Datatracker States and Annotations for the IAB, IRTF, and Independent Submission Streams
RFC 6322

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for writing it. I think the document is in good shape and can move forward. I just had two issues that you may wish to consider:

The "IESG Review Completed" annotation seems odd to me. Per tracker history you will be able to see that it went through IESG and other review states. For consistency: you do not have ISE Review Completed or IRSG Review Completed annotations either. Finally, all other annotations are about things that should happen with the document, not about things that have happened.

>  by the stream managers.  In addtion, the IETF Data Tracker should

addition

[Ballot comment]
It would help to explicitly state that a document can't be in more than one stream at the same time. In particular, it can't be in the Candidate/Submission received states of more than one stream at the same time. It would probably be useful to the implementer to call out this includes the streams not covered in this document.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 7 should be filed as a bug against the tracker and be removed from this draft before publication as an RFC.

The intent of this document (and the other recent tracker requirements document) is to inform an initial development effort. I don't believe they were intended to stand as the requirements against a running tracker, being updated frequently and gathering errata. It would probably help to say that explicitly.

Specifically, I don't think it's a good idea to have to update the RFC this becomes to change the Subject line or contents of a notification email. Further, I don't think updating this RFC (or the related ones) is the right tool to use to refine the states defined in the tracker as experience with them tells us we need new ones.

[Ballot discuss]
I intend to ballot "Yes" on this document. However, as discussed within the IESG, this document needs some text making it clear that the IETF Data Tracker is not (or, upon approval of this document, will not be) limited to the IETF stream. I suggest adding the following note after the third paragraph of the Introduction.

  Note:  The term "IETF Data Tracker" is used as a generic name for
  the existing tool used to track state changes as Internet-Drafts are
  processed before hand-off to the RFC Editor.  The word "IETF" in
  the name "IETF Data Tracker" is not meant to limit use of the tool
  to the IETF document stream; this document expands use of the
  tool to the other streams described in [RFC4844].

[Ballot discuss]
The Independent stream need a rejected (sub)state.

The "no longer in ISS" state as it stands seems to leave open the posibility of a DOS attack by resubmitting the same text.

ISE "On hold" looks like it needs a sub state to deal with the case where it is desirable to sequence a WG document ahead of an ISE document but otherwise there is no objection.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Data Tracker States and Annotations for the IAB, IRTF, and Independent Submission Streams) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Data Tracker States and Annotations for the IAB, IRTF, and Independent
  Submission Streams'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-05-20. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker/