Datatracker Extensions to Include IANA and RFC Editor Processing Information
RFC 6359
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-11-30 |
04 | (System) | Closed request for Last Call review by TSVDIR with state 'Unknown' |
2015-10-14 |
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from genarea-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22 |
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Robert Sparks |
2012-08-22 |
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Peter Saint-Andre |
2012-08-22 |
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Adrian Farrel |
2011-09-07 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
2011-09-07 |
04 | (System) | RFC published |
2011-06-21 |
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-06-20 |
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2011-06-20 |
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2011-06-20 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-06-20 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2011-06-20 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-06-20 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text changed |
2011-06-20 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-06-20 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-04.txt |
2011-06-20 |
04 | Russ Housley | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup. |
2011-06-20 |
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Yes from No Objection |
2011-06-20 |
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2011-06-16 |
04 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2011-06-16 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-03.txt |
2011-06-15 |
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2011-06-15 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-02.txt |
2011-05-19 |
04 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Peter Saint-Andre has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2011-05-19 |
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Magnus Nystrom. |
2011-05-12 |
04 | Amy Vezza | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-05-12 |
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-05-12 |
04 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
2011-05-12 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-05-12 |
04 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-05-12 |
04 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-05-11 |
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] I am curious to hear the conversation surrounding Peter's DISCUSS. |
2011-05-11 |
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-05-11 |
04 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-05-10 |
04 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot discuss] The document is not clear which of the fields being added to the datatracker database are intended to be editable by the datatracker … [Ballot discuss] The document is not clear which of the fields being added to the datatracker database are intended to be editable by the datatracker UI and code (beyond the code that imports data from the authoritative databases). One interpretation (which seems consistent with conversations I've had with Sandy) is that the fields adding to the datatracker database will contain values that are _copies_ of authoritative values in other databases, and that the only way to modify those values is through the interface that brings those values in from the other databases. That is, the datatracker UI will not be used to edit these values (particularly the states) - it will only display them. The only way to change them is by changing them in the authoritative system. However, section 2.3 of the document indicates that IANA should be able to edit the values in the datatracker instead of in their system. Can the document be more clear on why this is necessary. Would the ability to force any updates made in the IANA databases to be reflected in the tracker on IANA's demand cover the cases this section anticipates? Are there really any values that the datatracker code (through automation or UI interaction) modify in the datatracker database directly? Or should they all happen as part of a round trip as the information goes out to the authoritative databases as described in sections 4.1 and 4.2 and back into the tracker through whatever copies values from the authoritative databases? For instance, it's not currently clear that when a new version of a document gets submitted, leading to the "Version Changed -- Review Needed" substate, whether this state information is set in the datatracker directly, or if the new version notification gets sent to IANA, and this state information comes back when IANA pushes information to the tracker. If it's set directly, there is danger of it getting out of sync, and even overwritten the next time information moves from the IANA databases to the datatracker database. It's not clear from the text what state the "Version Changed -- Review needed" substate (and the other states called out in 2.1) belongs to. Are these states in a new state machine the tracker is going to represent, or substates of states in an existing machine? |
2011-05-10 |
04 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-05-09 |
04 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot discuss] This is a "discuss-discuss"; I expect to clear it during the IESG telechat. I think it will be extremely useful to collect all … [Ballot discuss] This is a "discuss-discuss"; I expect to clear it during the IESG telechat. I think it will be extremely useful to collect all the state changes in one place. However, given that the IANA and the RFC Editor are independent of the IETF, I worry that consolidating their state changes into the *IETF* Datatracker might raise concerns about undue influence by the IETF on their operation. |
2011-05-09 |
04 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-05-09 |
04 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-05-08 |
04 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-05-07 |
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Section 2.1 For the avoidance of doubt, you should change "Last Call" to "IETF Last Call" --- Section 2.1 - IESG Review … [Ballot comment] Section 2.1 For the avoidance of doubt, you should change "Last Call" to "IETF Last Call" --- Section 2.1 - IESG Review As not all documents receive a Last Call, this substate is s/Review/Evaluation/ s/substate/state/ --- Section 2.1 Wouldn't it be wise to have "IANA Not OK" show as a graphic as well as text on the agenda? --- Section 3.1 It appears from the text that you do not intend to make the RFC Number available in the data tracker until the RFC is published. However, by following various links it will be possible to determine what number has been reserved for an I-D as soon as it has been allocated. Would it be worthwhile to make this number more explicit, but to also indicate that it is preliminary? |
2011-05-07 |
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] I am very supportive of this work, but I have some questions I would like to explore before ballotting "yes". Appologies are due: … [Ballot discuss] I am very supportive of this work, but I have some questions I would like to explore before ballotting "yes". Appologies are due: I should have caught these issues in IETF Last Call. --- Section 2.1 has > 5) Version Changed -- Review Needed > > This substate will allow the community, Secretariat, and IANA > to easily track which documents have been reviewed and > subsequently when a version of an Internet-Draft has changed, > therefore requiring a second review of the document by IANA to > ensure that either the IANA Considerations have not changed or > that any changes made to the document affecting IANA actions > are clear. This substate applies to I-Ds that have previously > been marked as "IANA OK -- Action Needed" or "IANA Not OK". > > Information providing the status of the IANA review (one of the 4 > substates listed above) should be included as part of the evaluation > message (sent to the IESG) so that IANA can determine if and what > further action is required. I have a couple of questions... - Surely "Version Changed" applies in all cases except "IANA Review Needed" and "Version Changed". In particular, you seem to have left out "IANA OK -- No Actions Needed", but the new version might make a call for IANA action. - Will the transition to this substate be automatic or only when there is a known change affecting IANA review? - I fear this may be creating a large amount of extra work for IANA as I-Ds are sometimes revised many times along the path. At the moment such changes are caught during IANA action after IESG Approval unless explicitly flagged by the authors/ADs. - Is there a plan to use the same trigger for RFC Editor Notes added during IESG Evaluation? - The closing paragraph says "4 substates", but there are 5. --- Section 2.2. I think that ensuring Expert Review for IANA allocations is an important feature we have been fumbling recently. The outcome of IANA's "process of documenting how an expert review is conducted during the lifetime of an Internet-Draft" could have significant effects on what is implemented in support of this I-D. Is there any reason not to wait for the completion of that task before completing this document? Additionally, I note that Expert Review is already mentioned under "IANA Not OK" in the "Last Call Comments" section. --- Section 3.1 On rare occasions an RFC-to-be is pulled from the RFC Editor Queue and returned to the IETF for processing (or abandoned). You will need to decide what happens to the RFC Editor sub-states in that case, and in the case where the document re-appears on the RFC Editor Queue at some future time. |
2011-05-07 |
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-05-06 |
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-05-02 |
04 | Russ Housley | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-05-12 |
2011-05-02 |
04 | Russ Housley | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-05-02 |
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2011-05-02 |
04 | Russ Housley | Ballot has been issued |
2011-05-02 |
04 | Russ Housley | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-05-02 |
04 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-04-21 |
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2011-04-21 |
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2011-04-21 |
04 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Henk Uijterwaal |
2011-04-21 |
04 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Henk Uijterwaal |
2011-04-20 |
04 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't have any IANA actions. |
2011-04-18 |
04 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2011-04-18 |
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-01.txt> (Datatracker Extensions to Include IANA and RFC Editor Processing Information) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the General Area Open Meeting WG (genarea) to consider the following document: - 'Datatracker Extensions to Include IANA and RFC Editor Processing Information' <draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-01.txt> as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-05-02. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns/ |
2011-04-16 |
04 | Russ Housley | Last Call was requested |
2011-04-16 |
04 | Russ Housley | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
2011-04-16 |
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-04-16 |
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-04-16 |
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-04-16 |
04 | Russ Housley | Last Call text changed |
2011-04-15 |
04 | Russ Housley | PROTO Write-Up for draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Russ Housley. He has personally reviewed this version of the … PROTO Write-Up for draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Russ Housley. He has personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, he believes this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Some of the key members of the interested community have reviewed the document. Last Call should create additional review. The Document Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed to date. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No. (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? Some of the key members of the interested community have reviewed the document. The Document Shepherd is unaware of any opposition. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? This document normatively references draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker, which is expected to be progressed on the Independent Stream. It will not be a downref; both documents are informational. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? Yes; there are no registrations required. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Yes; there are no formal languages within this document. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The IETF Datatracker will be enhanced to make it possible for the IANA and the RFC Editor to provide more transparency into status and progress of documents in their respective queues. This document captures the requirements for integrating IANA and RFC Editor state information into the Datatracker, providing the community with a unified tool to track the status of documents as they progress from Internet-Draft (I-D) version -00 to RFC. One goal is to improve transparency to document authors and the whole Internet community. Another goal is to increase automation between the Datatracker, IANA, and RFC Editor, thus reducing manual labor, processing errors, and potential delay. Working Group Summary This document is not the product of an IETF WG. Document Quality The document was reviewed by Russ Housley for the IESG. Personnel Russ Housley is the Document Shepherd. |
2011-04-14 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-01.txt |
2011-03-28 |
04 | Russ Housley | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
2011-03-28 |
04 | Russ Housley | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-02-28 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-00.txt |