Proto E. Juskevicius
Internet Draft TrekAhead
Intended status: Informational May 2, 2010
Expires: November 2, 2010
Definition of Working Group Document States
draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-03.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 November 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 Simplified BSD License.
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
Abstract
This document defines different states that an Internet-Draft (I-D)
may be in while associated with an IETF working group. The first
state describes an I-D that is being considered for adoption by a
working group. One of several possible last states describes an I-D
that has been sent to the IESG for publication.
The IETF Datatracker tool will be enhanced to make it possible for
working group chairs to indicate the status of working group
documents in order to provide more feedback and transparency to
document authors and to the IETF community.
Appendix A describes different states used by IETF Area Directors to
indicate the status of I-Ds sent to the IESG for review and
publication.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................4
2. Conventions used in this document..............................4
3. Document States................................................4
3.1. Document Validity States..................................4
3.1.1. I-D Exists...........................................5
3.1.2. Expired..............................................5
3.1.3. Active...............................................5
3.2. IESG Document States......................................5
3.2.1. Publication Requested................................6
3.2.2. AD Evaluation........................................6
3.2.3. IESG Evaluation......................................6
3.2.4. Other IESG Document States...........................6
3.3. Working Group Document States.............................7
3.3.1. Candidate WG Document................................7
3.3.2. Active WG Document...................................7
3.3.3. Adopted For WG Info Only.............................8
3.3.4. Not Adopted by a WG..................................8
3.3.5. Parked WG Draft......................................8
3.3.6. Dead WG Draft........................................9
3.3.7. In WG Last Call......................................9
3.3.8. Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead........................9
3.3.9. WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up...................9
3.3.10. Submitted to IESG for Publication..................10
3.4. Working Group Document State Diagram.....................10
3.5. WG Document Status Annotation Tags.......................12
3.5.1. Awaiting Cross-Area Review..........................12
3.5.2. Awaiting MIB Doctor Review..........................12
3.5.3. Awaiting Security Review............................12
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
3.5.4. Awaiting Other Review...............................13
3.5.5. Awaiting Merge with Other Document..................13
3.5.6. Author or Editor Needed.............................13
3.5.7. Held due to Dependency *on* other Document..........13
3.5.8. Held due to Dependency *by* other Document..........14
3.5.9. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG Last Call...14
3.5.10. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD............14
3.5.11. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG..........14
3.5.12. Doc Shepherd Follow-Up Underway....................15
3.5.13. Not Intended for Publication.......................15
3.5.14. Other - see Comment Log............................15
3.6. Intended Maturity Level of WG Documents..................15
4. Security Considerations.......................................16
5. IANA Considerations...........................................16
6. References....................................................16
6.1. Normative References.....................................16
6.2. Informative References...................................16
7. Acknowledgments...............................................17
Appendix A: "IESG Document" States...............................18
A.1. Definition of "IESG Document" States.....................18
A.1.1. I-D Exists..........................................18
A.1.2. Publication Requested...............................18
A.1.3. AD Evaluation.......................................18
A.1.4. Expert Review.......................................18
A.1.5. Last Call Requested.................................19
A.1.6. In Last Call........................................19
A.1.7. Waiting for Write-up................................19
A.1.8. Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.............................19
A.1.9. IESG Evaluation.....................................19
A.1.10. IESG Evaluation - Defer............................19
A.1.11. Approved - Announcement to be sent.................20
A.1.12. Approved - Announcement sent.......................20
A.1.13. RFC Ed Queue.......................................20
A.1.14. RFC Published......................................20
A.1.15. DNP - Waiting for AD note..........................20
A.1.16. DNP - Announcement to be sent......................20
A.1.17. AD is Watching.....................................20
A.1.18. Dead...............................................21
A.2. IESG Document Substates..................................21
A.2.1. Point Raised - Write-up needed......................21
A.2.2. AD Follow-up........................................21
A.2.3. External Party......................................22
A.2.4. Revised I-D Needed..................................22
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
1. Introduction
The IETF Datatracker is a web-based system for managing information
about Internet-Drafts (I-Ds), RFCs and several other important
aspects of the IETF process [IDTRACKER].
The Datatracker can provide a lot of information about the status
and progression of Internet-Drafts that have been sent to the IESG
for review and publication. In contrast, the Datatracker has almost
no information about the status of IETF working group documents.
The Datatracker can only report on the validity of I-Ds until they
are sent to the IESG (e.g. "I-D Exists", "Expired", "Active").
This document defines new states to be added to the Datatracker to
make it possible for working group chairs to indicate the status and
progression of Internet-Drafts in their working groups.
2. Conventions used in this document
The phrase "working group document" is to be interpreted as being
synonymous with "working group I-D" and "working group draft". The
same is true for the plural case of each phrase.
The phrase "working group document" is not intended to apply to any
other document that may be reviewed, discussed, or produced by an
IETF working group. Working group meeting materials such as Blue
Sheets, agendas, jabber logs, scribe's notes, minutes, and
presentation slides are not to be considered as "working group
documents" in the context of this document.
3. Document States
This section summarizes existing document states in the Datatracker
and it describes several new states that need to be added in order
to provide status information about IETF working group drafts.
3.1. Document Validity States
The Datatracker can be queried for validity status information about
every I-D. There are three validity states:
- I-D Exists
- Expired
- Active
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
3.1.1. I-D Exists
When an I-D is submitted to the IETF, the submission is logged in
a database that can be searched by the Datatracker.
"I-D Exists" is a default state manufactured by the Datatracker to
describe every I-D that exists in the database for which no other
status information can be found.
A document described as "I-D Exists" may or may not be a working
group document. "I-D Exists" may apply to an I-D in any of the
document streams (e.g. IETF, IAB, IRTF, Independent Submission)
defined in RFC 4844 [RFC4844] and RFC 5742 [RFC5742].
3.1.2. Expired
An "Expired" I-D is a document that is more than six months old
and that has not been updated or replaced by a newer version.
Every Internet-Draft has a normal lifespan of 185 days. An I-D
will expire and be deleted from the I-D repository after six
months unless it is updated or replaced by a newer version. One
exception is that an I-D under official review by the IESG will
not be expired before its status is resolved (e.g. the I-D is
published as an RFC). IESG states that do not relate to a formal
request to publish a document (e.g. "AD is Watching") do not
prevent an I-D from expiring [AUTHGUIDE].
3.1.3. Active
An "Active" I-D is a document that is not expired and for which
the Datatracker has some additional status information.
An "Active" document may be an Individual Draft or an I-D that the
Datatracker believes to be associated with an IETF working group
(e.g. because the filename includes the name of a WG). "Active"
may also used to describe an I-D under formal review by the IESG
or an I-D that is in the RFC Editor Queue, etc.
"Active" is not a reliable indicator of whether an I-D is being
actively developed in an IETF working group [WGDTSPEC].
3.2. IESG Document States
There are more than a dozen states in the IESG state machine. They
are used to indicate the status and progression of I-Ds under review
by the IESG [IDSTATES]. The following sections describe three
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
states which should be of interest to document authors and working
group chairs.
3.2.1. Publication Requested
"Publication Requested" describes an I-D for which a formal
request has been sent to the IESG to advance/publish the Internet-
Draft as an RFC, following the procedures described in Section 7.5
of RFC 2418 [RFC2418]. Most working group documents sent to the
IESG enter the IESG state machine at this point.
An I-D in the "Publication Requested" state has not (yet) been
reviewed by an Area Director and no official action has been taken
on the I-D other than to note that its publication has been
requested.
3.2.2. AD Evaluation
"AD Evaluation" is used to describe an I-D that the responsible
Area Director has begun to review. The purpose of the review is
to verify the I-D is ready for advancement before an IETF Last
Call is started or before the document is progressed to the IESG
as a whole.
After completing her/his evaluation, the Area Director may decide
the I-D needs to be revised before it can progress further. The
AD may send the I-D back to working group that created it for
revision.
3.2.3. IESG Evaluation
"IESG Evaluation" is another state that may cause an I-D to be
sent back to an IETF working group for revision.
"IESG Evaluation" describes a document that is being formally
reviewed by the entire IESG. Every Area Director is expected to
review the document and to air any issues he/she may have. Issues
that cannot be resolved are documented as "discuss" comments that
can be forwarded to the document author and/or the WG chair. A
"discuss" with serious issues may cause the I-D to be returned to
the working group for revision.
3.2.4. Other IESG Document States
See Appendix A and [IDSTATES].
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
3.3. Working Group Document States
This section describes new states to be added to the Datatracker to
make it possible for working group chairs and/or their delegates to
indicate the status of working group drafts.
Each working group chair will have the option to use some, all or
none of the working group document states to describe the status of
some, all or none of the I-Ds associated with his/her working group.
WG document states may be augmented by the use of one or more of the
annotation tags in Section 3.5. Annotation tags provide more
information about the status of an I-D and/or about an action that
may be needed to progress the document.
3.3.1. Candidate WG Document
The "Candidate WG Document" state may be used to describe an I-D
that is being considered for adoption by an IETF working group.
An I-D in this state has not (yet) achieved consensus, preference
or selection in a working group.
This state may be used to describe:
- an I-D that someone has asked to be considered by a working
group, if the chair has agreed with the request;
- an I-D that the WG chair asked an author to write; or
- an I-D listed as a 'candidate draft' in the WG charter.
An I-D may be a "Candidate WG Document" for more than one working
group at a time. This is to identify and track a document that
its author is 'shopping' to multiple working groups hoping to get
the draft adopted somewhere.
3.3.2. Active WG Document
An "Active WG Document" is an I-D that has been adopted by an IETF
working group and is being actively developed.
Note the "Active WG Document" state is not the same as the
"Active" validity state described in Section 3.1.3. There are
several differences. One is that a WG chair will be able to enter
additional information about an "Active WG Document" into the
Datatracker. For example, a WG chair will be able to indicate the
intended maturity level of the document (e.g. Informational,
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
Proposed Standard). This information is often requested by the
community and it is now required by the IESG for all documents
sent to them for publication.
Under normal conditions, it should not be possible for an I-D to
be active in more than one working group at a time. That being
said, documents may be transferred from one working group to
another. The Datatracker will make it possible to track when an
"Active WG Document" is transferred from one IETF working group to
another.
3.3.3. Adopted For WG Info Only
The "Adopted For WG Info Only" state describes a document that
contains useful information for the working group, however the
document will not be published as an RFC. The only purpose of
the draft is to provide information for internal use by the
working group.
3.3.4. Not Adopted by a WG
Some of the I-Ds written for consideration by IETF working groups
do not get adopted. The "Not Adopted by a WG" state describes an
I-D that had been considered for adoption by one or more working
groups and was not adopted by any working group.
A candidate draft may be moved into "Not Adopted by a WG" at any
time by a WG chair or automatically by the Datatracker (eg. after
expiry of a 'must be adopted by a specified date or else' timer).
An I-D that was a candidate in two or more working groups should
only be moved into this state after it is clear that no working
group will adopt it. In this scenario, the Datatracker may be
programmed to send an e-mail nudge to each working group chair to
warn that the I-D will be moved into the "Not Adopted by a WG"
state unless the document in placed into a different state soon
(e.g. Active WG Document, Adopted for WG Info Only).
3.3.5. Parked WG Draft
A "Parked WG Draft" is an I-D that has lost its author or editor,
is waiting for another document to be written or for a review to
be completed, or cannot be progressed by the working group for
some other reason.
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
This state may be used in conjunction with the annotation tags
described in Section 3.5 to indicate why the I-D was parked,
and/or what may need to happen for the I-D to be un-parked.
3.3.6. Dead WG Draft
A "Dead WG Draft" is an I-D that has been abandoned. Note that
dead is not always a final state for a working group draft. If
consensus is subsequently achieved, a "Dead WG Draft" may be
resurrected.
3.3.7. In WG Last Call
A document "In WG Last Call" is an I-D for which a Working Group
Last Call (WGLC) has been issued, and is in progress.
A document in this state should remain "In WG Last Call" until the
WG chair moves it to another state. The Datatracker may be
programmed (at the start of a WGLC) to send an e-mail to the chair
after a specified period of time to remind or 'nudge' the chair to
conclude the WGLC and to determine the next state for the
document.
Note that working group last calls are an optional part of the
IETF working group process, per section 7.4 of RFC 2418 [RFC2418].
3.3.8. Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
An I-D which receives a lot of comments during a working group
last call may be placed into the "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead"
state to indicate the last call has ended, however the chair is
not yet ready to call consensus on the document.
If comments from the WGLC need to be responded to, or a revision
to the I-D is needed, then the chair may wish to put the I-D into
this state until he/she can verify all of the WGLC comments are
adequately addressed and the (possibly revised) document is in the
I-D directory.
3.3.9. WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
A document in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up" state has
essentially completed its development within the working group,
and is nearly ready to be sent to the IESG for publication. The
last thing to be done is the preparation of a write-up by a
document shepherd. The IESG requires that a document shepherd
write-up be completed before publication of the I-D is requested.
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
A WG chair may call consensus on a draft without a formal working
group last call. An "Active WG Document" may be progressed into
this state if the chair has rough consensus on the document.
Alternatively, an I-D may traverse the "In WG Last Call" and/or
the "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead" state before consensus on it
is called.
This state includes 'waiting for write-up' because document
shepherds need time to prepare good write-ups.
3.3.10. Submitted to IESG for Publication
This state describes a WG document that has been submitted to the
IESG for publication and that has not been sent back to the
working group for revision.
A document in this state may be under review by the IESG, or it
may have been approved and be in the RFC Editor's queue, or it may
have been published as an RFC. Other possibilities exist too
(e.g. the document may be "Dead" or in a "Do Not Publish" state).
3.4. Working Group Document State Diagram
Figure 1 illustrates all of the WG documents states and many of the
state transitions that an I-D may experience during its tenure as a
WG document. The WG document states are capitalized for clarity.
Not every possible state transition is illustrated in the diagram.
The absence of an explicit path between two states does not mean the
state transition is precluded.
A working group document may be moved from any state to any other
state by the WG chair or his/her delegate. If an unusual or
uncommon state change is made, some text to explain the transition
may be entered in a comment log in the Datatracker.
Note that the state diagram includes an arc from "IESG States" to
"ACTIVE WG DOCUMENT". This illustrates that the IESG may send an
I-D back to working group for revision. Section 3.2 describes the
relevant IESG states.
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| I-D Exists |
| | |
| v |
| |
| ADOPTED FOR <----- CANDIDATE WG -----> NOT ADOPTED |
| WG INFO ONLY DOCUMENT BY A WG |
| | |
| | |
| v |
| |
| PARKED WG <----------> ACTIVE WG <--------> DEAD WG |
| DRAFT . - -> DOCUMENT DRAFT |
| . |
| . / \ |
| . / \ |
| . / \ |
| . v \ |
| . \ |
| . IN WG --+ v |
| LAST CALL | |
| ^ | +-> WG CONSENSUS: |
| ' | WAITING FOR |
| ' v +--> WRITE-UP |
| ^ | | |
| ' WAITING FOR | | |
| ' WG CHAIR --+ | |
| ^ GO-AHEAD v |
| . |
| SUBMITTED |
| (revision needed) TO IESG |
| . FOR PUBLICATION |
| . | |
| . v |
| . |
| - - - < - - IESG States [IDSTATES] |
| | |
| v |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1 - Diagram of I-D states relevant to IETF working groups
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
3.5. WG Document Status Annotation Tags
In addition to indicating the state of working group documents, the
Datatracker will allow different substate conditions to be described
and tracked. This section defines several annotation tags that may
be used to clarify why a document is in the state it is in, and/or
to indicate the next action needed to progress the document.
Annotation tags do not change the state of WG documents.
Each of the annotation tags defined herein may be used to provide
more information about the status of any WG document in any state,
if it makes sense to do so.
Each annotation tag may be used by itself, or in combination with
other tags, to clarify the status of a working group document.
3.5.1. Awaiting Cross-Area Review
This tag may be most often associated with an "Active" or "Parked"
WG document. The tag means that someone (e.g. an author or editor
of the document, or a WG chair) has initiated a cross-area review
of the document, and the review has not (yet) been completed.
Documents tagged with this annotation should retain the tag until
the review is complete and possibly until any issues raised in the
review are addressed.
3.5.2. Awaiting MIB Doctor Review
This tag may be most often associated with an "Active" or "Parked"
WG document. The tag means that means that someone (e.g. an
author or editor of the document, or the WG chair) has initiated a
review of the document by a MIB Doctor, and the review has not
(yet) been completed.
Documents tagged with this annotation should retain the tag until
the review is complete and possibly until any issues raised in the
review are addressed.
3.5.3. Awaiting Security Review
This tag may be most often associated with an "Active" or "Parked"
WG document. The tag means that means that someone (e.g. an
author or editor of the document, or a WG chair) has initiated a
review of security considerations in the document, and the review
has not (yet) been completed.
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
Documents tagged with this annotation should retain the tag until
the review is complete and possibly until the issues raised in the
review are addressed.
3.5.4. Awaiting Other Review
This tag may be most often associated with an "Active" or "Parked"
WG document. The tag means that someone (e.g. an author or editor
of the document, or a WG chair) has initiated some other review of
the document (e.g. sent it to another Standards Development
Organization (SDO) for comments via a formal or informal liaison
process [MPLSTPDP]) and the review has not (yet) been completed.
Documents tagged with this annotation should retain the tag until
the review is complete and possibly until any issues raised in the
review are addressed.
3.5.5. Awaiting Merge with Other Document
This tag means that a decision has been made by someone (e.g. the
document author, editor, or the WG chair) to merge the I-D with
one or more other I-Ds from the same (or other) working group.
If the result of the merge is a new I-D having a different title,
then the old I-D may be declared as being a "Dead WG Draft". In
such a case the annotation tag should be changed from "Awaiting
Merge with Other Document" to "Other - see Comment Log" and a
description of the merge should be entered in the log for
posterity.
If the result of the merge operation is a revision to the old I-D,
then this tag should be cleared when the revised (merged) I-D is
submitted to the working group.
3.5.6. Author or Editor Needed
This tag means an I-D has lost a primary author or editor, and
that further work on the I-D cannot continue in an effective or
efficient manner until a new author or editor is found.
3.5.7. Held due to Dependency *on* other Document
This tag will be most often associated with an "Active" or
"Parked" WG draft.
This tag means that completion of the I-D is on-hold because the
draft has a dependency on one or more other documents. A typical
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
example is where an I-D depends on another IETF document that has
not yet progressed to a point where it may be referenced; the
dependency may be on one or more documents in other IETF working
groups or on work-in-progress in other SDOs.
This tag should be removed after the dependency is cleared.
3.5.8. Held due to Dependency *by* other Document
This tag is the inverse of 3.5.7, and will also be most often
associated with an "Active" or a "Parked" WG document.
This tag means that the I-D has been "Parked" because one or more
other documents are dependent on it, and the chair wants to submit
all of documents to the IESG (for publication) simultaneously.
This tag should be removed after the dependency is cleared.
3.5.9. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG Last Call
This annotation means the I-D needs to be revised to address
issues raised during a working group last call.
This annotation may also be used to indicate when the I-D is in
the process of being revised.
This tag should be removed after a revised version of the I-D is
submitted to the WG.
3.5.10. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
This annotation means the responsible AD raised one or more issues
with the I-D during "AD Evaluation" and that the AD sent the
document back to the working group for revision.
This annotation may also be used to indicate when the I-D is in
the process of being revised.
This tag should be removed after the revised version of the I-D is
submitted to the WG.
3.5.11. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
This annotation means that one or more IESG members had issues
with the I-D during "IESG Evaluation" and the document was sent
back to the working group for revision.
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
This annotation may also be used to indicate that the revision to
the I-D is in process.
This tag should be removed after the revised version of the I-D is
submitted to the WG.
3.5.12. Doc Shepherd Follow-Up Underway
This annotation tag may be used to indicate that the shepherd for
the WG document has begun working on the write-up required to
submit the document (to the IESG) for publication.
It is possible that too many I-Ds may arrive in a shepherd's queue
in too short a time, and the shepherd cannot create satisfactory
write-ups for all of the documents simultaneously. The presence
of this tag may be used to confirm that a write-up for the I-D has
been started; the absence of this tag may be interpreted to mean
the opposite.
3.5.13. Not Intended for Publication
This annotation tag may be used to clarify that the document
adopted by the working group will be used for internal
informational purposes only, and that the working group will not
actively develop its contents or progress it for publication as an
RFC.
3.5.14. Other - see Comment Log
This annotation tag is a catch-all to indicate that someone (e.g.
an author or editor of the document, the WG chair, the document
shepherd) has entered one or more comments about the current
status of the I-D into the IETF Datatracker.
3.6. Intended Maturity Level of WG Documents
In addition to the annotation tags defined in section 3.5, the
intended maturity level of every WG document should also be tracked.
Maturity levels are defined in sections 4 and 5 of RFC 2026
[RFC2026]. They are:
* "Experimental"
* "Informational"
* "Best Current Practice"
* "Proposed Standard"
* "Draft Standard"
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
* "Standard"
* "Historic"
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
[RFC4844] Diagle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "The
RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
[RFC5742] Alvestrand, H., Housley, R., "IESG Procedures for
Handling Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
BCP 92, RFC 5742, December 2009.
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., Ed., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
6.2. Informative References
[IDTRACKER] "The IETF Datatracker tool", Web Application:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/, May 1, 2010.
[AUTHGUIDE] Housley, R., Ed., for the IESG, "Guidelines to Authors
of Internet-Drafts", February 9, 2010,
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt.
[WGDTSPEC] Juskevicius, E., "Minutes of wgdtspec BOF", Proceedings
of IETF 77, March 26, 2010,
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/minutes/wgdtspec
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
[IDSTATES] "Main I-D States", Web Application:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/help/state/,
April 20, 2010.
[MPLSTPDP] Farrel, A., et al, "IETF Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Transport Profile (MPLS-tp) Document Process",
work-in-progress draft-IETF-MPLS-tp-process-05.txt,
Section 2.3, January 24, 2010.
[PROTO] 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 I-D [PROTO] that provided copious amounts
of text and the basic structure of this document.
The author would also like to thank Henrik Levkowetz, Alfred Hoenes,
John Klensin, Pasi Eronen, Robert Sparks, Spencer Dawkins, Russ
Housley, Paul Hoffman, Mary Barnes, Glenn Parsons, Marc Blanchet,
Andy Malis, other WG chairs, and everyone who participated in the
wgdtspec BOF at IETF 77 for their insights, discussions, comments
and suggestions.
This document was initially prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
Appendix A: "IESG Document" States
This Appendix describes the status information currently stored in
the IETF Datatracker tool for every I-D submitted to the IESG for
publication. The terms and definitions herein are as in [IDSTATES].
It must be noted that I-Ds sent to the IESG for publication (termed
"IESG Documents" in this Appendix) do not stay with the IESG until
the day they are published as RFCs. After evaluation, the IESG may
declare that some I-Ds deserve a "Do Not Publish" label. Other I-Ds
may become "Dead". Some I-Ds may get sent back to their originators
(WGs or otherwise), and the rest may go into the RFC Editor queue.
A.1. Definition of "IESG Document" States
A.1.1. I-D Exists
This is an initial (default) state for all newly submitted Internet-
Drafts. Such documents are not tracked by the IESG as no request
has been made of the IESG to do anything with an I-D in this state.
A.1.2. Publication Requested
A formal request has been made to advance/publish the document,
following the procedures in Section 7.5 of RFC 2418 [RFC2418]; the
request could be from a WG Chair, or from an individual. Note: the
Secretariat (iesg-secretary@ietf.org) is copied on these requests to
ensure that the request makes it into the Datatracker. A document
in this state has not (yet) been reviewed by an Area Director nor
has any official action been taken yet, other than to note that its
publication has been requested.
A.1.3. AD Evaluation
A specific Area Director (AD) for the working group has begun
his/her review of the document to verify that it is ready for
advancement. The shepherding AD is responsible for doing any
necessary review before starting an IETF Last Call or sending the
document directly to the IESG as a whole.
A.1.4. Expert Review
An AD may ask for an expert review by an external party as part of
evaluating whether a document is ready for advancement. MIBs, for
example, are reviewed by "MIB doctors". Other types of reviews may
also be requested (e.g., security, operations impacts, etc.).
Documents remain in this state until the review is completed and
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
possibly until the issues raised in the review are addressed.
Specific details on the nature of the review may be found in the
"note" field associated with this state (i.e. within the
Datatracker).
A.1.5. Last Call Requested
The AD has requested that the Secretariat start an IETF Last Call,
but the actual Last Call message has not been sent yet.
A.1.6. In Last Call
The document is currently waiting for IETF Last Call to complete.
Last Calls for WG documents typically last 2 weeks, and those for
individual submissions last 4 weeks.
A.1.7. Waiting for Write-up
Before a standards-track or BCP document is formally considered by
the entire IESG, the AD must write-up a protocol action. The
protocol action is included in the approval message that the
Secretariat sends out when the document is approved for publication
as an RFC.
A.1.8. Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
As a result of the IETF Last Call, comments may need to be responded
to and a revision of the I-D may be needed as well. The AD is
responsible for verifying that all Last Call comments have been
adequately addressed and that the (possibly revised) document is
ready for consideration by the IESG as a whole.
A.1.9. IESG Evaluation
The document is being formally reviewed by the entire IESG.
Documents are discussed in email or during a bi-weekly IESG
telechat. In this phase, each AD reviews the document and airs any
issues she/he may have. Unresolvable issues are documented as
"discuss" comments that can be forwarded to the authors/WG. See the
description of IESG substates in Section A.2 for additional details
about the current state of the IESG discussion.
A.1.10. IESG Evaluation - Defer
During a telechat, one or more ADs requested an additional two weeks
to review the document. A defer is designed to be an exception
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
mechanism, and can only be invoked once, the first time the document
comes up for discussion during a telechat.
A.1.11. Approved - Announcement to be sent
The IESG has approved the document for publication, but the
Secretariat has not (yet) sent an official approval message.
A.1.12. Approved - Announcement sent
The IESG has approved the document for publication, and the
Secretariat has sent out the official approval message to the RFC
editor.
A.1.13. RFC Ed Queue
The document is in the RFC editor Queue (as confirmed by
http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html)
A.1.14. RFC Published
The I-D has been published as an RFC.
A.1.15. DNP - Waiting for AD note
Do Not Publish: The IESG recommends against publishing the document,
but the write-up explaining its reasoning has not yet been produced.
DNPs apply primarily to individual submissions. More information on
who has the action item should be recorded in the "note" field
associated with this state (i.e. within the Datatracker).
A.1.16. DNP - Announcement to be sent
The IESG recommends against publishing the document. A write-up
explaining the IESG's reasoning has been produced, but the
Secretariat has not yet sent out the official "do not publish"
recommendation message.
A.1.17. AD is Watching
An AD is aware of the document and has chosen to place the document
in a separate state in order to monitor it (for whatever reason).
Documents in this state are not actively tracked by the IESG in the
sense that no formal request has been made to publish or advance the
document. The AD has chosen to put the I-D into this state, to make
it easier to keep track of (for his or her own reasons).
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
A.1.18. Dead
The document is "Dead" and is no longer being tracked (e.g., it has
been replaced by another document having a different name, it has
been withdrawn, etc.).
A.2. IESG Document Substates
A.2.1. Point Raised - Write-up needed
IESG discussions on the document have raised some issues that need
to be brought to the attention of the authors/WG, but those issues
have not been written down yet. (It is common for discussions during
a telechat to result in such situations. An AD may raise a possible
issue during a telechat and only decide as a result of that
discussion whether the issue is worth formally writing up and
bringing to the attention of the authors/WG).
A document stays in the "Point Raised - write-up needed" substate
until *ALL* IESG comments that were raised have been documented.
A.2.2. AD Follow-up
"AD Follow-up" is a generic substate indicating that the shepherding
AD has the action to determine the appropriate next steps. In
particular, the appropriate steps (and the corresponding next state
or substate) depend entirely on the nature of the issues that were
raised and can only be decided with active involvement of the
shepherding AD.
Examples include:
- if another AD raises an issue, the shepherding AD may first
iterate with the other AD to get a better understanding of the
exact issue. Or, the shepherding AD may attempt to argue that
the issue is not serious enough it to bring to the attention of
the authors/WG.
- if a documented issue is forwarded to a WG, some further iteration
may be needed before it can be determined whether a new revision
is needed or whether the WG response to an issue clarifies the
issue sufficiently.
- when a new revision appears, the shepherding AD will first look
at the changes to determine whether they believe all outstanding
issues have been raised satisfactorily, prior to asking the ADs
who raised the original issues to verify the changes.
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010
A.2.3. External Party
The document is awaiting review or input from an external party
(i.e, someone other than the shepherding AD, the authors, or the
WG). See the "note" field for more details on who has the action.
A.2.4. Revised I-D Needed
An updated I-D is needed to address the issues that have been
raised.
Author's Address
Ed Juskevicius
TrekAhead
PO Box 491, Carp, ON
CANADA
Email: edj.etc@gmail.com
Juskevicius Expires November 2, 2010 [Page 22]
