Requirements to Extend the Datatracker for IETF Working Group Chairs and Authors
RFC 6175
| Document | Type |
RFC - Informational
(March 2011; No errata)
Was draft-juskevicius-datatracker-wgdocstate-reqts (individual in gen area)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Ed Juskevicius | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 6175 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Russ Housley | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Juskevicius
Request for Comments: 6175 TrekAhead
Category: Informational March 2011
ISSN: 2070-1721
Requirements to Extend the Datatracker
for IETF Working Group Chairs and Authors
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 document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6175.
Juskevicius Informational [Page 1]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................3
3. General Requirements ............................................4
4. Privilege and Access Control Requirements .......................6
4.1. For Everyone ...............................................6
4.2. For IETF Working Group Chairs ..............................6
4.3. For Delegates of IETF WG Chairs ............................8
4.4. For IETF WG Document Shepherds .............................8
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 ..........10
5.1. WG I-D States .............................................10
5.2. WG I-D Status Annotation Tags .............................10
5.3. WG I-D Protocol Writeups ..................................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 ...........................................14
6.3. WG Document ...............................................14
6.4. Parked WG Document ........................................16
6.5. Dead WG Document ..........................................16
6.6. In WG Last Call ...........................................16
6.7. WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup .........................17
6.8. Submitted to IESG for Publication .........................18
6.9. Revised I-D Needed (Annotation Tag) .......................18
7. Automatic State Changes for I-Ds ...............................19
8. WG I-D Status Change Reporting Requirements ....................19
9. WG I-D Status Reporting Requirements ...........................20
10. Error Handling Requirements ...................................21
11. Security Considerations .......................................21
12. References ....................................................21
13. Acknowledgments ...............................................22
Juskevicius Informational [Page 2]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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. [RFC6174]
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 with 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 "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 [RFC6174]. 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 [RFC6174], 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 WG Issued").
Juskevicius Informational [Page 3]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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.
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 [RFC6174] (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.
Juskevicius Informational [Page 4]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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 [RFC6174].
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
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 provided by the Datatracker to display the status of I-Ds
under formal evaluation by the IESG (R-005).
New javascript user interface 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 the change (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).
Juskevicius Informational [Page 5]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
The Datatracker SHALL permit authorized users (e.g., WG Chairs,
Delegates) 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 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 [RFC6174] to describe the
current WG status of the I-Ds associated with their WGs (R-016).
- SHALL NOT be allowed to create new WG I-D states or state names
(R-017).
- SHALL NOT be allowed to update or modify information that 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.
Juskevicius Informational [Page 6]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
- 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
writeups 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).
- 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).
Juskevicius Informational [Page 7]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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 writeups 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
notify 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].
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 notify 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
writeups 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 Followup Underway" as defined in Section
4.3.10 of [RFC6174] for I-Ds in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for
Writeup" state.
Juskevicius Informational [Page 8]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
After successfully logging on to the Datatracker, Document Shepherds
SHALL have restricted 'write' privileges to upload or input protocol
writeups for the WG I-Ds assigned to them when the I-Ds are in the
"WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup" state (R-036).
Document Shepherds SHALL also have the ability to set and reset the
WG I-D status annotation tag called "Doc Shepherd Followup Underway"
as defined in Section 4.3.10 of [RFC6174] (R-037).
The "Doc Shepherd Followup Underway" annotation tag should be set to
indicate when the Document Shepherd has started work on a writeup for
the document. The absence or resetting of this annotation tag may
indicate the protocol writeup 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 writeup for a WG I-D.
Section 5.3 describes how Document Shepherds may input or upload
protocol writeups to the Datatracker for the WG I-Ds assigned to
them.
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
for which they are responsible (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 privileges they will
obtain as a result of R-038 and R-039 for I-Ds associated with the
WGs for which they are responsible (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 log in 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
Juskevicius Informational [Page 9]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
R-035 will alert the Secretariat that the granting of permissions to
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
[RFC6174].
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 [RFC6174] to identify the
'most likely next state' (or states) for an I-D that is associated
with a WG (R-043).
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 [RFC6174] 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 [RFC6174] for every I-D associated with their WGs (R-047).
Juskevicius Informational [Page 10]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
WG I-D status annotation tags SHALL be able to be used individually
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 in to 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
Followup 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 logon, and the Datatracker SHALL encourage the user to
input some text to explain why each annotation tag is being set or
reset (R-051).
5.3. WG I-D Protocol Writeups
The IESG currently requires a protocol writeup 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 in to the
Datatracker to input or upload a protocol writeup for an I-D, the
Datatracker SHOULD make it easy for the user to understand the
current status of the protocol writeup for every I-D for which he/she
is responsible (R-052). The Datatracker SHOULD indicate at least the
date when the most recent protocol writeup 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 writeup for the I-Ds that he/she is responsible for, and to
set or reset the "Doc Shepherd Followup Underway" annotation tag for
I-Ds (R-054). The Datatracker SHALL encourage the user to set or
reset the "Document Shepherd Followup Underway" annotation tag before
the end of each protocol writeup 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).
Juskevicius Informational [Page 11]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
Per Requirement R-100, the Datatracker will send an e-mail to the
author of a WG draft (and carbon copy (CC) the WG Chairs and
Delegates) when the protocol writeup 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) as notification
that the protocol writeup 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 writeup 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 writeup for an I-D that is not
in the WG state called "WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup", the
Datatracker SHOULD warn the Document Shepherd that it may be too
early to input a writeup, 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
Writeup" state to enable the Document Shepherd to upload his/her
protocol writeup, or the WG Chair may upload the protocol writeup as
specified in Requirement R-024.
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 writeup 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 in to the Datatracker with their normal privileges SHALL be
able to access the Document Shepherd user interface without having to
logout and log back in to 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
Juskevicius Informational [Page 12]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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. [RFC6174]
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,
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.
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 in to) 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 is not required to, specify
a length of time the I-D may remain in this state (R-064). It SHALL
be possible to specify the maximum length of time as a "number of
weeks"; however, the maximum length 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
Juskevicius Informational [Page 13]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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 submission 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 submission I-D. This will
facilitate the Datatracker's ability to correctly capture "Replaces"
information for WG drafts and "Replaced by" information for the
individual submissions 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).
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, 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.
Juskevicius Informational [Page 14]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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
[RFC6174] 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 [RFC6174]) if the I-D has not expired,
been withdrawn, or been 'replaced by' another I-D or RFC (R-074).
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 AD 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 CC the Chairs, 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).
Juskevicius Informational [Page 15]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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 to provide context for the
transfer in the status change history log of the I-D (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 that 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 to provide context for the
transfer in the status change history log of the I-D (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 the author
of the I-D, the WG Chairs, the 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.
Juskevicius Informational [Page 16]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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 Writeup
A document in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup" state has
essentially completed its development within the WG, and is nearly
ready to be sent to the IESG for publication. The last thing to be
done is the preparation of a protocol writeup by the Document
Shepherd. The IESG requires that a protocol writeup be completed
before publication of an I-D is requested.
An I-D in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup" state SHALL remain
in this state until the WG Chair (or Delegate) moves the document to
a different state (R-089).
Juskevicius Informational [Page 17]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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 writeup
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 as needing
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 [RFC6174]), 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 [RFC6174]).
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).
Juskevicius Informational [Page 18]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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
followup 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, 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 to which the I-D is
associated 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).
Juskevicius Informational [Page 19]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
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 writeups 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 example
(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).
** 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).
Juskevicius Informational [Page 20]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
*** 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 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.
However, this document 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.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Juskevicius Informational [Page 21]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[RFC4858] Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L., and A. Mankin,
"Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to
Publication", RFC 4858, May 2007.
[RFC6174] Juskevicius, E., "Definition of IETF Working Group
Document States", RFC 6174, March 2011.
12.2. Informative References
[IDTRACKER] "The IETF Datatracker tool", Web Application:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/, Version 3.12, February 2,
2011.
[IESGIDSM] "Diagram of Main I-D States", Web Application:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/state_diagram.gif,
October 21, 2002.
[TRCKREQTS] Levkowetz, H. and Mankin, A., "Requirements on I-D
Tracker Extensions for Working Group Chairs", Work in
Progress, February 2007.
13. 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
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.
Juskevicius Informational [Page 22]
RFC 6175 WG Datatracker Requirements March 2011
Author's Address
Ed Juskevicius
TrekAhead
PO Box 491, Carp, ON
CANADA
EMail: edj.etc@gmail.com
Juskevicius Informational [Page 23]