The purpose of
articulating these definitions is to enable community discussion on
them, and on a state diagram for the 'preferred' path that most WGs
use to progress I-Ds.
A desired outcome of this initiative is to facilitate the coding of
front-end extensions to the I-D Tracker tool, to allow WG Chairs and
other members of the community to monitor the status of I-Ds as they
progress through IETF working groups. In order for the I-D Tracker
to reflect WG document status information, new WG document states
and sub-state "annotation tags" need to be defined, agreed, and then
coded into the front-end of the tool.
2. Conventions used in this document
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 Error!
Reference source not found..
3 3. . D De ef fi in ni it ti io on ns s o of f P Po os ss si ib bl le e W WG G D Do oc cu um me en nt t S St ta at te es s
Section 3.1 defines the possible states that could apply to an I-D
that has been submitted to an IETF working group. Section 3.2
illustrates the states in a state diagram. Section 3.3 defines
additional terms to describe various WG document sub-states
3.1. WG Document States
3.1.1. Candidate WG Document
This document is under consideration for becoming a working group
document. A document being in this state does not imply any
consensus, and does not imply any precedence or selection. The
purpose of this state is simply to indicate that someone has asked
for an existing I-D to be considered for acceptance as a working
group document.
3.1.2. Active WG Document
This document has been adopted by a working group, and is being
actively developed.
Juskevicius Expires July 2, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States January 2010
3.1.3. Not a WG Document
This document is not a WG Document. An I-D may be in this state for
a variety of reasons. Some examples are:
* the I-D was a "Candidate WG Document" but was rejected by the WG;
* the I-D is an IAB or IRTF document, or an independent submission
not intended to become a WG document
3.1.4. Parked WG Document
This document has lost its author or editor, is waiting for another
document to be written, or cannot currently be progressed by the
working group for some other reason.
3.1.5. In WG Last Call
A working group last call has been issued for this document, and is
in progress. After the last call is completed, the document may
return to being an "Active WG Document" again, or be "Parked" for a
variety of reasons, or enter the "Waiting for Document Shepherd
Write-Up" state.
Many members of the community ask for additional information to be
forthcoming when the result of a WG Last Call is "Revised ID
Needed". See section 3.3.1 for a sub-state "annotation tag"
intended to provide such additional information.
3.1.6. Waiting for WG Document Shepherd Write-Up
The working group last call has been completed and the document is
waiting for the Document Shepherd to submit his/her write-up.
3.1.7. Submitted to IESG for Publication
The document has been submitted to the IESG for publication (and has
not returned to the WG for further action). The document may be
under consideration by the IESG, it may have been approved and be in
the RFC Editor's queue, or it may have been published as an RFC;
this state does not distinguish between different states that may
occur after the document has left the working group.
3.1.8. Dead WG Document
This document was a WG document, but has been abandoned. Note that
this does not have to be a final state. If consensus is
Juskevicius Expires July 2, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States January 2010
subsequently achieved in the working group, a Dead WG Document can
be resurrected.
3.2. Straw Man State Diagram
Figure 1 illustrates the different states defined in section 3.1,
and some of the state transitions that an I-D may experience.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| I-D |
| Exists |
| |
| | |
| | |
| v |
| |
| CANDIDATE WG --------------> NOT A WG |
| DOCUMENT DOCUMENT |
| _| |
| +----------------+ |
| | |
| v |
| WAITING FOR |
| +---------> ACTIVE WG ---> IN WG ----> DOC SHEPHERD |
| | DOCUMENT LAST CALL WRITE-UP |
| | | | |
| | | ^ . | |
| | | . | |
| PARKED WG <-------+ | . | |
| DOCUMENT <-----+ | . v |
| | | . |
| | | | . Submitted |
| | | | - - < - < - - - (to IESG) |
| | | For Publication |
| +-------> DEAD WG DOCUMENT |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1 - Diagram of I-D states relevant to IETG working groups
Juskevicius Expires July 2, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States January 2010
3.3. WG Document Sub-states
In addition to identifying the state that each WG Document is in, it
would be informative to indicate associated sub-states or conditions
which may affect each WG Document. These conditions do not change
the state of WG documents, but they can be used, for example, to
help the community to understand why a document is in the state it
is in, and/or to indicate the next action needed for the document.
3.3.1. Sub-state Annotations
Each of the sub-state annotations defined here may be appropriate to
indicate the sub-state of WG Documents at different times. They
are:
* "Awaiting Cross-Area Review"
* "Awaiting MIB Doctor Review"
* "Awaiting Security Review"
* "Awaiting Other Reviews"
* "Awaiting Merge with other Document"
* "Doc Shepherd Follow-up"
* "Editor Needed"
* "Held due to Dependency on other Document"
* "Held due to IESG concerns on this Document"
* "Revised ID Needed - based on WG consensus"
* "Revised ID Needed - after on WG last call"
* "Other - see Comment Log"
3.3.2. Intended WG Document Status
In addition to the sub-state annotation tags defined in section
3.3.1, the intended maturity level of every WG Document should also
be tracked. The definition of the maturity levels are as in
sections 4 and 5 of RFC 2026 [2]. They are:
* "Experimental"
* "Informational"
* "Best Current Practice"
* "Proposed Standard"
* "Draft Standard"
* "Full Standard"
* "Historic"
Juskevicius Expires July 2, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States January 2010
4. Security Considerations
This document does not propose any new internet mechanisms, and has
no security implications for the internet.
5. 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.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process - Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
6.2. Informative References
[3] Levkowetz, H., and Mankin, A., "Requirements on I-D Tracker
Extensions for Working Group Chairs", draft-ietf-proto-
wgchair-tracker-ext-03, February 8, 2007.
7. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Henrik Levkowetz and Allison Mankin
for writing the original document [3] that this I-D borrows copious
amounts of text from.
The author would also like to thank Henrik Levkowetz, Pasi Eronen,
Mary Barnes, Glenn Parsons, Russ Housley, Marc Blanchet and other WG
chairs for useful discussions, comments and suggestions.
This document was initially prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Juskevicius Expires July 2, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States January 2010
Author's Address
Ed Juskevicius
TrekAhead
PO Box 491, Carp, ON
CANADA
Email: edj.etc@gmail.com
Juskevicius Expires July 2, 2010 [Page 8]
