Definition of IETF Working Group Document States
RFC 6174
| Document | Type |
RFC - Informational
(March 2011; No errata)
Was draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states (individual in gen area)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Ed Juskevicius | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 6174 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Russ Housley | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
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
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]