diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc6322.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc6322.txt | 619 |
1 files changed, 619 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6322.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6322.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8c208aa --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6322.txt @@ -0,0 +1,619 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Hoffman +Request for Comments: 6322 VPN Consortium +Category: Informational July 2011 +ISSN: 2070-1721 + + + Datatracker States and Annotations for + the IAB, IRTF, and Independent Submission Streams + +Abstract + + This document describes extending the IETF Datatracker to capture and + display the progression of Internet-Drafts that are intended to be + published as RFCs by the IAB, IRTF, or Independent Submissions + Editor. The states and annotations that are to be added to the + Datatracker will be applied to Internet-Drafts as soon as any of + these streams identify the Internet-Draft as a potential eventual + RFC, and will continue through the lifetime of the Internet-Draft. + The goal of adding this information to the Datatracker is to give the + whole Internet community more information about the status of these + Internet-Drafts and the streams from which they originate. + +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/rfc6322. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Hoffman Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 6322 Datatracker States for Alternate Streams July 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. + + This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF + Contributions published or made publicly available before November + 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this + material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow + modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. + Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling + the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified + outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may + not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format + it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other + than English. + +1. Introduction + + As described in Section 5 of [RFC4844], there are currently four + streams that feed into the RFC publication process: the IETF document + stream, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) document stream, the + Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) document stream, and the + Independent Submissions stream that is administered by the + Independent Submissions Editor (ISE). Each of these streams consist + of Internet-Drafts (often abbreviated "I-Ds") that have been + identified by an organization or role as being part of their stream. + Each stream maintainer progresses documents towards RFC publication + in its own fashion. A document can only be in one stream at a time. + + In recent years, there has been a desire by IETF participants and + others to see more of the process used by each stream. For example, + some people want to know how close the IAB is to finishing a + particular document; IETF participants might want to know the + progress of IRTF research documents that are in areas related to + their engineering work; people who have asked for the ISE to publish + + + + + +Hoffman Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 6322 Datatracker States for Alternate Streams July 2011 + + + their document want to track its progress. If the IETF Datatracker + ("tracker") has more information about each stream's states, this + information is much more easily accessible. + + In this document, the term "IETF Datatracker" is used as a generic + name for the existing tool used to track state changes as Internet- + Drafts are processed. The word "IETF" in the name "IETF Datatracker" + 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 RFC 4844. + + This document describes the additional tracker states that are + specific to each of the IAB, the IRTF, and the ISE document flows. A + document might also have one or more annotations assigned as well. + Because each stream is controlled by a different organization, this + document separates out the proposed states and annotations for each + stream, and associates specific semantics stream-by-stream. + + Annotations may be applied at any time to a document that is intended + for the particular stream. A document may have more than one + annotation applied to it. It is likely that the comments for these + annotations will supply valuable information about the annotation. + Each stream owner needs to have write access to the states and + annotations for all the documents in their stream. They should also + be able to assign others to have the same write privileges. + + This document does not describe which person in each stream might be + able to edit these states and annotations; it is assumed that this is + a simple enough task that it can be negotiated between each stream + administrator and the tracker administrator. Also, this document + assumes that whoever is making the edits to the state and annotations + can enter comments that will be publicly visible. + + Some streams have comments that are very long, such as document + reviews and document poll results. The tracker needs to be able to + store long annotation comments. + + Note that this document does not discuss documents in the IETF + stream. The states and permissions for IETF stream documents that + have been requested for publication are already implemented in the + tracker. A separate set of documents, [RFC6174] and [RFC6175], + describe the tracker states and associated permissions proposed for + documents in the IETF stream that have been adopted, or are being + considered for adoption, by IETF Working Groups. + + The intent of this document is to inform an initial development + effort for the tool described here. It is not intended to stand as + the requirements against the tool once it is deployed. That is, + + + +Hoffman Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 6322 Datatracker States for Alternate Streams July 2011 + + + there is no current intention to update this document frequently as + the tool evolves and small features are added and changed. + + This document defines three state machines that fit into the IETF + Datatracker. The Datatracker will have multiple state machines. + This document was prepared in coordination with the IAB, IRTF, and + ISE, at the request of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee + (IAOC). + +2. IAB Stream + + This section describes the desired states and annotations for the IAB + stream. + +2.1. States for the IAB Stream + + o Candidate IAB Document -- A document being considered for the IAB + stream. + + o Active IAB Document -- This document has been adopted by the IAB + and is being actively developed. + + o Parked IAB Document -- This document has lost its author or + editor, is waiting for another document to be written, or cannot + currently be worked on by the IAB for some other reason. + Annotations probably explain why this document is parked. + + o IAB Review -- This document is awaiting the IAB itself to come to + internal consensus. + + o Community Review -- This document has completed internal consensus + within the IAB and is now under community review. (The IAB + normally allows community input during earlier stages of the + process as well.) + + o Approved by IAB, To Be Sent to RFC Editor -- The consideration of + this document is complete, but it has not yet been sent to the RFC + Editor for publication (although that is going to happen soon). + + o Sent to a Different Organization for Publication -- The IAB does + not expect to publish the document itself, but has passed it on to + a different organization that might continue work on the document. + The expectation is that the other organization will eventually + publish the document. + + + + + + + +Hoffman Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 6322 Datatracker States for Alternate Streams July 2011 + + + o Sent to the RFC Editor -- The IAB processing of this document is + complete and it has been sent to the RFC Editor for publication. + The document may be in the RFC Editor's queue, or it may have been + published as an RFC; this state doesn't distinguish between + different states occurring after the document has left the IAB. + + o Dead IAB Document -- This document was an active IAB document, but + for some reason it is no longer being pursued for the IAB stream. + It is possible that the document might be revived later, possibly + in another stream. + +2.2. Annotations for the IAB Stream + + o Editor Needed -- The document has lost its editor but it is still + intended to be part of the IAB stream. + + o Waiting for Dependency on Other Document -- Activity on this + document is expected to be low or non-existent while waiting for + another document (probably listed in the comments) to progress. + + o Waiting for Partner Feedback -- The IAB often produces documents + that need to be socialized with outside organizations (such as the + IEEE) or other internal organizations (such as the IESG or the + IAOC). This document has been sent out for feedback from one of + these partner groups. + + o Awaiting Reviews -- Activity on this document is expected to be + low or non-existent while waiting for reviews that were solicited + by the IAB. + + o Revised I-D Needed -- Comments that will cause changes have been + submitted, and no processing is expected until a new draft is + issued. + + o Document Shepherd Followup -- The document's shepherd is expected + to take some action before the document can proceed. + +2.3. Access Control for IAB States and Annotations + + Some IAB members, and members of the IAB Executive Directorate, need + to be able to set the states and annotations for IAB documents during + their life cycle. The IAB Chair needs to be able to grant access to + individuals to modify the state and annotations; such access applies + to all IAB Stream documents. + + + + + + + +Hoffman Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 6322 Datatracker States for Alternate Streams July 2011 + + +3. IRTF Stream + + This section describes the desired states and annotations for the + IRTF stream. Some of the steps take place in IRTF Research Groups + (RGs), while others take place in the Internet Research Steering + Group (IRSG). + +3.1. States for the IRTF Stream + + o Candidate RG Document -- This document is under consideration in + an RG for becoming an IRTF document. A document in this state + does not imply any RG consensus and does not imply any precedence + or selection. It's simply a way to indicate that somebody has + asked for a document to be considered for adoption by an RG. + + o Active RG Document -- This document has been adopted by an RG and + is being actively developed. + + o Parked RG Document -- This document has lost its author or editor, + is waiting for another document to be written, or cannot currently + be worked on by the RG that adopted it for some other reason. + + o In RG Last Call -- The document is in its final review in the RG. + + o Waiting for Document Shepherd -- IRTF documents have document + shepherds who help RG documents through the process after the RG + has finished with the document. + + o Waiting for IRTF Chair -- The IRTF Chair is meant to be performing + some task such as sending a request for IESG Review. + + o Awaiting IRSG Reviews -- The document shepherd has taken the + document to the IRSG and solicited reviews from one or more IRSG + members. + + o In IRSG Poll -- The IRSG is taking a poll on whether or not the + document is ready to be published. + + o In IESG Review -- The IRSG has asked the IESG to do a review of + the document, as described in [RFC5742]. + + o Sent to the RFC Editor -- The document has been submitted for + publication (and not returned to the IRTF for further action). + The document may be in the RFC Editor's queue, or it may have been + published as an RFC; this state doesn't distinguish between + different states occurring after the document has left the IRTF. + + + + + +Hoffman Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 6322 Datatracker States for Alternate Streams July 2011 + + + o Document on Hold Based on IESG Request -- The IESG has requested + that the document be held pending further review, as specified in + RFC 5742, and the IRTF has agreed to such a hold. + + o Dead IRTF Document -- This document was an active IRTF document, + but for some reason it is no longer being pursued for the IRTF + stream. It is possible that the document might be revived later, + possibly in another stream. + +3.2. Annotations for the IRTF Stream + + o Editor Needed -- The document has lost its editor but it still + intended to be the output of an RG. + + o Shepherd Needed -- The document needs a shepherd assigned to it. + + o Waiting for Dependency on Other Document -- Activity on this + document is expected to be low or non-existent while waiting for + another document (probably listed in the comments) to progress. + + o Revised I-D Needed -- Discussion has ensued that is expected to + cause changes, and no progress is expected until a new draft is + issued. + + o IESG Review Completed -- The IESG has completed its review on the + document, as described in [RFC5742]. + +3.3. Access Control for IRTF States and Annotations + + An RG Chair needs to be able to set the states and annotations for an + IRTF document before the RG has sent the document to the IRSG for + review. The RG Chair also needs to be able to give the same ability + to a shepherd that is assigned by the RG chair. This access control + is similar to the access control that is specified in [RFC6175] for + IETF WG chairs and their document shepherds. + + The RG chairs should be able to modify the state and annotations for + any of that RG's documents at any time. The IRTF Chair should be + able to modify the state and annotations for any IRTF Stream document + at any time. + + RG chairs and document shepherds may change at any point in a + document's life cycle. The Datatracker must allow for and log these + changes. + + + + + + + +Hoffman Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 6322 Datatracker States for Alternate Streams July 2011 + + +4. Independent Submission Stream + + This section describes the desired states and annotations for the + Independent Submission stream. The ISE will do his or her own + record-keeping for data not related to states and annotations. + + Many documents in the Independent Submission stream come from the + other three streams. Because of this, the tracker needs to preserve + previous states and annotations on drafts that come to the + Independent Submission stream. + +4.1. States for the Independent Submission Stream + + o Submission Received -- The draft has been sent to the ISE with a + request for publication. + + o Finding Reviewers -- The ISE is finding initial reviewers for the + document. + + o In ISE Review -- The ISE is actively working on the document. + + o Response to Review Needed -- One or more reviews have been sent to + the author(s), and the ISE is awaiting response. + + o In IESG Review -- The ISE has asked the IESG to do a review on the + document, as described in [RFC5742]. + + o Sent to the RFC Editor -- The ISE processing of this document is + complete and it has been sent to the RFC Editor for publication. + The document may be in the RFC Editor's queue, or it may have been + published as an RFC; this state doesn't distinguish between + different states occurring after the document has left the ISE. + + o No Longer In Independent Submission Stream -- This document was + actively considered in the Independent Submission stream, but the + ISE chose not to publish it. It is possible that the document + might be revived later. A document in this state may have a + comment explaining the reasoning of the ISE (such as if the + document was going to move to a different stream). + + o Document on Hold Based on IESG Request -- The IESG has requested + that the document be held pending further review, as specified in + RFC 5742, and the ISE has agreed to such a hold. + + + + + + + + +Hoffman Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 6322 Datatracker States for Alternate Streams July 2011 + + +4.2. Annotations for the Independent Submission Stream + + o Waiting for Dependency on Other Document -- Activity on this + document is expected to be low or non-existent while waiting for + another document (probably listed in the comments) to progress. + The other documents may or may not be in the Independent + Submission stream. + + o Awaiting Reviews -- Activity on this document is expected to be + low or non-existent while waiting for reviews that were solicited + by the ISE. + + o Revised I-D Needed -- Requests for revisions have been sent to the + author(s), and no further ISE processing is expected until a new + draft is issued. + + o IESG Review Completed -- The IESG has completed its review on the + document, as described in [RFC5742]. + +5. Display in the Datatracker + + When the Datatracker displays the metadata for an individual draft in + the IAB stream, IRTF stream, or ISE stream, it should show at least + the following information: + + Document stream: IAB / IRTF / Independent Submission + I-D availability status: Active / Expired / Withdrawn / RFC + Replaces / Replaced I-D or RFC + (if applicable) + Last updated: year-mm-dd (e.g. 2010-07-25) + IRTF RG status: * Applicable RG state *and* name of + RG (or RGs) + Intended RFC status: Informational / Experimental / etc. + Document shepherd: ** Name of Document Shepherd (if assigned) + Approval status: Name of applicable state from the IAB / + IRTF / Independent Submission stream + + * The "IRTF RG status" is only shown for the IRTF stream; it is to + be completely removed for the IAB and Independent Stream + + ** This field displays the name and email of the person assigned as + the shepherd for the I-D; the line is omitted if the shepherd has + not yet been assigned + + + + + + + + +Hoffman Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 6322 Datatracker States for Alternate Streams July 2011 + + +6. Movement between Streams + + Internet-Drafts sometimes move between streams. For example, a draft + might start out in the IETF stream but then move to the Independent + Submission stream, or a draft might move from an IRTF RG to the IETF + stream. Thus, the IETF Datatracker needs to be able to change the + designated stream of a draft. It is expected that this will be done + by the stream managers. In addition, the IETF Datatracker should + preserve all data from the earlier stream(s) when a document moves + between streams. + + Internet-Drafts sometimes move out of a stream into a non-stream + state. For example, a draft that is in the "Candidate IAB Document", + "Candidate RG Document", or "Submission Received" state might not be + adopted by the stream and revert back to having no stream-specific + state. The IETF Datatracker needs to be able to handle the + transition from having a stream-related state to a null state. + + New streams may be added in the future, and the tool needs to be able + to handle additional streams. + +7. IESG Mail Sent for the IRTF and Independent Stream + + After the IESG performs a review of potential RFCs from the IRTF and + Independent streams, as described in RFC 5742, the IETF Datatracker + sends out email to the IANA, the IESG, ietf-announce@ietf.org, and + the stream manager with the results of the IESG's review. In the + past, the subject line and body of that message has been misleading + about the scope and purpose of the message. There is now a + requirement that the message clearly state that the message is about + the IETF-conflict review of a particular Internet-Draft. + + Note that these letters have effects on the state machine for the + IESG, although those effects are not covered in this document. + +8. Security Considerations + + Changing the states in the Datatracker does not affect the security + of the Internet in any significant fashion. + +9. Review of These Requirements + + The IAB has reviewed this document and agrees that this document + meets the IAB's consent requirements. + + The IRTF Chair has reviewed this document and agrees that this + document meets the requirements for the IRTF stream. + + + + +Hoffman Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 6322 Datatracker States for Alternate Streams July 2011 + + + The ISE has reviewed this document and agrees that this document + meets the requirements of the technical community, as represented by + the Independent Submission stream. + +10. Acknowledgements + + This document draws heavily on, including wholesale copying from, + earlier work done by Henrik Levkowetz, Phil Roberts, and Aaron Falk. + Additional significant input has been received from Aaron Falk, Nevil + Brownlee, Olaf Kolkman, Ross Callon, Ed Juskevicius, Subramanian SM + Moonesamy, and Alfred Hoenes. + +11. References + +11.1. Normative References + + [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC + Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007. + +11.2. Informative References + + [RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for + Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", BCP + 92, RFC 5742, December 2009. + + [RFC6174] Juskevicius, E., "Definition of IETF Working Group + Document States", RFC 6174, March 2011. + + [RFC6175] Juskevicius, E., "Requirements to Extend the Datatracker + for IETF Working Group Chairs and Authors", RFC 6175, + March 2011. + +Author's Address + + Paul Hoffman + VPN Consortium + + EMail: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Hoffman Informational [Page 11] + |