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]
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]
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]
RFC 6174 IETF Working Group Document States March 2011
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.
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]
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.
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]
RFC 6174 IETF Working Group Document States March 2011
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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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]
RFC 6174 IETF Working Group Document States March 2011
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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]
RFC 6174 IETF Working Group Document States March 2011
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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]
RFC 6174 IETF Working Group Document States March 2011
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.
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.
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.
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]
RFC 6174 IETF Working Group Document States March 2011
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.
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:
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.
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]
RFC 6174 IETF Working Group Document States March 2011
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 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 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.
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]
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).
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.
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.
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.
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]
RFC 6174 IETF Working Group Document States March 2011
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.
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.
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.
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]
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).
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.)
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.
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.
"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]
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.
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.
