path: root/doc/rfc/rfc6174.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                    E. Juskevicius
Request for Comments: 6174                                     TrekAhead
Category: Informational                                       March 2011
ISSN: 2070-1721


            Definition of IETF Working Group Document States

Abstract

   The IETF Datatracker tool needs to be enhanced to make it possible
   for Working Group (WG) Chairs to provide IETF participants with more
   information about the status and progression of WG documents than is
   currently possible.

   This document defines new states and status annotation tags that need
   to be added to the Datatracker to enable WG Chairs and their
   Delegates to track the status of Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) that are
   associated with their WGs.  This document also describes the meaning
   of all previously implemented I-D states and substate annotation tags
   currently used by IETF Area Directors to indicate the status of I-Ds
   that have been sent to the IESG for evaluation and publication.

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/rfc6174.













Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         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 ....................................................4
   2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................4
   3. I-D States Already Implemented by the Datatracker ...............5
      3.1. I-D Availability States ....................................5
           3.1.1. Expired .............................................6
           3.1.2. Active ..............................................6
           3.1.3. Replaces and Replaced By ............................6
      3.2. IESG Document States .......................................7
           3.2.1. Publication Requested ...............................7
           3.2.2. AD Evaluation .......................................8
           3.2.3. IESG Evaluation .....................................8
   4. New States and Status Annotation Tags for WG I-Ds ...............9
      4.1. Working Group I-D State Diagram ............................9
      4.2. Working Group I-D States ..................................11
           4.2.1. Call for Adoption by WG Issued .....................12
           4.2.2. Adopted by a WG ....................................12
           4.2.3. Adopted for WG Info Only ...........................13
           4.2.4. WG Document ........................................13
           4.2.5. Parked WG Document .................................13
           4.2.6. Dead WG Document ...................................14
           4.2.7. In WG Last Call ....................................14
           4.2.8. Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead ......................15
           4.2.9. WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup ..................15
           4.2.10. Submitted to IESG for Publication .................15
      4.3. Working Group I-D Status Annotation Tags ..................16
           4.3.1. Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised .16
           4.3.2. Awaiting External Review/Resolution of
                  Issues Raised ......................................16
           4.3.3. Awaiting Merge with Other Document .................16
           4.3.4. Author or Editor Needed ............................17
           4.3.5. Waiting for Referenced Document ....................17



Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


           4.3.6. Waiting for Referencing Document ...................17
           4.3.7. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC ..........18
           4.3.8. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD ............18
           4.3.9. Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG ..........18
           4.3.10. Doc Shepherd Followup Underway ....................18
           4.3.11. Other - see Comment Log ...........................19
   5. Intended Maturity Level of WG Drafts ...........................19
   6. Security Considerations ........................................19
   7. References .....................................................19
      7.1. Normative References ......................................19
      7.2. Informative References ....................................20
   8. Acknowledgments ................................................20
   Appendix A: "IESG Document" States ................................21
      A.1. Definition of "IESG Document" States ......................21
         A.1.1. Publication Requested ................................21
         A.1.2. AD Evaluation ........................................21
         A.1.3. Expert Review ........................................21
         A.1.4. Last Call Requested ..................................22
         A.1.5. In Last Call .........................................22
         A.1.6. Waiting for Writeup ..................................22
         A.1.7. Waiting for AD Go-Ahead ..............................22
         A.1.8. IESG Evaluation ......................................22
         A.1.9. IESG Evaluation - Defer ..............................23
         A.1.10. Approved - Announcement to be sent ..................23
         A.1.11. Approved - Announcement sent ........................23
         A.1.12. RFC Ed Queue ........................................23
         A.1.13. RFC Published .......................................23
         A.1.14. DNP - Waiting for AD note ...........................23
         A.1.15. DNP - Announcement to be sent .......................23
         A.1.16. AD is Watching ......................................23
         A.1.17. Dead ................................................24
      A.2. IESG Document Substates ...................................24
         A.2.1. Point Raised - writeup needed ........................24
         A.2.2. AD Followup ..........................................24
         A.2.3. External Party .......................................25
         A.2.4. Revised ID Needed ....................................25















Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         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 is currently able to track and report on the status
   of I-Ds that have been submitted to the IESG for evaluation and
   publication.  Appendix A of this document describes all of the
   document states and substate annotation tags used by IETF Area
   Directors (ADs) to indicate the status of I-Ds that have been sent to
   the IESG.

   In contrast, the Datatracker has almost no ability to indicate the
   status and progression of I-Ds before they are sent to the IESG.  The
   Datatracker can only track the availability status of I-Ds today
   (e.g., "Active", Expired", "Withdrawn", "Replaced by") and in some
   cases indicate which IETF Working Group (WG) an I-D is associated
   with (if any).

   Section 3 of this document contains a summary of the Datatracker's
   current ability to track and report on the status of I-Ds in the IETF
   document stream.  The IETF document stream is defined in Section
   5.1.1 of RFC 4844 [RFC4844].

   Section 4 of this document defines several new I-D states and I-D
   status annotation tags that need to be added to the Datatracker to
   enable status tracking and reporting for WG I-Ds.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

   A "working group I-D" (WG I-D) is an Internet-Draft 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 I-D", "WG document", and "WG draft" are used
   synonymously throughout this document.  The same is true for the
   plural case of each term.

   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.  Working group 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.




Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


   The phrase "WG status of an I-D" is to be interpreted as referring to
   the state that an I-D is in, as defined in Section 4.2 of this
   document.  This phrase does not refer to an I-D's availability status
   (e.g., "Expired", "Active", "Replaced by") as described in Section
   3.1, or to any of the IESG states used by Area Directors to describe
   the status of I-Ds they may be evaluating.

3.  I-D States Already Implemented by the Datatracker

   This section describes capabilities that are currently implemented in
   the Datatracker to track the status of I-Ds in the IETF document
   stream.

   The document availability states described in Section 3.1 are
   applicable to every I-D submitted to the IETF.

   The IESG document states and substate annotation tags described in
   Section 3.2 and Appendix A are only applicable to I-Ds that have been
   submitted to the IESG for evaluation and publication.

   The Datatracker currently has no I-D states or I-D status annotation
   tags to describe the WG status of any I-D.

3.1.  I-D Availability States

   The Datatracker currently maintains availability status information
   for every I-D submitted to the IETF.  The I-D availability states are
   as follows:

      - Expired
      - Active
      - Replaces
      - Replaced by
      - Withdrawn by Submitter
      - Withdrawn by IETF
      - RFC

   The first four I-D availability states are explained in the following
   subsections.  The other states are self-explanatory.

   Note that the Datatracker describes the status of some I-Ds with the
   phrase "I-D Exists".  "I-D Exists" is the state that is manufactured
   by the Datatracker to describe I-Ds for which it has no other status
   information.  For example, the tool currently uses "I-D Exists" to
   describe I-Ds that are not expired and that have not been sent to the
   IESG.





Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


3.1.1.  Expired

   An "Expired" I-D is a document that is more than six months old and
   that has not been updated or replaced by a newer I-D or an RFC.

   Every I-D has a normal lifespan of 185 days.  An I-D will expire and
   be deleted from the I-D repository after six months unless it is
   updated or replaced by a newer version.  One exception is that an I-D
   undergoing official evaluation by the IESG will not be expired before
   its status is resolved (e.g., the I-D is published as an RFC).  IESG
   states that do not relate to a formal request to publish a document
   (e.g., "AD is Watching") do not prevent an I-D from expiring.
   [AUTHGUIDE]

3.1.2.  Active

   An "Active" I-D is a document that is less than six months old and
   has not been updated or replaced by a newer I-D or an RFC.

   The "Active" availability state is applicable to individual I-Ds and
   WG I-Ds.  The Datatracker may also use "Active" to describe the
   status of I-Ds under formal evaluation by the IESG and I-Ds in the
   RFC Editor Queue.  As a result, the "Active" I-D availability state
   cannot be used to determine if an I-D is actively being developed by
   a WG. [WGDTSPEC]

3.1.3.  Replaces and Replaced By

   The Datatracker uses "Replaces" and "Replaced by" to describe I-Ds
   that have been renamed and subsequently resubmitted to the I-D
   repository for some reason.

   Two common uses of "Replaced by" are as follows:

   -  The filename of an individual I-D that is being considered for
      adoption by a WG typically includes the name of its author (e.g.,
      'draft-author-wgname-topic-nn').  If the individual I-D is adopted
      by a WG it will be "Replaced by" a newer draft having a filename
      that includes the string 'ietf-' (e.g., 'draft-ietf-wgname-
      topic-00'); when the newer WG I-D is submitted to the I-D
      repository, it "Replaces" the older individual submission I-D.

   -  The Datatracker also uses "Replaced by" to describe the final
      state of an I-D that has been published as an RFC; the I-D was
      "Replaced By" the RFC.

   Note that getting correct "Replaces" and "Replaced by" data into the
   Datatracker currently requires an explicit request by a WG Chair.



Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


   Without such a request, an individual submission I-D will co-exist
   with the newer WG I-D that replaces it until the individual
   submission I-D eventually expires.

   The Datatracker's ability to track "Replaces" and "Replaced by"
   information may need to be extended in the future to handle more
   complex cases such as the following:

   -  Two or more I-Ds are merged into (i.e., "Replaced by") a single
      I-D; in such cases, the availability status of the (one) new I-D
      should indicate that the draft "Replaces" two or more older and
      previously separate I-Ds; and

   -  One I-D is split or divided into two or more new I-Ds; in this
      case the availability status should indicate that one (older) I-D
      was "Replaced by" two or more newer I-Ds.

3.2.  IESG Document States

   In addition to tracking the availability status of every I-D, the
   Datatracker also maintains detailed information about the status and
   progression of I-Ds that have been sent to the IESG for evaluation
   and publication.

   All of the states used by Area Directors to indicate the status of
   I-Ds under evaluation by the IESG are defined in [IESGSTAT] and are
   reproduced for convenience in Appendix A.

   The following subsections describe some common interactions between
   three of the IESG I-D states and normal IETF WG processes.  These
   interactions are relevant to several of the new WG I-D states defined
   in Section 4.

3.2.1.  Publication Requested

   When a WG has determined that at least rough consensus exists within
   the WG to advance an I-D, progressing the document is then the
   responsibility of the IESG (unless the IESG returns the I-D to the WG
   for further development). [RFC2418]

   The "Publication Requested" state describes an I-D for which a formal
   request has been sent to the IESG to advance/publish the I-D as an
   RFC, following the procedures specified in Section 7.5 of RFC 2418
   [RFC2418].  This state does not mean that an Area Director has
   reviewed the I-D or that any official action has been taken on the
   I-D other than to note that its publication has been requested.





Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


   Many WG drafts enter the IESG state machine for the first time via
   the "Publication Requested" state.  When an I-D advances through the
   IESG process, its IESG state will change to reflect its progress.
   This said, the WG status of the I-D should not change unless an AD or
   the IESG sends the I-D back to the WG for further development.  The
   WG state of an I-D that is being progressed by the IESG is "Submitted
   to IESG for Publication", as defined in Section 4.2.10.

3.2.2.  AD Evaluation

   The "AD Evaluation" state describes an I-D that the responsible Area
   Director has begun to review.  The purpose of the AD's review is to
   verify that the I-D is ready for advancement before an IETF Last Call
   is started or before the document is progressed to the IESG as a
   whole.

   After evaluating an I-D, the responsible AD may decide that the
   document needs to be revised before it can be progressed further.
   The AD may send a working group I-D back to the WG that created it
   for revision.

   When an AD sends an I-D back to a WG for revision, the Datatracker
   will report the IESG state and substate status of the document as "AD
   Evaluation: Revised I-D Needed".  If the required revisions are
   extensive, a WG Chair may decide to change the WG state of the I-D
   from "Submitted to IESG for Publication" to another WG state (e.g.,
   "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead" or "WG Document") for as long as it
   takes the revised I-D to be developed.  The IESG status of the I-D
   will continue to be "AD Evaluation: Revised I-D Needed" until the
   revised I-D becomes available.

3.2.3.  IESG Evaluation

   The "IESG Evaluation" state describes an I-D that is being formally
   evaluated by the entire IESG.  Every AD is able to raise any content
   or process issues he/she may have with the document.  Issues that are
   blocking approval of the document are called "DISCUSS" comments.  A
   "DISCUSS" with serious issues may cause a WG I-D to be returned to
   the WG for revision.

   If the IESG sends an I-D back to a WG for more development, the
   Datatracker will report the IESG state and substate of the I-D as
   "IESG Evaluation: Revised I-D Needed" until a revised version of the
   I-D becomes available.  During the time that the I-D is being
   revised, the WG Chair may decide to transition the I-D from the
   "Submitted to IESG for Publication" state into one of the earlier WG
   states (e.g., "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead" or "WG Document").




Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


4.  New States and Status Annotation Tags for WG I-Ds

   The status-tracking states described in Section 3 are currently
   implemented in the Datatracker; however, their scope is not broad
   enough to provide good visibility into the WG status of any I-D.

   This section describes new I-D states and I-D status annotation tags
   that need to be added to the Datatracker to make it possible for WG
   Chairs and/or their Delegates (e.g., WG Secretaries) to indicate the
   status and progression of the I-Ds associated with their WGs.

   The WG I-D states defined in this section are a superset of the I-D
   states currently used across all IETF WGs.  This is not to suggest or
   imply that all of the WG I-D states must be used by all WG Chairs to
   describe the status and progression of the I-Ds associated with their
   WGs.  Chairs may use all or just some of the document states
   illustrated in Figure 1 to describe the WG status of their I-Ds as
   appropriate.

4.1.  Working Group I-D State Diagram

   Figure 1 is a state machine diagram that illustrates all of the WG
   I-D states defined in Section 4.2 of this document.  The names of the
   WG I-D states are capitalized for clarity, and common state
   transitions are indicated via the solid, dashed, and dotted lines.

   The WG I-D state machine illustrated in Figure 1 is intended to be a
   new front-end to the IESG I-D state machine [IESGIDSM] that is
   currently implemented in Datatracker.

   Note that Figure 1 does not show every possible state transition.  WG
   Chairs may move an I-D from any WG state to any other WG state as
   appropriate to describe the WG status of the document.  The lack of
   an explicit path between two states does not mean that such a state
   transition is precluded.

   The first WG I-D state is "Call for Adoption by WG Issued" and its
   meaning and usage are defined in Section 4.2.1.

   One of several possible last states for a WG I-D is "Submitted to
   IESG for Publication".  This state is defined in Section 4.2.10.










Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


         "I-D EXISTS": 'draft-author-wgname-topic-nn'  < - - .
                                     :                         .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |  WG I-D State Machine             |                         .       |
 |                                   v                 (not adopted)   |
 |                                                            .        |
 |                   CALL FOR ADOPTION BY WG ISSUED  . . . . .         |
 |                     .             :                                 |
 |                    .              v                                 |
 |                   v                                                 |
 |             ADOPTED FOR     ADOPTED BY WG                           |
 |             WG INFO ONLY          .                                 |
 |                                   :                                 |
 |                                   :                                 |
 |    (individual I-D "Replaced by" 'draft-ietf-wgname-topic-00')      |
 |                                   :                                 |
 |                                   v                                 |
 |                                                                     |
 |       DEAD WG   <-------->   WG DOCUMENT  <-------->  PARKED WG     |
 |       DOCUMENT       ("Replaces" individual I-D)      DOCUMENT      |
 |                         .                                           |
 |                      .       ^          \                           |
 |                    .        /            \                          |
 |                   .        /              \                         |
 |                  .        v                \                        |
 |                 .                           \                       |
 |                .       IN WG    ---+         v                      |
 |                      LAST CALL     |                                |
 |               '          ^         +-->  WG CONSENSUS:              |
 |               ^          :                WAITING FOR               |
 |               '          v         +-->    WRITEUP                  |
 |               '                    |                                |
 |               ^      WAITING FOR   |          |                     |
 |               '       WG CHAIR  ---+          |                     |
 |                '      GO-AHEAD                v                     |
 |                 .                                                   |
 |                   .                    SUBMITTED TO IESG            |
 |          ("Revised ID Needed") - - < -  FOR PUBLICATION             |
 |                                                                     |
 |                                                                     |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                                    |
                                    v
                          IESG Document States
                            (see Appendix A)

        Figure 1:  WG I-D States and Common State Transitions




Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


   The Datatracker will be enhanced to automatically generate the
   following two state transitions for all WG drafts:

   -  A version-00 I-D that conforms to the 'draft-ietf-wgname-topic-00'
      file naming convention will be moved into the "WG Document" state
      automatically by the Datatracker when the WG Chair approves the
      posting of an I-D; and

   -  A WG draft that is moved into the IESG state called "Publication
      Requested" will automatically be moved by the Datatracker into the
      WG state called "Submitted to IESG for Publication".

   All other WG I-D state transitions will require the WG Chairs or
   their Delegates to log in to the Datatracker to manually input the
   appropriate WG state to describe the WG status of an I-D.

   Note that Figure 1 includes an arc from the "Submitted to IESG for
   Publication" state back to the "WG Document" state.  This is one
   example of what may happen after an AD or the IESG as a whole sends
   an I-D back to a WG for revision.  The WG chair may decide that the
   I-D needs further development and that it needs to return to the "WG
   Document" state for a while.

4.2.  Working Group I-D States

   The WG I-D states defined in this section are a superset of the I-D
   states currently used across all IETF WGs.

   All of the states described herein need to be added to the front-end
   of IESG state machine [IESGIDSM] that has already been implemented in
   the IETF Datatracker.

   WG Chairs and their Delegates will be given the flexibility to use
   whichever of the WG I-D states they feel to be appropriate to
   describe the WG status of the I-Ds associated with their WG.

   It is not suggested or implied that Chairs must use all of the I-D
   states defined herein to describe the status and progression of all
   I-Ds associated with their WGs; Chairs may use all of the WG I-D
   states, or just some of the states.

   Note that an I-D that is not associated with a WG will be in a 'Null'
   state with respect to the WG state machine in Figure 1.








Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


4.2.1.  Call for Adoption by WG Issued

   The "Call for Adoption by WG Issued" state should be used to indicate
   when an I-D is being considered for adoption by an IETF WG.  An I-D
   that is in this state is actively being considered for adoption and
   has not yet achieved consensus, preference, or selection in the WG.

   This state may be used to describe an I-D that someone has asked a WG
   to consider for adoption, if the WG Chair has agreed with the
   request.  This state may also be used to identify an I-D that a WG
   Chair asked an author to write specifically for consideration as a
   candidate WG item [WGDTSPEC], and/or an I-D that is listed as a
   'candidate draft' in the WG's charter.

   Under normal conditions, it should not be possible for an I-D to be
   in the "Call for Adoption by WG Issued" state in more than one
   working group at the same time.  This said, it is not uncommon for
   authors to "shop" their I-Ds to more than one WG at a time, with the
   hope of getting their documents adopted somewhere.

   After this state is implemented in the Datatracker, an I-D that is in
   the "Call for Adoption by WG Issued" state will not be able to be
   "shopped" to any other WG without the consent of the WG Chairs and
   the responsible ADs impacted by the shopping.

   Note that Figure 1 includes an arc leading from this state to outside
   of the WG state machine.  This illustrates that some I-Ds that are
   considered do not get adopted as WG drafts.  An I-D that is not
   adopted as a WG draft will transition out of the WG state machine and
   revert back to having no stream-specific state; however, the status
   change history log of the I-D will record that the I-D was previously
   in the "Call for Adoption by WG Issued" state.

4.2.2.  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.

   WG Chairs who use this state will be able to clearly indicate when
   their WGs adopt individual submission I-Ds.  This will facilitate the
   Datatracker's ability to correctly capture "Replaces" information for
   WG drafts and correct "Replaced by" information for individual
   submission I-Ds that have been replaced by WG drafts.

   This state is needed because the Datatracker uses the filename of an
   I-D as a key to search its database for status information about the
   I-D, and because the filename of a WG I-D is supposed to be different
   from the filename of an individual submission I-D.



Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


   The filename of an individual submission I-D will typically be
   formatted as 'draft-author-wgname-topic-nn'.

   The filename of a WG document is supposed to be formatted as 'draft-
   ietf-wgname-topic-nn'.

   An individual I-D that is adopted by a WG may take weeks or months to
   be resubmitted by the author as a new (version-00) WG draft.  If the
   "Adopted by a WG" state is not used, the Datatracker has no way to
   determine that an I-D has been adopted until a new version of the I-D
   is submitted to the WG by the author and until the I-D is approved
   for posting by a WG Chair.

4.2.3.  Adopted for WG Info Only

   The "Adopted for WG Info Only" state describes a document that
   contains useful information for the WG that adopted it, but the
   document is not intended to be published as an RFC.  The WG will not
   actively develop the contents of the I-D or progress it for
   publication as an RFC.  The only purpose of the I-D is to provide
   information for internal use by the WG.

4.2.4.  WG Document

   The "WG Document" state describes an I-D that has been adopted by an
   IETF WG and is being actively developed.

   A WG Chair may transition an I-D into the "WG Document" state at any
   time as long as the I-D is not being considered or developed in any
   other WG.

   Alternatively, WG Chairs may rely upon new functionality to be added
   to the Datatracker to automatically move version-00 drafts into the
   "WG Document" state as described in Section 4.1.

   Under normal conditions, it should not be possible for an I-D to be
   in the "WG Document" state in more than one WG at a time.  This said,
   I-Ds may be transferred from one WG to another with the consent of
   the WG Chairs and the responsible ADs.

4.2.5.  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.





Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 13]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


   Some of the annotation tags described in Section 4.3 may be used in
   conjunction with this state to indicate why an I-D has been parked,
   and/or what may need to happen for the I-D to be un-parked.

   Parking a WG draft will not prevent it from expiring; however, this
   state can be used to indicate why the I-D has stopped progressing in
   the WG.

   A "Parked WG Document" that is not expired may be transferred from
   one WG to another with the consent of the WG Chairs and the
   responsible ADs.

4.2.6.  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.  A
   "Dead WG Document" that is not resurrected will eventually expire.

   Note that an I-D that is declared to be "Dead" in one WG and that is
   not expired may be transferred to a non-dead state in another WG with
   the consent of the WG Chairs and the responsible ADs.

4.2.7.  In WG Last Call

   A document "In WG Last Call" is an I-D for which a WG Last Call
   (WGLC) has been issued and is in progress.

   Note that conducting a WGLC is an optional part of the IETF WG
   process, per Section 7.4 of RFC 2418 [RFC2418].

   If a WG Chair decides to conduct a WGLC on an I-D, the "In WG Last
   Call" state can be used to track the progress of the WGLC.  The Chair
   may configure the Datatracker to send a WGLC message to one or more
   mailing lists when the Chair moves the I-D into this state.  The WG
   Chair may also be able to select a different set of mailing lists for
   a different document undergoing a WGLC; some documents may deserve
   coordination with other WGs.

   A WG I-D in this state should remain "In WG Last Call" until the WG
   Chair moves it to another state.  The WG Chair may configure the
   Datatracker to send an e-mail after a specified period of time to
   remind or 'nudge' the Chair to conclude the WGLC and to determine the
   next state for the document.







Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 14]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


   It is possible for one WGLC to lead 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.

4.2.8.  Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead

   A WG Chair may wish to place an I-D that receives a lot of comments
   during a WGLC into the "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead" state.  This
   state describes an I-D that has undergone a WGLC; however, the Chair
   is not yet ready to call consensus on the document.

   If comments from the WGLC need to be responded to, or a revision to
   the I-D is needed, the Chair may place an I-D into this state until
   all of the WGLC comments are adequately addressed and the (possibly
   revised) document is in the I-D repository.

4.2.9.  WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup

   A document in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup" state has
   essentially completed its development within the working group, 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 a
   Document Shepherd.  The IESG requires that a document shepherd
   writeup be completed before publication of the I-D is requested.  The
   IETF document shepherding process and the role of a WG Document
   Shepherd is described in RFC 4858 [RFC4858]

   A WG Chair may call consensus on an I-D without a formal WGLC and
   transition an I-D that was in the "WG Document" state directly into
   this state.

   The name of this state includes the words "Waiting for Writeup"
   because a good document shepherd writeup takes time to prepare.

4.2.10.  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 working
   group for revision.

   An I-D in this state may be under review by the IESG, 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.





Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 15]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


4.3.  Working Group I-D Status Annotation Tags

   In addition to indicating which state a working group draft is in,
   the Datatracker will allow several substate conditions to be
   identified and tracked.  This section defines annotation tags that
   may be used to describe a condition that is affecting a WG I-D (e.g.,
   why a document is in the state it is in) or to indicate an action
   needed to progress the document.

   Annotation tags do not change the WG I-D state of WG drafts.

   Each of the annotation tags defined herein may be used to provide
   more information about the status of any WG draft in any state, if it
   makes sense to do so.  Each annotation tag may be used by itself, or
   in combination with other tags.

4.3.1.  Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised

   This tag means that someone (e.g., an author or editor of the WG
   draft, or a WG Chair) has initiated an expert review of the document
   and the review has not yet been completed and/or the resolution of
   issues raised by the review has not yet been completed.  Examples of
   expert reviews include cross-area reviews, MIB Doctor reviews,
   security expert reviews, and IANA reviews.

   WG drafts tagged with this annotation should retain the tag until the
   review is complete and possibly until any issues raised in the review
   are addressed.

4.3.2.  Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised

   This tag means that someone (e.g., an author or editor of the WG
   draft, or a WG Chair) has initiated some other review of the document
   (e.g., sent it to another Standards Development Organization (SDO)
   for comments via a formal or informal liaison process), and the
   review has not yet been completed and/or the resolution of issues
   raised by the review has not yet been completed.

   WG drafts tagged with this annotation should retain the tag until the
   review is complete and possibly until any issues raised in the review
   are addressed.

4.3.3.  Awaiting Merge with Other Document

   This tag means a decision has been made by someone (e.g., the
   document author, editor, or the WG Chair) to merge the I-D with one
   or more other I-Ds from the same (or another) working group.




Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 16]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


   If the result of the merge is a new I-D having a different title,
   then the old I-D may be declared as being a "Dead WG Document".  In
   such a case, the annotation tag should be changed from "Awaiting
   Merge with Other Document" to "Other - see Comment Log" and a
   description of the merge should be entered into the log for
   posterity.

   The Datatracker's regular 'Replaced by' information should also be
   set for the old I-Ds to make it easier to find the new merged
   document from the old documents.

   If the result of the merge operation is a revision to the old I-D,
   this annotation tag should be cleared when the revised (merged) I-D
   is submitted to the WG.

4.3.4.  Author or Editor Needed

   This tag means an I-D has lost a primary author or editor, and that
   further work on the I-D cannot continue in an effective or efficient
   manner until a new author or editor is found.

   This tag should be removed after a new primary author or editor is
   found.

4.3.5.  Waiting for Referenced Document

   This tag means that completion of the I-D is on-hold because the
   draft has a dependency on one or more other documents.  A typical
   example is where an I-D depends on another IETF document that has not
   yet progressed to a point where it may be referenced; the dependency
   may be on one or more documents in other IETF Working Groups or on
   work in progress documents in other SDOs.

   This tag should be removed after the dependency is cleared.

4.3.6.  Waiting for Referencing Document

   This tag means that completion of the I-D is on-hold because one or
   more other documents are dependent on it, and the WG Chair wants to
   submit all of the documents to the IESG (for publication)
   simultaneously.  This tag is the inverse of 4.3.5.

   This tag should be removed after the dependency is cleared.








Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 17]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


4.3.7.  Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC

   This annotation may be used to flag an I-D that needs to be revised
   to address issues raised during a Working Group Last Call.  This
   annotation may also be used to indicate when the I-D is in the
   process of being revised.

   This tag should be removed after a revised version of the I-D is
   submitted to the WG.

4.3.8.  Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD

   This annotation means the responsible AD raised one or more issues
   with the I-D during "AD Evaluation" and that the AD has sent the
   document back to the working group for revision.  This annotation may
   also be used to indicate when the I-D is in the process of being
   revised.

   This tag should be removed after the revised version of the I-D is
   submitted to the WG.

4.3.9.  Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG

   This annotation means that one or more IESG members had issues with
   the I-D during "IESG Evaluation" and the document has been sent back
   to the working group for revision.  This annotation may also be used
   to indicate that the revision to the I-D is in process.

   This tag should be removed after the revised version of the I-D is
   submitted to the WG.

4.3.10.  Doc Shepherd Followup Underway

   This annotation tag may be used to indicate that the Document
   Shepherd for the WG document has begun working on the writeup
   required to submit the document (to the IESG) for publication.

   It is possible that too many I-Ds may arrive in a shepherd's queue in
   too short a time, and the shepherd cannot create satisfactory
   writeups for all of the documents simultaneously.

   When this annotation tag is set, it means the Document Shepherd has
   started work on the writeup for the I-D.  The absence or resetting of
   this annotation tag for an I-D in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for
   Writeup" state indicates the writeup has not yet been started, or has
   been put on-hold for some reason.





Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 18]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


4.3.11.  Other - see Comment Log

   This annotation tag is a catch-all to indicate that someone (e.g., an
   author or editor of the document, the WG Chair, the Document
   Shepherd) has entered one or more comments about the current status
   of the I-D into the IETF Datatracker.

5.  Intended Maturity Level of WG Drafts

   The IESG requires a WG I-D to have an "intended maturity level"
   associated with it (e.g., Informational, Proposed Standard,
   Experimental) before the I-D is submitted to the IESG for evaluation
   and publication.  This information is also often requested by IETF
   participants.

   I-D maturity levels were first defined in Sections 4 and 5 of RFC
   2026 [RFC2026].  The names of the maturity levels in use today are:

      *  "Experimental"
      *  "Informational"
      *  "Best Current Practice"
      *  "Proposed Standard"
      *  "Draft Standard"
      *  "Standard"
      *  "Historic"

   The Datatracker may need to be enhanced to enable WG Chairs to input
   and/or change the intended maturity level of a WG draft before the
   I-D is sent to the IESG.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not propose any new Internet mechanisms and has no
   security implications for the Internet.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2026]   Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
               3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2418]   Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
               Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.

   [RFC4844]   Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "The
               RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.




Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 19]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


7.2.  Informative References

   [AUTHGUIDE] Housley, R., Ed. (for the IESG), "Guidelines to Authors
               of Internet-Drafts", December 7, 2010,
               http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt.

   [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.

   [IESGSTAT]  "Main I-D States", Web Application:
               https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/help/state/,
               Version 3.12, February 2, 2011.

   [PROTO]     Levkowetz, H. and Mankin, A., "Requirements on I-D
               Tracker Extensions for Working Group Chairs", Work in
               Progress, February 2007.

   [WGDTSPEC]  Juskevicius, E., "Minutes of wgdtspec BOF", Proceedings
               of IETF 77, March 26, 2010,
               http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/minutes/wgdtspec

8.  Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank Henrik Levkowetz and Allison Mankin
   for developing the original I-D [PROTO] that served as the starting
   point for this document, and Alfred Hoenes for his many comments and
   suggestions and for articulating the need for the "Adopted by a WG"
   state.

   The author would also like to thank Henrik Levkowetz, Russ Housley,
   Paul Hoffman, John Klensin, Pasi Eronen, Robert Sparks, Spencer
   Dawkins, Mary Barnes, Glenn Parsons, Marc Blanchet, Andy Malis, and
   Joel Halpern for their comments and feedback along the way.

   Finally, the author also wishes to thank the IETF WG Chairs, ADs and
   other people who contributed their insights and suggestions in real-
   time during the wgdtspec BOF at IETF 77, and Lars Eggert, Tim Polk,
   Robert Sparks, Adrian Farrel and Alexey Melnikov 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 20]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


Appendix A.  "IESG Document" States

   This Appendix describes the status information currently stored in
   the IETF Datatracker tool for every I-D submitted to the IESG for
   publication.  All of the terms and definitions in Sections A.1 and
   A.2 are copied from [IESGSTAT].

   It must be noted that I-Ds sent to the IESG for publication (termed
   "IESG Documents" in this Appendix) do not stay with the IESG until
   the day they are published as RFCs.  After evaluation, the IESG may
   declare that some I-Ds deserve a "Do Not Publish" label.  Other I-Ds
   may become "Dead".  Some I-Ds may get sent back to their originators
   (WGs or otherwise), and the rest may go into the RFC Editor queue.

   Note that documents that are not tracked by the IESG (e.g., I-Ds for
   which no request has been made of the IESG) are in a null state with
   respect to the IESG state machine.  The IESG state of an I-D that has
   no value assigned to the IESG state variable in the Datatracker's
   database is 'NULL'.

A.1.  Definition of "IESG Document" States

A.1.1.  Publication Requested

   A formal request has been made to advance/publish the document,
   following the procedures in Section 7.5 of RFC 2418 [RFC2418]; the
   request could be from a WG Chair, or from an individual.  Note: the
   Secretariat (iesg-secretary@ietf.org) is typically copied on these
   requests to ensure that the request makes it into the Datatracker.  A
   document in this state has not (yet) been reviewed by an Area
   Director nor has any official action been taken yet, other than to
   note that its publication has been requested.

A.1.2.  AD Evaluation

   A specific AD (e.g., the "Area Advisor" for the WG) has begun their
   review of the document to verify that it is ready for advancement.
   The shepherding AD is responsible for doing any necessary review
   before starting an IETF Last Call or sending the document directly to
   the IESG as a whole.

A.1.3.  Expert Review

   An AD sometimes asks for an external review by an outside party as
   part of evaluating whether a document is ready for advancement.
   MIBs, for example, are reviewed by "MIB doctors".  Other types of
   reviews may also be requested (e.g., security, operations impacts,




Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 21]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


   etc.)  Documents stay in this state until the review is complete and
   possibly until the issues raised in the review are addressed.

   Specific details on the nature of the review may be found in the
   "note" field associated with this state (i.e., within the
   Datatracker).

A.1.4.  Last Call Requested

   The AD has requested that the Secretariat start an IETF Last Call,
   but the actual Last Call message has not been sent yet.

A.1.5.  In Last Call

   The document is currently waiting for IETF Last Call to complete.
   Last Calls for WG documents typically last 2 weeks, and those for
   individual submissions last 4 weeks.

A.1.6.  Waiting for Writeup

   Before a standards-track or BCP document is formally considered by
   the entire IESG, the AD must write up a protocol action.  The
   protocol action is included in the approval message that the
   Secretariat sends out when the document is approved for publication
   as an RFC.

A.1.7.  Waiting for AD Go-Ahead

   As a result of the IETF Last Call, comments may need to be responded
   to and a revision of the I-D may be needed as well.  The AD is
   responsible for verifying that all Last Call comments have been
   adequately addressed and that the (possibly revised) document is
   ready for consideration by the IESG as a whole.

A.1.8.  IESG Evaluation

   The document is now (finally!) being formally reviewed by the entire
   IESG.  Documents are discussed in email or during a bi-weekly IESG
   telechat.  In this phase, each AD reviews the document and airs any
   content or process issues they may have.  Unresolvable issues are
   documented as "DISCUSS" comments that can be forwarded to the
   authors/WG.  See the description of IESG substates in Section A.2 for
   additional details about the current state of the IESG discussion.








Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 22]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


A.1.9.  IESG Evaluation - Defer

   During a telechat, one or more ADs requested an additional two weeks
   to review the document.  A defer is designed to be an exception
   mechanism, and can only be invoked once, the first time the document
   comes up for discussion during a telechat.

A.1.10.  Approved - announcement to be sent

   The IESG has approved the document for publication, but the
   Secretariat has not (yet) sent an official approval message.

A.1.11.  Approved - announcement sent

   The IESG has approved the document for publication, and the
   Secretariat has sent out the official approval message to the RFC
   editor.

A.1.12.  RFC Ed Queue

   The document is in the RFC editor Queue (as confirmed by
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html)

A.1.13.  RFC Published

   The I-D has been published as an RFC.

A.1.14.  DNP - waiting for AD note

   Do Not Publish (DNP): The IESG recommends against publishing the
   document, but the writeup explaining its reasoning has not yet been
   produced.  DNPs apply primarily to individual submissions received
   through the RFC Editor.  See the "note" field for more details on who
   has the action item.

A.1.15.  DNP - announcement to be sent

   The IESG recommends against publishing the document.  The writeup
   explaining the IESG's reasoning has been produced, but the
   Secretariat has not yet sent out the official "Do Not Publish"
   recommendation message.

A.1.16.  AD is watching

   An AD is aware of the document and has chosen to place the document
   in a separate state in order to monitor it (for whatever reason).
   Documents in this state are not actively tracked by the IESG in the
   sense that no formal request has been made to publish or advance the



Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 23]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


   document.  The AD has chosen to put the I-D into this state, to make
   it easier to keep track of (for his or her own reasons).

A.1.17.  Dead

   The document is "Dead" and is no longer being tracked (e.g., it has
   been replaced by another document having a different name, it has
   been withdrawn, etc.)

A.2.  IESG Document Substates

   Note that the annotation tags described in this section were defined
   circa 2002.  If these conditions were modelled today, they would most
   likely be modelled as annotation tags rather than as substates.

A.2.1.  Point Raised - writeup needed

   IESG discussions on the document have raised some issues that need to
   be brought to the attention of the authors/WG, but those issues have
   not been written down yet. (It is common for discussions during a
   telechat to result in such situations.  An AD may raise a possible
   issue during a telechat and only decide as a result of that
   discussion whether the issue is worth formally writing up and
   bringing to the attention of the authors/WG).

   A document stays in the "Point Raised - writeup needed" substate
   until *ALL* IESG blocking comments that have been raised have been
   documented.

A.2.2.  AD Followup

   "AD Followup" is a generic substate indicating that the shepherding
   AD has the action to determine the appropriate next steps.  In
   particular, the appropriate steps (and the corresponding next state
   or substate) depend entirely on the nature of the issues that were
   raised and can only be decided with active involvement of the
   shepherding AD.

   Examples include:

   -  If another AD raises an issue, the shepherding AD may first
      iterate with the other AD to get a better understanding of the
      exact issue.  Or, the shepherding AD may attempt to argue that the
      issue is not serious enough it to bring to the attention of the
      authors/WG.






Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 24]
^L
RFC 6174           IETF Working Group Document States         March 2011


   -  If a documented issue is forwarded to a WG, some further iteration
      may be needed before it can be determined whether a new revision
      is needed or whether the WG response to an issue clarifies the
      issue sufficiently.

   -  When a new revision appears, the shepherding AD will first look at
      the changes to determine whether they believe all outstanding
      issues have been raised satisfactorily, prior to asking the ADs
      who raised the original issues to verify the changes.

A.2.3.  External Party

   The document is awaiting review or input from an external party
   (i.e., someone other than the shepherding AD, the authors, or the
   WG).  See the "note" field for more details on who has the action.

A.2.4.  Revised ID Needed

   An updated I-D is needed to address the issues that have been raised.

Author's Address

   Ed Juskevicius
   TrekAhead
   PO Box 491, Carp, ON
   CANADA

   EMail: edj.etc@gmail.com























Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 25]
^L