GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc6175

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:
  1. I-Ds that have been accepted as WG drafts; and
  1. 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:
  1. 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).
  1. 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).
  1. SHALL NOT be allowed to create new WG I-D states or state names

(R-017).

  1. 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).
  1. 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

  1. 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).
  1. 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).
  1. SHALL be able to review and change their Delegates (R-023).
  1. SHALL be able to input or upload Document Shepherd protocol

writeups for all of the I-Ds associated with their WGs (R-024).

  1. SHALL be able to designate themselves as the Document Shepherds

for some or all of the I-Ds in their WGs (R-025).

  1. 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).
  1. 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).
  1. SHALL be able to review and change the people designated to be

Document Shepherds for each of their WG I-Ds (R-031).

  1. 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:
  1. 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
  1. 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):
  1. —————————————————————-
 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
  1. —————————————————————-
  • 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]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6175.txt · Last modified: 2011/03/12 01:19 (external edit)