path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7735.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         R. Sparks
Request for Comments: 7735                                        Oracle
Category: Informational                                       T. Kivinen
ISSN: 2070-1721                                            INSIDE Secure
                                                            January 2016


                     Tracking Reviews of Documents

Abstract

   Several review teams ensure specific types of review are performed on
   Internet-Drafts as they progress towards becoming RFCs.  The tools
   used by these teams to assign and track reviews would benefit from
   tighter integration to the Datatracker.  This document discusses
   requirements for improving those tools without disrupting current
   work flows.

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/rfc7735.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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.



Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Overview of Current Workflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Secretariat Focused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Review-Team Secretary Focused . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Reviewer Focused  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Review Requester and Consumer Focused . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.5.  Statistics Focused  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  A Starting Point for Django Models Supporting the
                Review Tool  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix B.  Suggested Features Deferred for Future Work  . . . .  15
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   As Internet-Drafts are processed, reviews are requested from several
   review teams.  For example, the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
   and the Security Directorate (SecDir) perform reviews of documents
   that are in IETF Last Call.  Gen-ART always performs a follow-up
   review when the document is scheduled for an IESG Telechat.  SecDir
   usually performs a follow-up review, but the SecDir secretary may
   choose not to request that follow-up if any issues identified at Last
   Call are addressed and there are otherwise no major changes to the
   document.  These teams also perform earlier reviews of documents on
   demand.  There are several other teams that perform similar services,
   often focusing on specific areas of expertise.

   The secretaries of these teams manage a pool of volunteer reviewers.
   Documents are assigned to reviewers, taking various factors into
   account.  For instance, a reviewer will not be assigned a document
   for which he is an author or shepherd.  Reviewers are given a
   deadline, usually driven by the end of Last Call or an IESG Telechat
   date.  The reviewer sends each completed review to the team's mailing
   list and to any other lists that are relevant for the document being
   reviewed.  Often, a thread ensues on one or more of those lists to
   resolve any issues found in the review.

   The secretaries and reviewers from several teams are using a tool
   developed and maintained by Tero Kivinen.  Much of its design
   predates the modern Datatracker.  The application currently keeps its
   own data store and learns about documents needing review by
   inspecting Datatracker and tools.ietf.org pages.  Most of those pages
   are easy to parse, but the Last Call pages, in particular, require



Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


   some effort.  Tighter integration with the Datatracker would simplify
   the logic used to identify documents that are ready for review, make
   it simpler for the Datatracker to associate reviews with documents,
   and allow users to reuse their Datatracker credentials.  It would
   also make it easier to detect other potential review-triggering
   events, such as a document entering Working Group (WG) Last Call or
   when an RFC's standard level is being changed without revising the
   RFC.  Tero currently believes this integration is best achieved by a
   new implementation of the tool.  This document captures requirements
   for that reimplementation, with a focus on the workflows that the new
   implementation must take care not to disrupt.  It also discusses new
   features, including changes suggested for the existing tool at its
   issue tracker [art-trac].

   For more information about the various review teams, see the
   following references.

          +-------------------------------+---------------------+
          | General Area Review Team      | [Gen-ART] [RFC6385] |
          | Security Directorate          | [SecDir]            |
          | Applications Area Directorate | [AppsDir]           |
          | Operations Area Directorate   | [OPS-dir]           |
          | Routing Area Directorate      | [RTG-dir]           |
          | MIB Doctors                   | [MIBdoctors]        |
          | YANG Doctors                  | [YANGdoctors]       |
          +-------------------------------+---------------------+

2.  Overview of Current Workflows

   This section gives a high-level overview of how the review team
   secretaries and reviewers use the existing tool.  It is not intended
   to be comprehensive documentation of how review teams operate.
   Please see the references for those details.

   For many teams, the team's secretary periodically (typically once a
   week) checks the tool for documents it has identified as ready for
   review.  The tool compiles a list from Last Call announcements and
   IESG Telechat agendas.  The secretary creates a set of assignments
   from this list and enters them into the reviewer pool, choosing the
   reviewers in roughly a round-robin order.  That order can be
   perturbed by several factors.  Reviewers have different levels of
   availability.  Some are willing to review multiple documents a month.
   Others may only be willing to review a document every other month.
   The assignment process takes exceptional conditions such as reviewer
   vacations into account.  Furthermore, secretaries are careful not to
   assign a document to a reviewer that is an author, shepherd,
   responsible WG chair, or has some other already existing association
   with the document.  The preference is to get a reviewer with a fresh



Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


   perspective.  The secretary may discover reasons to change
   assignments while going through the list of documents.  In order to
   not cause a reviewer to make a false start on a review, the
   secretaries complete the full list of assignments before sending
   notifications to anyone.  This assignment process can take several
   minutes and it is possible for new Last Calls to be issued while the
   secretary is making assignments.  The secretary typically checks to
   see if new documents are ready for review just before issuing the
   assignments and updates the assignments if necessary.

   Some teams operate in more of a review-on-demand model.  The Routing
   Area Directorate (RTG-dir), for example, primarily initiates reviews
   at the request of a Routing AD.  They may also start an early review
   at the request of a WG chair.  In either case, the reviewers are
   chosen manually from the pool of available reviewers driven by
   context rather than using a round-robin ordering.

   The issued assignments are either sent to the review team's email
   list or are emailed directly to the assigned reviewer.  The
   assignments are reflected in the tool.  For those teams handling
   different types of reviews (Last Call vs. Telechat, for example), the
   secretary typically processes the documents for each type of review
   separately, and potentially with different assignment criteria.  In
   Gen-ART, for example, the Last Call reviewer for a document will
   almost always get the follow-up Telechat review assignment.
   Similarly, SecDir assigns any re-reviews of a document to the same
   reviewer.  Other teams may choose to assign a different reviewer.

   Reviewers discover their assignments through email or by looking at
   their queue in the tool.  The secretaries for some teams (such as the
   OPS-dir and RTG-dir) insulate their team members from using the tool
   directly.  These reviewers only work through the review team's email
   list or through direct email.  On teams that have the reviewers use
   the tool directly, most reviewers only check the tool when they see
   they have an assignment via the team's email list.  A reviewer has
   the opportunity to reject the assignment for any reason.  While the
   tool provides a way to reject assignments, reviewers typically use
   email to coordinate rejections with the team secretary.  The
   secretary will find another volunteer for any rejected assignments.
   The reviewer can indicate that the assignment is accepted in the tool
   before starting the review, but this feature is rarely used.

   The reviewer sends a completed review to the team's email list or
   secretary, as well as any other lists relevant to the review, and
   usually the draft's primary email alias.  For instance, many Last
   Call reviews are also sent to the IETF general list.  The teams
   typically have a template format for the review.  Those templates
   usually start with a summary of the conclusion of the review.



Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


   Typical summaries are "ready for publication" or "on the right track
   but has open issues".  The reviewer (or in the case of teams that
   insulate their reviewers, the secretary) uses the tool to indicate
   that the review is complete, provides the summary, and has an
   opportunity to provide a link to the review in the archives.  Note,
   however, that having to wait for the document to appear in the
   archive to know the link to paste into the tool is a significant
   enough impedance that this link is often not provided by the
   reviewer.  The SecDir secretary manually collects these links from
   the team's email list and adds them to the tool.

   Occasionally, a document is revised between when a review assignment
   is made and when the reviewer starts the review.  Different teams can
   have different policies about whether the reviewer should review the
   assigned version or the current version.

3.  Requirements

3.1.  Secretariat Focused

   o  The Secretariat must be able to configure secretaries and
      reviewers for review teams (by managing Role records).

   o  The Secretariat must be able to perform any secretary action on
      behalf of a review team secretary (and thus, must be able to
      perform any reviewer action on behalf of the reviewer).

3.2.  Review-Team Secretary Focused

   o  A secretary must be able to see what documents are ready for a
      review of a given type (such as a Last Call review).

   o  A secretary must be able to assign reviews for documents that may
      not have been automatically identified as ready for a review of a
      given type.  (In addition to being the primary assignment method
      for teams that only initiate reviews on demand, this allows the
      secretary to work around errors and handle special cases,
      including early review requests.)

   o  A secretary must be able to work on and issue a set of assignments
      as an atomic unit.  No assignment should be issued until the
      secretary declares the set of assignments complete.

   o  The tool must support teams that have multiple secretaries.  The
      tool should warn secretaries that are simultaneously working on
      assignments and protect against conflicting assignments being
      made.




Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


   o  It must be easy for the secretary to discover that more documents
      have become ready for review while working on an assignment set.

   o  The tool should make preparing the assignment email to the team's
      email list easy.  For instance, the tool could prepare the
      message, give the secretary an opportunity to edit it, and handle
      sending it to the team's email list.

   o  It must be possible for a secretary to indicate that the review
      team will not provide a review for a document (or a given version
      of a document).  This indication should be taken into account when
      presenting the documents that are ready for a review of a given
      type.  This will also make it possible to show on a document's
      page that no review is expected from this team.

   o  A secretary must be able to easily see who the next available
      reviewers are, in order.

   o  A secretary must be able to edit a reviewer's availability, both
      in terms of frequency, not-available-until-date, and skip-next-
      n-assignments.  (See the description of these settings in
      Section 3.3.)

   o  The tool should make it easy for the secretary to see any team
      members that have requested to review a given document when it
      becomes available for review.

   o  The tool should make it easy for the secretary to identify that a
      reviewer is already involved with a document.  The current tool
      allows the secretary to provide a regular expression to match
      against the document name.  If the expression matches, the
      document is not available for assignment to this reviewer.  For
      example, Tero will not be assigned documents matching '^draft-
      (kivinen|ietf-tcpinc)-.*$'.  The tool should also take any roles,
      such as document shepherd, that the Datatracker knows about into
      consideration.

   o  The tool should make it easy for the secretary to see key features
      of a document ready for assignment, such as its length, its
      authors, the group and area it is associated with, its title and
      abstract, its states (such as IESG or WG states), and any other
      personnel (such as the shepherd and reviewers already assigned
      from other teams) involved in the draft.

   o  The tool must make it easy for the secretary to detect and process
      re-review requests on the same version of a document (such as when
      a document has an additional Last Call only to deal with new IPR
      information).



Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


   o  Common operations to groups of documents should be easy for the
      secretary to process as a group with a minimum amount of
      interaction with the tool.  For instance, it should be possible to
      process all of the documents described by the immediately
      preceding bullet with one action.  Similarly, for teams that
      assign re-reviews to the same reviewer, issuing all re-review
      requests should be a simple action.

   o  A secretary must be able to see which reviewers have outstanding
      assignments.

   o  The tool must make it easy for the secretary to see the result of
      previous reviews from this team for a given document.  In SecDir,
      for example, if the request is for a revision that has only minor
      differences and the previous review result was "Ready", a new
      assignment will not be made.  If the given document replaces one
      or more other prior documents, the tool must make it easy for the
      secretary to see the results of previous reviews of the replaced
      documents.

   o  The tool must make it easy for the secretary to see the result of
      previous reviews from this team for all documents across
      configurable, recent periods of time (such as the last 12 months).
      A secretary of the RTG-dir, for example, would use this result to
      aid in the manual selection of the next reviewer.

   o  The tools must make it easy for the secretary to see the recent
      performance of a reviewer while making an assignment (see
      Section 3.5).  This allows the secretary to detect overburdened or
      unresponsive volunteers earlier in the process.

   o  A secretary must be able to configure the tool to remind them to
      follow up when actions are due.  (For instance, a secretary could
      receive email when a review is about to become overdue.)

   o  A secretary must be able to assign multiple reviewers to a given
      draft at any time.  In particular, a secretary must be able to
      assign an additional reviewer when an original reviewer indicates
      their review is likely to be only partially complete.

   o  A secretary must be able to withdraw a review assignment.

   o  A secretary must be able to perform any reviewer action on behalf
      of the reviewer.

   o  A secretary must be able to configure the review team's set of
      reviewers (by managing Role records for the team).




Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


   o  Information about a reviewer must not be lost when a reviewer is
      removed from a team.  (Frequently, reviewers come back to teams
      later.)

   o  A secretary must be able to delegate secretary capabilities in the
      tool (similar to how a working group chair can assign a Delegate).
      This allows review teams to self-manage secretary vacations.

3.3.  Reviewer Focused

   o  A reviewer must be able to indicate availability, both in
      frequency of reviews and as "not available until this date".  The
      current tool speaks of frequency in these terms:

      -  Assign at maximum one new review per week

      -  Assign at maximum one new review per fortnight

      -  Assign at maximum one new review per month

      -  Assign at maximum one new review per two months

      -  Assign at maximum one new review per quarter

   o  Reviewers must be able to indicate hiatus periods.  Each period
      may be either "soft" or "hard".

      -  A hiatus must have a start date.  It may have an end date or it
         may be indefinite.

      -  During a hiatus, the reviewer will not be included in the
         normal review rotation.  When a provided end date is reached,
         the reviewer will automatically be included in the rotation in
         their usual order.

      -  During a "soft" hiatus, the reviewer must not be assigned new
         reviews but is expected to complete existing assignments and do
         follow-up reviews.

      -  During a "hard" hiatus, the reviewer must not be assigned any
         new reviews and the secretary must be prompted to reassign any
         outstanding or follow-up reviews.

   o  Reviewers must be able to indicate that they should be skipped the
      next "n" times they would normally have received an assignment.






Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


   o  Reviewers must be able to indicate that they are transitioning to
      inactive and provide a date for the end of the transition period.
      During this transition time, the reviewer must not be assigned new
      reviews but is expected to complete outstanding assignments and
      follow-up reviews.  At the end of the transition period, the
      secretary must be prompted to reassign any outstanding or follow-
      up reviews.  (This allows review-team members that are taking on
      AD responsibility to transition gracefully to an inactive state
      for the team.)

   o  Both the reviewer and the secretary will be notified by email of
      any modifications to a reviewer's availability.

   o  A reviewer must be able to easily discover new review assignments.
      (The tool might send email directly to an assigned reviewer in
      addition to sending the set of assignments to the team's email
      list.  The tool might also use the Django Message framework to let
      a reviewer that's logged into the Datatracker know a new review
      assignment has been made.)

   o  Reviewers must be able to see their current set of outstanding
      assignments, completed assignments, and rejected assignments.  The
      presentation of those sets should either be separate or, if
      combined, the sets should be visually distinct.

   o  A reviewer should be able to request to review a particular
      document.  The draft may be in any state: available and
      unassigned; already assigned to another reviewer; or not yet
      available.

   o  A reviewer must be able to reject a review assignment, optionally
      providing the secretary with an explanation for the rejection.
      The tool will notify the secretary of the rejection by email.

   o  A reviewer must be able to indicate that they have accepted and
      are working on an assignment.

   o  A reviewer must be able to indicate that a review is only
      partially completed and ask the secretary to assign an additional
      reviewer.  The tool will notify the secretary of this condition by
      email.

   o  It should be possible for a reviewer to reject or accept a review
      either by using the tool's web interface or by replying to the
      review assignment email.

   o  It must be easy for a reviewer to see when each assigned review is
      due.



Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


   o  A reviewer must be able to configure the tool to remind them when
      actions are due.  (For instance, a reviewer could receive email
      when a review is about to become overdue).

   o  A reviewer must be able to indicate that a review is complete,
      capturing where the review is in the archives and the high-level,
      review-result summary.

   o  It must be possible for a reviewer to clearly indicate which
      version of a document was reviewed.  Documents are sometimes
      revised between when a review was assigned and when it is due.
      The tool should note the current version of the document and
      highlight when the review is not for the current version.

   o  It must be easy for a reviewer to submit a completed review.

      -  The current workflow, where the reviewer sends email to the
         team's email list (possibly copying other lists) and then
         indicates where to find that review, must continue to be
         supported.  The tool should make it easier to capture the link
         to review in the team's email list archives (perhaps by
         suggesting links based on a search into the archives).

      -  The tool should allow the reviewer to enter the review into the
         tool via a web form (either as directly provided text or
         through a file-upload mechanism).  The tool will ensure the
         review is posted to the appropriate lists and will construct
         the links to those posts in the archives.

      -  The tool could also allow the reviewer to submit the review to
         the tool by email (perhaps by replying to the assignment).  The
         tool would then ensure the review is posted to the appropriate
         lists.

3.4.  Review Requester and Consumer Focused

   o  It should be easy for an AD or group chair to request any type of
      review, but particularly an early review, from a review team.

   o  It should be possible for that person to withdraw a review
      request.

   o  It must be easy to find all reviews of a document when looking at
      the document's main page in the Datatracker.  The reference to the
      review must make it easy to see any responses to the review on the
      email lists it was sent to.  If a document "replaces" one or more
      other documents, reviews of the replaced documents should be
      included in the results.



Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


   o  It must be easy to find all reviews of a document when looking at
      search result pages and other lists of documents, such as the
      documents on an IESG Telechat agenda.

3.5.  Statistics Focused

   o  It must be easy to see the following across all teams, a given
      team, or a given reviewer, and independently across all time or
      across configurable recent periods of time:

      -  how many reviews have been completed

      -  how many reviews are in progress

      -  how many in progress reviews are late

      -  how many completed reviews were late

      -  how many reviews were not completed at all

      -  average time to complete reviews (from assignment to
         completion)

   o  It must be easy to see the following for all teams, for a given
      team, or for a given reviewer, across all time or across
      configurable recent periods:

      -  total counts of reviews in each review state (done, rejected,
         etc.)

      -  total counts of completed reviews by result (ready, ready with
         nits, etc.)

   o  The above statistics should also be calculated reflecting the size
      of the documents being reviewed (such as using the number of pages
      or words in the documents).

   o  Where applicable, statistics should take reviewer hiatus periods
      into account.

   o  Access to the above statistics must be easy to configure.  Access
      will be initially limited as follows:

      -  The Secretariat and ADs can see any statistic.

      -  A team secretary can see any statistics for that team.





Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


      -  A reviewer can see any team aggregate statistics or their own
         reviewer-specific statistics.

   o  Where possible, the above statistics should be visible as a time-
      series graph.

   o  The implementation should anticipate future enhancements that
      would allow ADs to indicate their position was informed by a given
      review.  Such enhancements would allow reporting correlations
      between reviews and documents that receive one or more
      "discusses".  However, implementing these enhancements is not part
      of the current project.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document discusses requirements for tools that assist review
   teams.  These requirements do not affect the security of the Internet
   in any significant fashion.  The tools themselves have authentication
   and authorization considerations (team secretaries will be able to do
   different things than reviewers).

5.  Informative References

   [AppsDir]  IETF, "Applications Area Directorate Review Process",
              <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/
              AppsDirReview>.

   [art-trac] IETF, "Area Review Team Tool: {1} Active Tickets",
              <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/trac/report/1>.

   [Gen-ART]  IETF, "General Area: General Area Review Team (GEN-ART)
              Guidelines",
              <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki>.

   [MIBdoctors]
              IETF, "MIB Doctors",
              <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/mib-doctors.html>.

   [OPS-dir]  IETF, "OPS Directorate (OPS-DIR)",
              <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/
              Directorates>.

   [RFC6385]  Barnes, M., Doria, A., Alvestrand, H., and B. Carpenter,
              "General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Experiences",
              RFC 6385, DOI 10.17487/RFC6385, October 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6385>.





Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


   [RTG-dir]  IETF, "Routing Area Directorate Wiki Page",
              <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir>.

   [SecDir]   IETF, "Security Directorate",
              <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/
              SecurityDirectorate>.

   [YANGdoctors]
              IETF, "YANG Doctors",
              <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/yang-doctors.html>.









































Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                    [Page 13]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


Appendix A.  A Starting Point for Django Models Supporting the Review
             Tool

 from django.db import models
 from ietf.doc.models import Document
 from ietf.person.models import Email
 from ietf.group.models import Group, Role

 from ietf.name.models import NameModel

 class ReviewRequestStateName(NameModel):
     """ Requested, Accepted, Rejected, Withdrawn, Overtaken By Events,
         No Response , Completed  """

 class ReviewTypeName(NameModel):
     """ Early Review, Last Call, Telechat """

 class ReviewResultName(NameModel):
     """Almost ready, Has issues, Has nits, Not Ready,
        On the right track, Ready, Ready with issues,
        Ready with nits, Serious Issues"""

 class Reviewer(models.Model):
     """
     These records associate reviewers with review teams and keep track
     of admin data associated with the reviewer in the particular team.
     There will be one record for each combination of reviewer and team.
     """
     role        = models.ForeignKey(Role)
     frequency   = models.IntegerField(help_text=
                                   "Can review every N days")
     available   = models.DateTimeField(blank=True,null=True, help_text=
                         "When will this reviewer be available again")
     filter_re   = models.CharField(blank=True)
     skip_next   = models.IntegerField(help_text=
                          "Skip the next N review assignments")















Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                    [Page 14]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


 class ReviewResultSet(models.Model):
     """
     This table provides a way to point out a set of ReviewResultName
     entries that are valid for a given team in order to be able to
     limit the result choices that can be set for a given review as a
     function of which team it is related to.
     """
     team        = models.ForeignKey(Group)
     valid       = models.ManyToManyField(ReviewResultName)

 class ReviewRequest(models.Model):
     """
     There should be one ReviewRequest entered for each combination of
     document, rev, and reviewer.
     """
     # Fields filled in on the initial record creation:
     time          = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True)
     type          = models.ReviewTypeName()
     doc           = models.ForeignKey(Document,
                            related_name='review_request_set')
     team          = models.ForeignKey(Group)
     deadline      = models.DateTimeField()
     requested_rev = models.CharField(verbose_name="requested_revision",
                             max_length=16, blank=True)
     state         = models.ForeignKey(ReviewRequestStateName)
     # Fields filled in as reviewer is assigned, and as the review
     # is uploaded
     reviewer      = models.ForeignKey(Reviewer, null=True, blank=True)
     review        = models.OneToOneField(Document, null=True,
                                                    blank=True)
     reviewed_rev  = models.CharField(verbose_name="reviewed_revision",
                                      max_length=16, blank=True)
     result        = models.ForeignKey(ReviewResultName)


Appendix B.  Suggested Features Deferred for Future Work

   Brian Carpenter suggested a set of author/editor-focused requirements
   that were deferred for another iteration of improvement.  These
   include providing a way for the editors to acknowledge receipt of the
   review, potentially tracking the email conversation between the
   reviewer and document editor, and indicating which review topics the
   editor believes a new revision addresses.








Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                    [Page 15]
^L
RFC 7735                     Review Tracking                January 2016


Acknowledgements

   Tero Kivinen and Henrik Levkowetz were instrumental in forming this
   set of requirements and in developing the initial Django models in
   the appendix.

   The following people provided reviews of this document: David Black,
   Deborah Brungard, Brian Carpenter, Elwyn Davies, Stephen Farrell,
   Joel Halpern, Jonathan Hardwick, Russ Housley, Barry Leiba, Jean
   Mahoney, Randy Presuhn, Gunter Van De Velde, and Martin Vigoureux.

Authors' Addresses

   Robert Sparks
   Oracle
   7460 Warren Parkway
   Suite 300
   Frisco, Texas  75034
   United States

   Email: rjsparks@nostrum.com


   Tero Kivinen
   INSIDE Secure
   Eerikinkatu 28
   Helsinki  FI-00180
   Finland

   Email: kivinen@iki.fi





















Sparks & Kivinen              Informational                    [Page 16]
^L