Proto E. Juskevicius
Internet Draft TrekAhead
Intended status: Informational November 18, 2010
Expires: May 18, 2011
Requirements to Extend the Datatracker for IETF WG Chairs and
Authors
draft-juskevicius-datatracker-wgdocstate-reqts-08.txt
Abstract
This document specifies requirements for new functionality to be
added to the IETF Datatracker tool to make it possible for Working
Group (WG) Chairs and their Delegates to input and update the status
of the Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) associated with their WGs. After
these requirements are implemented, WG Chairs will be able to use
the Datatracker to provide everyone with more information about the
status and progression of WG I-Ds than is currently possible.
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). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 18, 2011.
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 May 18, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Conventions Used In This Document..............................3
3. General Requirements...........................................4
4. Privilege and Access Control Requirements......................5
4.1. For Everyone..............................................5
4.2. For IETF Working Group Chairs.............................6
4.3. For Delegates of IETF WG Chairs...........................7
4.4. For IETF WG Document Shepherds............................7
4.5. For the Responsible Area Director.........................9
4.6. Role of the IETF Secretariat in Granting Permissions......9
5. Inputting and Updating WG Document Status Information..........9
5.1. WG I-D States.............................................9
5.2. WG I-D Status Annotation Tags............................10
5.3. WG I-D Protocol Write-ups................................11
6. Special Requirements for Some WG I-D States and Conditions....12
6.1. Call For Adoption By WG Issued...........................12
6.2. Adopted by a WG..........................................13
6.3. WG Document..............................................14
6.4. Parked WG Document.......................................15
6.5. Dead WG Document.........................................15
6.6. In WG Last Call..........................................16
6.7. WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up.......................16
6.8. Submitted to IESG for Publication........................17
6.9. Revised I-D Needed (annotation tag)......................17
7. Automatic State Changes for I-Ds..............................18
8. WG I-D Status Change Reporting Requirements...................18
9. WG I-D Status Reporting Requirements..........................19
10. Error Handling Requirements..................................20
11. Security Considerations......................................20
12. IANA Considerations..........................................21
13. References...................................................21
13.1. Normative References....................................21
13.2. Informative References..................................21
14. Acknowledgments..............................................21
1. Introduction
The IETF Datatracker is a web-based system for managing information
about Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) and RFCs, IPR disclosures, liaison
statements and several other important aspects of the IETF process.
[IDTRACKER]
The Datatracker can track and report on the status of every I-D that
has been submitted to the IESG for evaluation and publication. In
contrast, the tool currently has almost no ability to track the
status of I-Ds that have not been submitted to the IESG. [WGDRAFTS]
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
Document authors and others have asked for more visibility into the
status and progression of IETF Working Group (WG) drafts.
This document specifies requirements to extend the Datatracker to
enable status tracking and reporting for WG I-Ds. After these
requirements are implemented, WG Chairs will be able to use the
Datatracker to provide everyone more information about the WG status
of the I-Ds associated with their WGs than is currently possible.
2. Conventions Used In This Document
The terms "WG I-D", "WG document", and "WG draft" are used
synonymously throughout this document. The same is true for the
plural case of each term.
A "WG draft" is an I-D that has achieved consensus for adoption as a
work item by a WG (compared to an individual submission I-D that has
not, or has not yet, achieved consensus).
The terms "WG document" and "WG draft" are not intended to apply to
any other document that may be reviewed, discussed, or produced by
an IETF Working Group. WG meeting materials such as Blue Sheets,
agendas, jabber logs, scribe's notes, minutes, and presentation
slides are not to be considered as "WG documents" or "WG drafts" in
the context of this document.
The phrase "WG status of an I-D" refers to the WG state that an I-D
is in per the definitions in Section 4.2 of [WGDRAFTS]. This phrase
does not refer to an I-D's availability status (e.g. "Expired",
"Active", "Replaced by") as described in Section 3.1 of [WGDRAFTS],
or to any of the IESG states used by IETF Area Directors (ADs) to
describe the status of I-Ds they may be evaluating. Note that this
phrase encompasses all of the states that a WG I-D may be in, plus
one more (viz. "Call For Adoption By A WG Issued").
The phrase "I-D associated with a WG" is intended to describe two
types of Internet-Drafts:
- I-Ds that have been accepted as WG drafts; and
- I-Ds that are being considered under the guidance of a WG Chair for
adoption by a WG.
An I-D having a filename that contains the string 'draft-ietf-'
followed by a WG acronym is almost always a WG draft and is to be
interpreted as being an "I-D associated with a WG" for the purposes
of this document.
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
An I-D having a filename that includes the author's name and a WG
acronym but does not include the string '-ietf-' may be a candidate
for adoption by a WG and, if so, is also to be interpreted as being
an "I-D associated with a WG" for the purposes of this document.
The requirements specified in this document use English phrases
ending with "(R-nnn)", where "nnn" is a unique requirement number.
When used in the context of the requirements in this document, the
key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words
to help make the intent of standards track documents as clear as
possible. The same key words are used in this document to make the
meaning of the requirements specified herein as clear as possible.
3. General Requirements
The enhancements to be made to the Datatracker described in this
document MUST be implemented in a manner that provides WG Chairs and
the people they designate to act as their Delegates with the option
to input and update the WG status of some, all, or none of the I-Ds
associated with their WGs using the WG I-D states and I-D status
annotation tags defined in [WGDRAFTS]. (R-001) In other words, the
implementation must not require that WG Chairs change their way of
working, but only provide optional features. WG Chairs must have
the flexibility to use the enhancements to the Datatracker to track
the WG status of their I-Ds as is most appropriate for them.
To ensure that at least some WG status information is tracked for
every I-D associated with a WG, the Datatracker must be enhanced to
generate a few automatic state transitions for every WG I-D. The
requirements for this feature are specified in Section 7 of this
document.
Requirement R-001 SHALL NOT impair the ability of the Datatracker to
track and display the availability state of any I-D. (R-002) I-D
availability states (e.g. "Active", "Expired", "Replaces") are
described in Section 3.1 of [WGDRAFTS].
The Datatracker SHALL NOT permit users other than a Working Group's
Chairs (e.g. the Chairs of a different IETF WG) to update the WG
status of a WG's documents through the regular Datatracker
interface, unless the privileges to do so have been explicitly
delegated to them by one of the WG's Chairs. (R-003)
The user-interface to be provided by the Datatracker to WG Chairs
(and their Delegates) to input the WG status of the I-Ds associated
with their WGs SHOULD have a look and feel that is similar to the
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
interface currently used by ADs to identify the status of I-Ds under
formal evaluation by the IESG. (R-004)
Any new pages created to display the status of WG I-Ds SHOULD be
designed to have a look and feel that is similar to the pages
currently used by the Datatracker to display the status of I-Ds
under formal evaluation by the IESG. (R-005)
New javascript UI code and style sheets implemented to satisfy the
requirements in this document SHOULD reuse or share existing code
where practical so that when a change to the IESG status of an I-D
is entered into the Datatracker, the WG status tracking for that I-D
can benefit, and vice versa. (R-006)
The Datatracker MUST date and timestamp every update to the WG
status of an I-D that is associated with a WG and be able to use
that information when it displays the status change history for the
I-D. (R-007) The WG status change history for an I-D MUST also
identify the person or entity that updated the WG status of the I-D
(e.g. one of the WG's Chairs, a Delegate, an AD, the System, the
IETF Secretariat) and describe what changed (e.g. "WG State changed
from 'a' to 'b'", "WG Annotation Tag 'x' Set (or Reset)"). (R-008)
The inputting or updating of the WG status of an I-D SHALL NOT
overwrite any previously archived status change history information
for the I-D; every update to the WG status of an I-D MUST be added
to the status change history log for the I-D. (R-009)
WG I-D status tracking MUST be implemented per-draft, not per-WG.
(R-010)
WG I-D status tracking SHOULD be implemented as a new front-end to
the Datatracker's existing IESG state machine [IESGIDSM]. (R-011)
The Datatracker SHALL permit authorized users (e.g. WG Chairs,
Delagates) to change the WG state of a draft independently from the
IESG state of the same I-D and vice versa. (R-012)
4. Privilege and Access Control Requirements
4.1. For Everyone
Everyone needs to be able to view information about the WG status of
an I-D without logging on to the Datatracker. Everyone SHALL be
given 'read' access to WG I-D status information. (R-013)
People who need to input, modify or update the WG status of an I-D
(e.g. WG Chairs and their Delegates) need 'write' privileges; these
users SHALL be required to log-on to the Datatracker using a
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
personal user-id and password (e.g. an IETF tools password) in order
to gain 'write' access. (R-014)
4.2. For IETF Working Group Chairs
After successfully logging on to the Datatracker as specified in
Requirement R-014, WG Chairs:
- SHALL be given full 'read' and 'write' privileges to input and
update the WG status information for all of the I-Ds associated
with their WGs; (R-015)
- SHALL be able to able to choose from all of the WG I-D states and
WG I-D status annotation tags defined in [WGDRAFTS] to describe the
current WG status of the I-Ds associated with their WGs; (R-016)
- SHAALL NOT be allowed to create new WG I-D states or state names;
(R-017)
- SHALL NOT be allowed to update or modify information which is not
related to the WG status of an I-D (e.g. IANA status, RFC-Editor
status, IESG status); (R-018)
- SHALL be able to designate a maximum of three people to act as
their Delegates to input and update the WG status of the I-Ds
associated with each of their WGs; (R-019) A suitable way to
specify a Delegate may be to use the individual's current e-mail
address, but the delegation MUST be to the individual identified by
the login credentials used by the Datatracker at any given time
rather than to an e-mail address; (R-020) Individuals must be able
to update their e-mail addresses in the future without breaking the
delegation specified in Requirement R-019;
- SHALL be able to designate a maximum of three different people to
act as their Delegates in a different WG if a WG Chair is also
responsible for the different WG; (R-021)
- SHALL be able to designate people who have other roles in the IETF
process (e.g. are Chairs of different WGs, are ADs in a different
Area) to be their Delegates; (R-022)
- SHALL be able to review and change their Delegates; (R-023)
- SHALL be able to input or upload Document Shepherd protocol write-
ups for all of the I-Ds associated with their WGs; (R-024)
- SHALL be able to designate themselves as the Document Shepherds for
some or all of the I-Ds in their WGs; (R-025)
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
- SHALL be able to designate other people to be Document Shepherds
for one or more of their WG I-Ds if this role will not be performed
by the WG Chairs; (R-026) A suitable way to designate people to be
the Document Shepherds may be to use their e-mail addresses, but
the delegation MUST be to the individuals identified by the login
credentials used by the Datatracker at the time, rather than to the
e-mail addresses; (R-027) The Datatracker MUST be able to maintain
an individual's designation as a Delegate per R-026 in the event
that the person changes their e-mail address in the future; (R-028)
- SHALL be warned in real-time (e.g. via the Datatracker's regular
user-interface) if a person they try to designate as a Delegate or
Document Shepherd does not have the necessary login credentials for
the Datatracker; (R-029) The Datatracker SHALL then allow the WG
Chairs to confirm the original designee or to pick another. (R-030)
- SHALL be able to review and change the people designated to be
Document Shepherds for each of their WG I-Ds. (R-031)
- SHOULD be able to access the same user-interfaces the Datatracker
provides to their Delegates and Document Shepherds in order to
mentor or coach them on how to input and update WG I-D status
information in the Datatracker. (R-032).
4.3. For Delegates of IETF WG Chairs
After successfully logging on to the Datatracker, the Delegates of
WG Chairs (e.g. WG Secretaries) SHALL have the same privileges as
their WG Chairs to input WG I-D status information and Document
Shepherd protocol write-ups as specified in Requirements R-015 to
R-018 inclusive, R-024 and R-025. (R-033)
The Datatracker SHALL send an e-mail to the Chairs of the WG, the
IETF Secretariat, and to a newly designated Delegate if the newly
designated Delegate does not have a personal user-id and password to
log-on to the Datatracker. (R-034) The purpose of the e-mail is to
confirm to the WG Chairs that the person they designated to be a
Delegate needs to take action to obtain a personal user-id and
password, and to inform the Delegate that he/she needs to take
action (e.g. to contact the IETF Secretariat) to obtain their own
user-id and password for the Datatracker.
4.4. For IETF WG Document Shepherds
The IETF document shepherding process and the role of an IETF WG
Document Shepherd is described in RFC 4858 [RFC4858].
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
The requirements in this Section describe the access privileges to
be granted to a WG Document Shepherd who is not a WG Chair or a
Delegate with the privileges specified in Section 4.3.
Per Requirement R-014, each person designated to be a Document
Shepherd for a WG draft needs to have their own personal user-id and
password to log-on to the Datatracker.
The Datatracker SHALL alert the WG Chairs, the IETF Secretariat, and
the newly designated Document Shepherd (e.g. via e-mail) if a person
newly designated as a Document Shepherd does not have a personal
user-id and password to log-on to the Datatracker. (R-035) The
purpose of the e-mail is to confirm to the WG Chairs that the
Document Shepherd needs to take action to obtain a personal user-id
and password, and to inform the Document Shepherd that he/she needs
to take action (e.g. to contact the IETF Secretariat) to obtain a
personal user-id and password for the Datatracker.
Document Shepherds need to be able to upload or input protocol
write-ups into the Datatracker for the WG I-Ds assigned to them.
They also need to be able to set and reset the WG I-D status
annotation tag called "Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway" as defined
in Section 4.3.10 of [WGDRAFTS] for I-Ds in the "WG Consensus:
Waiting for Write-Up" state.
After successfully logging on to the Datatracker, Document Shepherds
SHALL have restricted 'write' privileges to upload or input protocol
write-ups for the WG I-Ds assigned to them when the I-Ds are in the
"WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up" state. (R-036)
Document Shepherds SHALL also have the ability to set and reset the
WG I-D status annotation tag called "Doc Shepherd Follow-Up
Underway" as defined in Section 4.3.10 of [WGDRAFTS]. (R-037)
The "Doc Shepherd Follow-Up Underway" annotation tag should be set
to indicate when the Document Shepherd has started work on a write-
up for the document. The absence or resetting of this annotation
tag may indicate the protocol write-up has not yet been started, or
has been put on-hold for some reason, or has been completed. The
log of set and reset operations performed on this annotation tag
will provide insight into the status of the protocol write-up for a
WG I-D.
Section 5.3 describes how Document Shepherds may input or upload
protocol write-ups to the Datatracker for the WG I-Ds assigned to
them.
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
4.5. For the Responsible Area Director
After successfully logging on to the Datatracker, an AD SHALL have
the same privileges as a WG Chair to input and update WG I-D status
information, to designate Delegates and Document Shepherds. (R-038)
An AD SHALL have the privileges specified in Requirement R-038 for
every WG in his or her Area. (R-039) ADs MUST also retain their
existing privileges to input and update the IESG status of the I-Ds
they are responsible for. (R-040)
To minimize confusion, the Datatracker MUST make it easy for ADs to
distinguish between their IESG-level privileges (to input or update
the IESG status of an I-D) and the WG-level privilege they will
obtain as a result of R-038 and R-039 for I-Ds associated with the
WGs they are responsible for. (R-041)
4.6. Role of the IETF Secretariat in Granting Permissions
The IETF Secretariat is involved in granting permissions to people
who need to login to the Datatracker.
Before granting permissions to update WG I-D status settings to a
person who does not have them, the IETF Secretariat should verify
that the person requesting the permissions is a WG Chair or an AD or
has been delegated the authority to update WG I-D status information
by one of the WG's Chairs or a Responsible AD. The e-mails to be
generated and sent by the Datatracker per Requirements R-034 and
R-035 will alert the Secretariat that the granting of permissions of
some new people will be needed.
5. Inputting and Updating WG Document Status Information
5.1. WG I-D States
Requirements R-001, R-016 and R017 specify that the WG state of an
I-D may only be described using the states defined in Section 4 of
[WGDRAFTS].
When a WG Chair or Delegate logs-on to the Datatracker to input or
change the WG state of an I-D, the Datatracker SHOULD display the
current state of the I-D, the length of time the document has been
in its current state, the amount of time the I-D may continue to
remain in its current state if this information is available (viz.
per Requirements R-064 and R-083), and the most likely next WG state
(or states) for the I-D. (R-042) The Datatracker MAY use the WG I-D
state machine illustrated in Section 4.1 of [WGDRAFTS] to identify
the 'most likely next state' (or states) for an I-D that is
associated with a WG. (R-043)
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
After displaying the information required by R-042, the Datatracker
SHALL make it easy for the WG Chair or Delegate to select a next
state for the I-D and to enter some text to explain the state change
for the I-D's status change history. (R-044) The Datatracker SHALL
encourage the person who updates or changes the WG state of an I-D
to provide some context for the status change by entering text to
describe the change in the I-D's status change history log. (R-045)
The Datatracker SHALL allow a WG Chair (or Delegate) to select the
next state for an I-D from the 'most likely' next states described
by Requirement R-043, or from any of the other WG I-D states (per
Requirement R-016) if a different state change is required. (R-046)
5.2. WG I-D Status Annotation Tags
WG I-D status annotation tags may be used to describe a condition
that is affecting a document (e.g. why a WG I-D is in the state it
is in) or to indicate an action needed to progress the document,
however annotation tags do not change the state of WG I-Ds.
Section 4.3 of [WGDRAFTS] defines the meaning and usage of the WG
I-D status annotation tags to be added to the Datatracker.
The Datatracker SHALL allow WG Chairs and their Delegates to set and
reset each of the WG I-D status annotation tags defined in Section
4.3 of [WGDRAFTS] for every I-D associated with their WGs. (R-047)
WG I-D status annotation tags SHALL be able to be used one at a time
or in combination with other annotation tags to describe the status
of any I-D associated with a WG. (R-048)
When a WG Chair, Delegate or Document Shepherd logs into the
Datatracker to set or reset one or more WG I-D status annotation
tags for the I-Ds they are responsible for, the Datatracker SHOULD
display a summary of all annotation tag set/reset operations to date
for those WG I-Ds, from the present time backwards, split by pages,
and then guide the user to select one (or more) annotation tags to
be set or reset. (R-049) Note that Document Shepherds who are not
WG Chairs may only set and reset the annotation tag called "Doc
Shepherd Follow-up Underway" per Requirement R-037.
The summary of annotation tag set/reset operations (required by
R-049) SHALL also indicate when each annotation tag attached to the
current state of each I-D was set or reset and the identity of the
person or entity that set or reset each I-D status annotation tag.
(R-050)
The Datatracker SHALL allow more than one annotation tag to be set
or reset per log-on, and the Datatracker SHALL encourage the user to
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
input some text to explain why each annotation tag is being set or
reset. (R-051)
5.3. WG I-D Protocol Write-ups
The IESG currently requires a protocol write-up to be prepared for
every WG I-D before the I-D is submitted to the IESG for evaluation.
When a user (e.g. WG Chair, Document Shepherd) logs into the
Datatracker to input or upload a protocol write-up for an I-D, the
Datatracker SHOULD make it easy for the user to understand the
current status of the protocol write-up for every I-D that he/she is
responsible for. (R-052) The Datatracker SHOULD indicate at least
the date when the most recent protocol write-up was uploaded or
inputted for each I-D and the identity of the person or entity that
performed the upload or input operation. (R-053)
After displaying the information required by R-053, the Datatracker
SHALL provide the user with an interface to input or upload a
protocol write-up for the I-Ds that he/she is responsible for, and
to set or reset the "Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway" annotation tag
for I-Ds. (R-054) The Datatracker SHALL encourage the user to set
or reset the "Document Shepherd Follow-Up Underway" annotation tag
before the end of each protocol write-up uploading or inputting
session and to input some descriptive text (for context) to be
stored in I-D's status change history log. (R-055)
Per Requirement R-100, the Datatracker will send an e-mail to the
author of a WG draft (and copy the WG Chairs and Delegates) when the
protocol write-up for the I-D is loaded into the Datatracker. A
copy of the e-mail SHALL also be sent to the Document Shepherd if
he/she is not the WG Chair (or Delegate) to confirm the protocol
write-up for the I-D was successfully loaded into the Datatracker.
(R-056)
Recall that WG Chairs and their Delegates shall be able to input a
protocol write-up for any of their WG drafts at any time per
Requirements R-024 and R-033.
If a Document Shepherd who is not a WG Chair or other Delegate
attempts to upload or input a protocol write-up for an I-D that is
not in the WG state called "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up", the
Datatracker SHOULD warn the Document Shepherd that it may be too
early to input a write-up, and then direct the Document Shepherd to
contact one of the WG's Chairs for guidance. (R-057) The WG Chair
may decide to move the I-D into the "WG Consensus: Waiting for
Write-Up" state to enable the Document Shepherd to upload his/her
protocol write-up, or the WG Chair may upload the protocol write-up
as specified in Requirement R-024.
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
Requirement R-032 specifies that WG Chairs should be able to access
the Document Shepherd user-interface and call up a display of the
same WG document protocol write-up status information that the
Datatracker provides to each of a WG Chair's designated Document
Shepherds. This is to enable each WG Chair (or Delegate)_to be able
to mentor new Document Shepherds and to review the workload assigned
to each Document Shepherd. WG Chairs (and their Delegates) who are
logged into the Datatracker with their normal privileges SHALL be
able to access the Document Shepherd user-interface without having
to logout and log back into the Datatracker. (R-058)
6. Special Requirements for Some WG I-D States and Conditions
6.1. Call For Adoption By WG Issued
The "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" state may be used to describe a
draft that is being considered for adoption by an IETF WG. 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 a
WG to consider for adoption if the WG Chair has agreed with the
request. This state may also be used to identify an I-D that a WG
Chair asked an author to write specifically for consideration as a
candidate WG item, and/or an I-D that is listed as a 'candidate
draft' in the WG's charter. [WGDRAFTS]
The Datatracker SHALL allow a WG Chair or Delegate to move an I-D
into the "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" state in her or his WG if
the I-D is not currently being considered for adoption in any other
WG, is not yet adopted by any other WG, is not expired, and has not
been withdrawn; (R-059) an I-D can only be in the "Call For Adoption
By WG Issued" state in one WG at a time.
The Datatracker SHALL NOT change the WG status of an I-D that is in
the "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" state until the I-D expires, or
until the WG Chair (or Delegate) moves the I-D into a different
state or until it is decided that the WG will not adopt the I-D,
whichever comes first. (R-060) In case a WG decides not to adopt an
I-D that is in the "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" state, the
Datatracker SHALL allow the WG Chairs (and Delegates) to cancel
their interest in the I-D. (R-061)
The Datatracker SHALL transition the state of an I-D that expires or
is not adopted (per Requirement R-061) from the "Call For Adoption
By A WG" state into a "NULL" state with respect to the WG state
machine and then update the status change history log of the I-D
accordingly. (R-062) An I-D that is not adopted by a WG may revert
back to having no stream-specific state in the Datatracker.
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
If a different WG Chair (or Delegate) attempts to move an I-D into
the "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" state in while the I-D is
associated with another WG, the Datatracker will not allow the
attempted state change to occur because of Requirement R-059. In
this case, the Datatracker SHALL inform the WG Chair or Delegate in
real-time (via the user-interface that he/she is logged into) that
the I-D is currently associated with a different WG and that the
state change they requested cannot be made at this time. (R-063)
A WG Chair (or Delegate) who moves an I-D into the "Call For
Adoption By WG Issued" state SHALL be able to, but not required to,
specify a length of time the I-D may remain in this state. (R-064)
The maximum length of time SHALL be able to be specified as a
"number of weeks" however it MUST NOT be allowed to extend beyond
the expiry date of the I-D. (R-065) Other ways to specify this
length of time MAY optionally be provided. (R-066)
If an I-D is still in the "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" state
when the length of time specified in R-064 runs out, the Datatracker
SHALL send an e-mail to inform the WG Chairs and Delegates that the
time has run out and that the I-D is still in "Call For Adoption By
WG Issued" state. (R-067) The purpose of this message is to remind
the WG Chairs and Delegates that they had planned to make a decision
on adopting the I-D by now.
6.2. Adopted by a WG
The "Adopted by a WG" state describes an individual submission I-D
that an IETF WG has agreed to adopt as one of its WG drafts.
An individual I-D that is adopted by a WG may take weeks or months
to be resubmitted by the author as a new (version-00) WG draft.
WG Chairs who use this state will be able to clearly indicate when
their WG has adopted an individual I-D. This will facilitate the
Datatracker's ability to correctly capture "Replaces" information
for WG drafts and to capture correct "Replaced by" information for
the individual I-Ds that are replaced by WG drafts.
The Datatracker shall allow an individual submission I-D to be moved
into the "Adopted by a WG" state if the I-D is not expired and it
has not been withdrawn, been 'replaced by' another I-D, or been
adopted by another IETF WG. (R-068) When a WG Chair or Delegate
moves an I-D into the "Adopted by a WG" state, the Datatracker SHALL
confirm this state change via e-mail to the author of the I-D and to
the Chairs and Delegates or the WG that adopted the I-D (per
Requirement R-100).
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
Requirement R-009 specifies that changes to the WG status of an I-D
shall not overwrite any previously archived I-D status history
information for the I-D. All status change history information for
an I-D needs to be preserved, including when an I-D is revised and
subsequently approved for posting as a new version-00 "WG Document"
having a different filename (viz. a filename that includes the
string 'draft-ietf-' followed by a WG acronym).
6.3. WG Document
The "WG Document" state describes an I-D that has been adopted by an
IETF WG and is being actively developed.
WG Chairs and their Delegates SHALL be allowed to move an I-D that
is not associated with any other WG into the "WG Document" state in
their WG unless the I-D has expired or been withdrawn or 'replaced
by' another I-D or RFC. (R-069)
Alternatively, WG Chairs may rely on the functionality specified in
Requirement R-070 to automatically move a version-00 draft into the
"WG Document" state.
The Datatracker SHALL automatically place a new version-00 I-D into
the "WG Document" state if a WG Chair approves the submission of the
I-D for posting in the IETF document repository and if the filename
of the I-D includes the string 'draft-ietf-wgname-'. (R-070)
The Datatracker SHOULD encourage the WG Chair to input, confirm or
correct the filename of the individual submission I-D that is being
'replaced' (if any) by a new version-00 WG draft at the time that
the WG Chair approves the posting of the new I-D. (R-071)
The WG Chair (or Delegate) who approves or moves an I-D into the
"WG Document" state for the first time SHALL be encouraged to input
an "Intended Maturity Level" for the I-D as defined in Section 5 of
[WGDRAFTS] if the Datatracker cannot automatically determine this
information for some reason. (R-072) The Datatracker SHALL allow
the "Intended Maturity Level" to be changed after first being set,
and the Datatracker SHALL allow a WG Chair or Delegate to enter this
information at a later time if the "Intended Maturity Level" for an
I-D could not be identified when the I-D was initially moved into
the "WG Document" state. (R-073)
The Datatracker SHALL allow WG Chairs and their Delegates to move an
I-D into the "WG Document" state from any other WG I-D state (e.g.
per Sections 3.2 and 4.1 of [WGDRAFTS]) if the I-D has not expired,
been withdrawn or been 'replaced by' another I-D or RFC. (R-074)
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
Under normal conditions, it should not be possible for an I-D to be
in the "WG Document" state in more than one IETF WG at a time. The
Datatracker SHALL NOT allow a WG Chair or Delegate to move an I-D
into the "WG Document" state in their WG if the I-D is already in
some WG I-D state in a different WG. (R-075)
An I-D that is in the "WG Document" state may be transferred from
one WG to a different WG by a Responsible AD. The Datatracker SHALL
allow a Responsible Area Director to transfer an I-D from one WG to
a different WG and it SHALL encourage the AD to input some text for
the status change history log of the I-D to provide context for the
transfer. (R-076) If an AD transfers an I-D, the Datatracker SHALL
send an e-mail to the author of the I-D and copy the Chairs and
their Delegates and the Responsible ADs (for the WGs affected by the
transfer) to inform them that the I-D has been transferred. (R-077)
6.4. Parked WG Document
A "Parked WG Document" 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.
The Datatracker SHALL allow a Responsible AD to transfer a "Parked
WG Document" that is not expired from one WG to a different WG and
it SHALL encourage the AD to input some text for the status change
history log of the I-D to provide context for the transfer. (R-078)
If an AD transfers an I-D, the Datatracker SHALL send an e-mail to
author of the I-D, to the WG Chairs and their Delegates, and to the
Responsible ADs (of the WGs affected by the transfer of an I-D) to
inform them the I-D has been transferred to a different WG. (R-079)
6.5. Dead WG Document
A "Dead WG Document" is an I-D that has been abandoned. Note that
'Dead' is not always a final state for a WG I-D. If consensus is
subsequently achieved, a "Dead WG Document" may be resurrected,
however a "Dead WG Document" that is not resurrected will eventually
expire.
The Datatracker SHALL allow a Responsible AD to transfer an I-D that
is not expired from being in the "Dead WG Document" state in one WG
to a non-dead state in different WG, and the Datatracker SHALL
encourage the AD to input some text for the status change history
log of the I-D to provide context for the transfer. (R-080)
If an AD transfers an I-D under the conditions specified by
Requirement R-080, the Datatracker SHALL send an e-mail to author of
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
the I-D, the WG Chairs, Delegates and the Responsible ADs (for the
WGs affected by the transfer) to inform them that the I-D has been
transferred to a different WG. (R-081)
6.6. In WG Last Call
A document that is in the "In WG Last Call" state is an I-D for
which a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) has been issued, and is in
progress. Note that WG last calls are an optional part of the IETF
WG process, per Section 7.4 of RFC 2418 [RFC2418].
A WG Chair who decides to conduct a WGLC on an I-D may use the "In
WG Last Call" state to track the progress of the WGLC.
A WG Chair (or Delegate) SHALL be able configure the Datatracker to
send a WGLC message to one or more mailing lists when he/she moves a
WG draft into the "In WG Last Call" state and be able to select a
different set of mailing lists for each I-D because some documents
may need coordination with other WGs. (R-082)
The Datatracker also needs to be able to send an e-mail after a
specified period of time to remind or 'nudge' a WG Chair to conclude
a WGLC and to determine a next state for the I-D.
The WG Chair (or Delegate) who moves an I-D into the "In WG Last
Call" state SHALL be required to specify a length of time for the
WGLC. (R-083) The amount of time SHALL be able to be expressed as a
"number of weeks" but it SHALL NOT be allowed to extend beyond the
expiry date of the I-D. (R-084) Other measures of time (e.g. "until
a specific date in the future") MAY optionally be supported. (R-085)
The amount of time MUST be able to be changed after first being set.
(R-086)
If an I-D is still in the "In WG Last Call" state when the amount of
time specified in R-084 or R-085 runs out, the Datatracker SHALL
send an e-mail to inform the WG Chairs and Delegates that the I-D is
still in the "In WG Last Call" state, and to remind them they had
planned to conclude the WGLC by now. (R-087)
Note that a WGLC may lead directly back into another WGLC for the
same document. For example, an I-D that completed a WGLC as an
"Informational" document may need another WGLC if a decision is
taken to convert the I-D into a standards track document. The
Datatracker MUST allow this to occur. (R-088)
6.7. WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
A document in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up" state has
essentially completed its development within the WG, and is nearly
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
ready to be sent to the IESG for publication. The last thing to be
done is the preparation of a protocol write-up by the Document
Shepherd. The IESG requires that a protocol write-up be completed
before publication of an I-D is requested.
An I-D in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up" state SHALL
remain in this state until the WG Chair (or Delegate) moves the
document to a different state. (R-089)
The Datatracker SHOULD be configurable to send an e-mail to a WG's
Chairs and Delegates after a specified period of time to remind or
'nudge' them to check the status of the Document Shepherd's write-up
for an I-D. (R-090) This feature SHOULD look and feel similar to
the way that Requirements R-064 to R-067 inclusive are implemented.
(R-091)
6.8. 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 WG for
revision. An I-D 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.
The document may be "Dead" (in the IESG state machine) or in a "Do
Not Publish" state.
The Datatracker SHOULD look for the presence of WG I-D status
annotation tags when a WG draft is moved into this state. If there
are any tags that have not been cleared or reset, the Datatracker
SHOULD encourage the WG Chairs (or Delegates) in real-time to reset
or clear any extraneous annotation tags. (R-092)
6.9. Revised I-D Needed (annotation tag)
After an I-D is submitted to the IESG, it may be judged to need
revision before it can be published as an RFC. An AD or the IESG as
a whole may return a document to a WG for revision.
An I-D that needs revision may be identified when the Responsible AD
appends the "Revised I-D Needed" annotation tag to the IESG state of
the I-D.
If an AD or the IESG as a whole sends an I-D back to a WG for
revision (e.g. as described in Section 3.2 of [WGDRAFTS]), the WG's
Chairs may decide to change the WG state of the I-D from "Submitted
To IESG For Publication" to a different state and to append one or
more WG I-D status annotation tags to the I-D (e.g. per Sections
4.3.8 or 4.3.9 of [WGDRAFTS]).
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
The Datatracker SHALL allow, but not require, the WG Chair or
Delegate who attaches a "Revised I-D Needed" annotation tag to the
WG status of an I-D to indicate the number of weeks they expect it
will take for a revised document to be produced (R-093). The
Datatracker should also prompt the user to consider changing the WG
state of the I-D from "Submitted to IESG for Publication" to
something else (e.g. Parked WG Document, WG Document, Waiting for WG
Chair Go-Ahead). (R-094)
If a revised version of the I-D is not submitted to the WG before
the time specified in R-093 elapses, the Datatracker SHALL send an
e-mail to the WG's Chairs and Delegates to remind or 'nudge' them to
follow-up on the revisions to the document. (R-095)
The Datatracker SHALL automatically reset or clear the "Revised I-D
Needed" annotation tag attached to the WG status of an I-D when a
revised version of that I-D is posted. (R-096)
7. Automatic State Changes for I-Ds
To reduce the amount of information that WG Chairs and Delegates
need to input to the Datatracker, the tool must automatically
generate the following WG state transitions:
- The Datatracker will move a version-00 I-D into the "WG Document"
state when a WG Chair approves the posting of an I-D that includes
the string '-ietf-' in its filename (as specified in Requirement
R-070; and
- The Datatracker SHALL transition a draft into the WG state called
"Submitted To IESG For Publication" at the same time that the I-D
is moved into the "Publication Requested" state in the IESG state
machine by an AD or the IETF Secretariat. (R-097)
8. WG I-D Status Change Reporting Requirements
Everyone with 'write' access to WG I-D status information SHALL be
able to obtain a summary display of all status changes made to the
WG I-Ds that *they* are responsible for, from the present time
backwards, split by pages, after successfully logging-on to the
Datatracker. (R-098)
The Datatracker SHOULD provide a convenient way for WG Chairs to
obtain a summary of all WG I-D status changes made on their behalf
by their Delegates, from the present time backwards, and split by
pages. (R-099)
The Datatracker SHALL send an e-mail message to the authors of an
I-D and to the Chairs and Delegates of the WG the I-D is associated
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
with, whenever the WG status of the I-D is updated; the contents of
the e-mail SHALL provide details about the change in the WG status
of the document (e.g. the new state the I-D has been moved to and/or
the names of any newly set or reset I-D status annotation tags), the
date of the change in status, and an indication of who (or which
entity) caused the change to the WG status of the I-D. (R-100)
9. WG I-D Status Reporting Requirements
The Datatracker SHALL provide everyone with a convenient way to
query the status of every document in an IETF WG and to see a
display of the current status of some or all of the documents in the
WG, including the Document Shepherd protocol write-ups for I-Ds that
have been submitted to the IESG and the names of the Document
Shepherds. (R-101)
The Datatracker SHALL also provide everyone with the ability to
search for the status of documents written by a specific author, or
I-Ds in a specific WG I-D state or having a specific "Intended
Maturity Level", or having a specific annotation tag attached.
(R-102)
The Datatracker's existing I-D status display pages SHOULD be
modified to display at least the metadata and status information for
an I-D that is associated with a WG as shown in the following sample
page: (R-103)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Document stream: IETF
I-D availability status: Active / Expired / Withdrawn / RFC /
Replaces / Replaced by I-D or RFC (if
applicable)
Last updated: year-mm-dd (e.g. 2010-11-18)
IETF WG status: * Applicable WG state & name of WG or WGs
Intended RFC status: ** Informational / Experimental / etc.
Document shepherd: *** Name of Document Shepherd (if assigned)
IESG status: **** Name of applicable IESG state
Responsible AD: Name of the Responsible AD
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* The "IETF WG status" SHALL display the current WG state of
the I-D and the WG that the I-D is associated with, and any
I-D status annotation tags that are currently set. (R-104)
** The "Intended RFC status" for I-Ds in the WG state called
"Adopted for WG Info Only" SHOULD be displayed as "None".
(R-105)
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
** The field called "Intended RFC status" SHOULD be renamed to
"RFC status" when the Datatracker displays the status of a
document that has been published as an RFC. (R-106)
*** This field SHOULD display the name of the person (or e-mail
address of the person) designated as the Document Shepherd
for the I-D, or be left blank if a Document Shepherd has
not yet been designated. (R-107)
**** This field SHALL display the current IESG status of the
document or the word "None" for documents that are not yet
being tracked by the IESG. (R-108)
10. Error Handling Requirements
Errors with respect to inputting or updating the status of a WG
document are possible.
Per Requirement R-009, the creation of new or updated status
information cannot erase, overwrite or cause the deletion of any
previously entered document status change history information.
Errors in data entry by a WG Chair or Delegate should be corrected
by a WG Chair or a Delegate taking action to update any erroneous
status information in the Datatracker with correct information, so
that the correct status of the I-D is displayed. For example, a
document that was accidentally placed into the wrong state can be
moved into the correct state by the WG Chair (or Delegate), and a
comment should be entered into the document's status change history
log to explain what happened.
11. Security Considerations
This document does not propose any new Internet mechanisms, and has
no security implications for the Internet.
This document does however contains specific requirements to add
features to the IETF Datatracker to make it possible for a greater
number of users to input and/or update status information about I-Ds
associated with IETF WGs. Enhancing the Datatracker may create an
opening for new denial-of-service (DoS) attacks and/or attempts by
malicious users to corrupt the information in the WG document status
database.
This document does not propose any specific requirements to mitigate
DoS attacks on the Datatracker.
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
12. 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.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[WGDRAFTS] Juskevicius, E., "Definition of WG Document States",
work in process, draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10,
October 2010.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels', RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4858] Levkowetz, H., et al., "Document Shepherding from
Working Group Last Call to Publication", RFC 4858,
May 2007.
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., Ed., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
13.2. Informative References
[IDTRACKER] "The IETF Datatracker tool", Web Application:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/, September 30, 2010.
[IESGIDSM] "Diagram of Main I-D States", Web Application:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/state_diagram.gif,
September 30, 2010.
[TRCKREQTS] 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.
14. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Henrik Levkowetz and Allison Mankin
for writing the original I-D [TRCKREQTS] that contained many good
ideas and served as a foundation for this document.
The author would also like to thank Henrik Levkowetz, Alfred Hoenes,
Paul Hoffman and Subramanian (SM) Moonesamy for their ongoing
support during the writing of this document. Many of their comments
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft WG Datatracker Requirements November 2010
and suggestions have been used by the author to revise and improve
this document.
The author also offers his gratitude to Russ Housley, Scott Bradner,
Robert Sparks, Spencer Dawkins, and the WG Chairs and other IETF
participants at the wgdtspec BOF at IETF 77 for their inputs,
comments and suggestions, and Lars Eggert, Tim Polk, Robert Sparks,
Ralph Droms, Adrian Farrel, Alexey Melnikov and Sean Turner for
their comments, suggestions and DISCUSS points on the penultimate
draft version of this document.
This document was initially prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Author's Address
Ed Juskevicius
TrekAhead
PO Box 491, Carp, ON
CANADA
Email: edj.etc@gmail.com
Juskevicius Expires May 18, 2011 [Page 22]