Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]
INFORMATIONAL
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. GinozaRequest for Comments: 6359 AMSCategory: Informational M. CottonISSN: 2070-1721 ICANN A. Morris AMS September 2011Datatracker Extensions toInclude IANA and RFC Editor Processing InformationAbstract This document captures the requirements for integrating IANA and RFC Editor state information into the Datatracker to provide the community with a unified tool to track the status of their document as it progresses from Internet-Draft (I-D) version -00 to RFC. Extending the Datatracker to hold document data from I-D version -00 to RFC allows for increased automation between the Datatracker, IANA, and RFC Editor, thus reducing manual labor, processing errors, and potential delay. Therefore, this document also describes the requirements to make such automation possible.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; seeSection 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6359.Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject toBCP 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. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.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 document process [IDTRACKER]. In this document, the term "IETF Datatracker" is used as a generic name for the existing tool used to track state changes as Internet-Drafts are processed. The word "IETF" in the name "IETF Datatracker" is not meant to limit use of the tool to the IETF document stream; this document expands use of the tool to the other streams described in [RFC4844]. The Datatracker is used to report on the status of I-Ds that have been submitted to the IESG for evaluation and publication. The Datatracker will be extended, according to the requirements defined in [RFC6174] and [RFC6322], to include tracking information about a document during its progression from version -00 to it being requested for IESG evaluation. However, the Datatracker, ICANN (performing the IANA function), and RFC Editor operate on separate systems with varying degrees of visibility into the processing that takes place once the stream managers have approved a document forGinoza, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011 publication as an RFC. This document defines the requirements for extending the Datatracker to include increased IANA and RFC Editor state information, so that the Datatracker covers the lifetime of an I-D from version -00 to RFC publication. Additionally, this document lists the processes between the IANA, RFC Editor, and Secretariat (via the Datatracker) that should be automated for accuracy and timely processing. While this document includes some details of the IANA, RFC Editor, and Secretariat process, this document does not define any of the processes. The processes are continually reviewed for process optimization and need to remain flexible to adapt to new changes in policy and environment. Processes are defined and set by each of the entities respectively. The IANA and RFC Editor are functions independent of the IETF. When an Internet-Draft enters the IANA queue, IANA retains ownership of its own data, state names, and tracking systems. Similarly, when an Internet-Draft enters the RFC Editor's queue, the RFC Editor retains ownership of its own data, state names, and tracking systems. This document discusses how the data from the IANA and RFC Editor queues can be better reflected in the Datatracker to help inform the IETF community what the state of a document is throughout its lifetime. Prior to when an Internet-Draft is approved for publication as an RFC, the Datatracker is the definitive source for tracking IANA status information, and the IANA data is editable (by IANA and the Secretariat) in the Datatracker. After an Internet-Draft is approved for publication as an RFC, the IANA tracking system becomes the definitive source for tracking IANA status information, and the data can no longer be edited in the Datatracker. At that point, the data in the Datatracker is only a reflection of the data in the IANA tracking system. If there is a discrepancy between the two after this point, the data in the IANA tracking system is assumed to be correct. The RFC Editor's tracking system is always the definitive source for tracking the RFC Editor status of a document. RFC Editor data is not editable via the Datatracker. The information in the Datatracker is always a reflection of the information in the RFC Editor's tracking system.2. Integration of Data between the IANA and Datatracker2.1. IANA Information to Be Added to the Datatracker Currently, IANA reviews and touches IETF stream documents at 4 different stages in the process from I-D to RFC: IETF Last Call, IESG Review, Document Approval (for publication), and RFC Publication.Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011 Most of these state changes and issues are not captured in the Datatracker. For the IRTF (Internet Research Task Force) and Independent streams, the IANA review process begins when IESG Review is requested. For the IAB (Internet Architecture Board) stream, review would begin upon request for publication as an RFC. This section specifies the requirements for including additional IANA information in the Datatracker. - IETF Last Call Comments Currently, IANA reviews I-Ds that have been sent to IETF Last Call, inputs comments in their data system, and then emails their comments to authors, WG chairs, and then to the IESG. These comments are also manually entered into the Datatracker for the public record. However, it is difficult to determine whether the IANA issues have been resolved. To help facilitate tracking of IANA issues, a display is needed to show 5 new IANA substates, in a similar fashion to how RFC Editor State is currently shown in the Datatracker (see the example, later in this section, of how IANA state information could appear in the Datatracker fordraft-example-00). 1) IANA Review Needed This substate will allow the community, Secretariat, and IANA to easily track which documents have or have not been reviewed by IANA. If this substate is NOT set to "IANA Not OK", "IANA OK -- Actions Needed", or "IANA OK -- No Actions Needed", the substate should be set to "IANA Review Needed" by default (this is the first substate for tracking IANA data). For documents that originate from a non-IETF stream, the default will be used. 2) IANA OK -- Actions Needed This substate covers documents that require IANA actions, and the IANA Considerations section indicates the details of the actions correctly. 3) IANA OK -- No Actions Needed This substate covers documents that require no IANA actions, and the IANA Considerations section indicates this correctly.Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011 Note: The substate will be set to "IANA OK -- Action Needed" or "IANA OK -- No Actions Needed" (from "IANA Not OK") once any outstanding issues have been resolved. The comments section will be used to provide details in the History log about whether there are no IANA actions, the text is OK, or the issues have been resolved. 4) IANA Not OK If IANA has issues with the text of the IANA Considerations section of a document, the substate should be set to "IANA Not OK", and the comment field should be populated with a description of the issues and questions. In addition to any questions IANA may have, IANA will also include in the comments field whether expert review is required, if the document is dependent on another document (e.g., document B registers values in a registry created by document A, which hasn't been published yet), and if there is a registry expert appointment required. 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 in Last Call has changed, therefore requiring a second review of the document by IANA to ensure that either the IANA considerations have not changed, or any changes made to the document affecting IANA actions are clear. This substate applies to I-Ds that are in any substate except "IANA Review Needed" and "Version Changed -- Review Needed". When new versions are available, the Datatracker will automatically set the IANA substate to "Version Changed -- Review Needed". Information providing the status of the IANA review (one of the 5 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. All comments will be recorded in the History log. However, to reduce redundancy and manual effort, the Datatracker should provide the ability to receive state information and related comments from the IANA tracking system. There should be a notification that comments have been entered in the IANA-maintained system, and entry of those comments into the Datatracker and distribution of those comments to the authors should be automated.Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011 - IESG Evaluation As not all documents receive an IETF Last Call, this state is sometimes the first time that IANA reviews a document. For a document that wasn't IETF Last Called, IANA reviews the document, enters comments in their own tracking system, distributes email to authors and other interested parties (e.g., WG chairs, ISE (Independent Submissions Editor)), and then enters those same comments into the Datatracker, where they are recorded in the History log. In cases where a document was IETF Last Called, IANA checks for and reviews version changes and re-reviews documents to ensure that any identified IANA issues have been resolved. Comments will continue to be recorded in the History log. However, to reduce redundancy and manual effort, the Datatracker should provide the ability for IANA to enter substate information and related comments into the IANA tracking system, and distribution of those comments to the authors and entry into the Datatracker should be automated. Ideally, the authors will have responded to and resolved any IANA issues prior to the document being slated for an IESG telechat. However, if any document continues to have an "IANA Not OK", "Version Changed -- Review Needed", or "IANA Review Needed" substate and is slated for the IESG telechat, it should be called out in the Agenda Package. For example, it could appear as follows: odraft-example-00 Title of Internet-Draft Note: John Doe (jdoe@example.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Jane Doe IANA: IANA Not OK This will ensure that IANA and the Area Directors (ADs) are aware that there are still IANA issues to be addressed prior to publication, or that initial or follow-up IANA review is required and not yet completed (in cases where the substate is listed as "IANA Review Needed" or "Version Changed -- Review Needed").Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011 - Document Approved for Publication Once a document has been approved for publication, the document enters the IANA queue and is tracked using IANA-defined states. This state information is not currently available via the Datatracker. In order for the community to view the IANA processing states without being redirected to the IANA queue, the Datatracker should be extended to include IANA state information as defined by IANA. For example, IANA state information could appear in the metadata portion of the document as follows: Document type: Active Internet-Draft (FOO WG document) Last updated: 2010-09-20 State: RFC Ed Queue RFC Editor State: EDIT IANA IANA State: In Progress Intended status: Proposed Standard IANA state-change information will link to the IANA queue, and will be captured as a line item in the History log. IANA will notify the Datatracker when changes are made in the IANA queue. Once the IANA actions have been completed, the Datatracker History log will be updated to include the actions completed by IANA (i.e., the author-approved actions). This information will include the same information that is sent to the RFC Editor upon completion of IANA actions. The IANA State field may be any of the states defined by IANA. The list of IANA state names in use at the time this document was published is provided inAppendix A; however, IANA states are defined by IANA and are subject to change. If there are any discrepancies between the state names listed in this document and those listed on the IANA queue page (http://www.iana.org/about/performance/ietf-draft-status/), the IANA queue is definitive. States may be added or removed by IANA; IANA will work with the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) to update the Datatracker as necessary. - RFC Publication References to the I-D are updated to refer to the RFC once it is published, and minor updates may be made to match the published RFC. This data will be tracked in the Datatracker to show when the references in the IANA registries were updated to include the newly assigned RFC number.Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 20112.2. Future IANA Information to Be Available via the Datatracker The document "Definition of IETF Working Group Document States" [RFC6174] includes the following: 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. IANA is in the process of documenting how an expert review is conducted during the lifetime of an Internet-Draft. Once the process has been defined, the Datatracker should be updated to indicate if a document requires "Expert Review" [RFC5226] (either for the entire document or a portion thereof); if the expert reviewer has issues with what they are being requested to review; and, if applicable, whether the expert reviewer has approved or rejected the requested registration(s). There may be a need to complete expert reviews again before publication of a document if there have been changes to the text relevant to the review by the expert. In cases where a new registry is being created in the document, an indicator of whether an expert needs to be appointed by the IESG would also be useful.2.3. Permissions to Change IANA State Information IANA state changes should be automated, but IANA should have the ability to log in to the Datatracker to manually update the system as well. The IETF Secretariat should also have the ability to change the IANA state if necessary. It is expected that this feature would only be used to correct issues; it is not intended to be part of regular operations.Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 20113. Integration of Data between the RFC Editor and Datatracker For quite some time, the RFC Editor was seen as a black box, where documents were submitted for publication, went through some process, and came out as RFCs. Over time, the community asked for a more transparent process; thus, state information was made available on the RFC Editor website. Currently, some of that state information is available from the Datatracker. However, for additional transparency about the RFC Editor process, the Datatracker should be extended to hold supplementary RFC Editor state and process (e.g., MISSREF) information. This section defines the requirements for RFC Editor state information to be added to the Datatracker to provide more transparency and allow for a unified end-to-end tracking system.3.1. RFC Editor Information to Be Added to the Datatracker Once a document has been approved for publication, the document enters the RFC Editor queue and is tracked using RFC-Editor-defined states. Some RFC Editor state information is currently available via the Datatracker, but the information is not stored in the History log. RFC-Editor-defined state information will continue to be shown as is done currently. In addition, a line item will be entered into the History log each time a document changes state. The RFC Editor shall continue to provide a queue file to allow data extraction; in addition, there will be a machine-readable notification to the Datatracker when state changes are made. RFC Editor state information should continue to appear in the metadata portion of the document available using the Datatracker. For example, an entry might appear as follows (including the IANA State information): Document type: Active Internet-Draft (TLS WG document) Last updated: 2010-09-20 State: RFC Ed Queue RFC Editor State: EDIT IANA IANA State: In Progress Intended status: Proposed Standard The RFC Editor State field may be any of the states defined by the RFC Editor. The list of RFC Editor state names in use at the time this document was published is provided inAppendix B, but RFC Editor states are defined by the RFC Editor and are subject to change. If there are any discrepancies between the state names listed in thisGinoza, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011 document and those listed on the RFC Editor queue page (http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html), the RFC Editor queue is definitive. States may be added or removed by the RFC Editor; the RFC Editor will work with the IAOC to update the Datatracker as necessary. Although RFC Editor state information is already available in the Datatracker, the Datatracker should be updated to include some additional data that may help individuals understand the status of their document. In particular, the Datatracker should be updated to include the following data: 1) links to AUTH48 pages AUTH48 pages provide information about which authors have approved the document for publication, whether AD approval is required, and sometimes a summary of issues that need to be resolved before the document can move forward. 2) links to the cluster pages Clusters are defined as documents with normative reference dependencies, and documents that have been requested for simultaneous publication. (For more information, seehttp://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_def.html.) The cluster pages provide a view of the entire set of state information for clustered documents. Note: The RFC Editor has been working with the cluster data to provide the community with accurate state information at the appropriate level of detail. The RFC Editor database may require significant updates before this data can be integrated with the Datatracker. 3) RFC metadata upon publication The RFC Editor will notify the Datatracker when a new RFC has been published, and the Datatracker should have the ability to automatically update the relevant fields with data related to the published RFC. In particular, the RFC number will be recorded in the Datatracker. However, note that all fields are subject to change during editing and should be updated; for example, the document title and the list of authors are sometimes changed, and character counts and page counts are always changed.Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011 4) notation when documents are withdrawn from the RFC Editor queue If a document is to be removed from the RFC Editor / IANA queues, the responsible party (e.g., AD or Secretariat) should change the state of the document in the Datatracker to something other than "RFC Ed Queue". The Datatracker should provide a text box to allow the responsible party to record details about the state change. The state change and the related details will be recorded in the History log. The state change in the Datatracker will trigger an email message to the RFC Editor and IANA as notification that the state of the document has been set to the newly assigned state, with the details provided in the text box. The RFC Editor and IANA will update their queues accordingly, and the document will disappear from their respective queues.4. Other Updates to the Datatracker While the primary goal of this document is to update the Datatracker to display the IANA and RFC Editor process state information, the Datatracker could hold additional data for use by IANA and the RFC Editor that would allow for increased automation, thus reducing the potential for delays and processing errors. This section defines requirements for updates to the Datatracker to eliminate some of the administrative tasks currently performed by staff.4.1. Datatracker to IANA When a document is approved for publication, data will be provided in a machine-readable format and will include (in addition to the usual Document/Protocol Action emails) the data requested by the RFC Editor inSection 4.2.4.2. Datatracker to RFC Editor When a document is approved for publication, data will be provided in a machine-readable format and will include the following (in addition to the usual Document/Protocol Action emails): - I-D String - Document Title - Author List - Author Email Addresses - Author Organizations (if available)Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011 - Expedited Goal Date (if applicable) Note: This field needs to be editable for post-approval changes. - Publication Status (as defined in [RFC2026]) - Consensus (yes/no) - Source (Working Group or Research Group name, Individual, or alternate-stream name) Note: The RFC Editor database may require updates before Research Group data can be received from the Datatracker. - IESG Contact - Document Shepherd <email> Note: This is the individual currently listed in the "Personnel" section of a Document/Protocol Action. - IANA Actions Required Most of these items are already stored in the Datatracker. However, the following fields need to be added: - Expedited Goal Date - Consensus (yes/no) - Document Shepherd <email> - IANA Actions Required "Consensus" is as used in [RFC5741]; it determines the appropriate Status of This Memo text to be applied to IETF and IRTF documents. The Consensus field should be set by the responsible individuals, and it should be listed in the Agenda Package provided before an IESG telechat so that the Area Directors can quickly review the status of the documents under review and correct the field if Consensus was not received. Additionally, the Agenda Package provided before an IESG telechat should show the expiration date of the IETF Last Call. This will be helpful for the ADs and the Secretariat to track the IETF Last Call timeline.Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011 When a document has been added to the RFC Editor queue (i.e., shows an RFC Editor state in the Datatracker), an automated note should be sent to the Secretariat as acknowledgment that the announcement has been received.4.2.1. Notifications The Datatracker should notify the RFC Editor and the Sponsoring AD when a version of an I-D has been made available after the document has been approved for publication. Additionally, the Datatracker should notify the RFC Editor and IANA when the state of an I-D has been moved to something other than "RFC Ed Queue" or "RFC Published" -- that is, when it should be removed from the RFC Editor and IANA processing queues. See item 4) inSection 3.1 for more details.4.2.2. Datatracker Extensions for Alternate Streams Once the Datatracker has been updated for the alternate streams [RFC6322], the Datatracker should be updated so that the following are automated: - The Datatracker should not expire any I-Ds that are under review for publication. - The Datatracker should automatically notify the approving body when an I-D that is under review has been updated (i.e., a new version has been made available). - The Datatracker should be updated so that the Agenda package lists I-Ds according to the stream that requested publication. This should help provide additional clarity during IESG Reviews, as there will be a clear indication of from which stream a document originates.4.2.2.1. Publication RequestsRFC 6322 [RFC6322] lists the requirements for extending the Datatracker to account for alternate-stream states and annotations. In particular, the document introduces the "Sent to the RFC Editor" state, which means the document is complete and has been sent to the RFC Editor for publication. The Datatracker will provide a means for the alternate streams to generate a uniform publication request. Using the Datatracker, the stream managers should be able to generate a publication request that contains the relevant information for any approved I-D.Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011 Additionally, the Datatracker will provide the data (the same data provided for any IETF publication request -- seeSection 4.2) in a machine-readable format. This data will be available to the IANA and RFC Editor, so that data entry into the IANA and RFC Editor systems can be automated. This update will allow the IANA and RFC Editor to handle documents in a similar manner, regardless of the document's stream.4.3. Reporting Requirements The Datatracker should have a "Show Discrepancies" feature. It should show all records in the Datatracker that fit certain criteria (that seem to be a discrepancy). In addition to showing data on screen, it should send an email to defined interested parties at regular intervals (e.g., weekly). This feature will only be available to a subset of individuals (namely, IANA, RFC Editor, and the Secretariat), to ensure that their queues are in sync. This will be especially helpful as the Datatracker is extended (now and in the future), to ensure that all parties are receiving the correct messages/data. An initial set of discrepancies should be defined, and additional discrepancies could be defined over time. For example, the initial set of discrepancies could include the following: - Show drafts that have passed through the state "Approved Announcement sent" but do not have an RFC Editor state. - Show drafts that have IANA state "In Progress", but RFC Editor State is not equal to "IANA" or does not contain "*A" (seeAppendix B). - Show drafts that have IANA state "Waiting on RFC Editor" or "RFC-Ed-Ack", but RFC Editor State is "IANA" or contains "*A" (seeAppendix B). - Show drafts that have a state of something other than "RFC Ed Queue" or "RFC Published" that are listed in the RFC Editor or IANA queues.5. Security Considerations This document does not propose any new Internet mechanisms, and has no security implications for the Internet.Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011Appendix A. Current IANA States and Definitions The currently defined IANA states are listed below. * No value (blank) - A new document has been received by IANA, but no actions have been taken * In Progress - IANA is currently processing the actions for this document * Waiting on Authors - IANA is waiting on the document's authors to respond * Waiting on ADs - IANA is waiting on the IETF Area Directors to respond * Waiting on WGC - IANA is waiting on the IETF Working Group Chairs to respond * Waiting on RFC Editor - IANA has notified the RFC Editor that the actions have been completed * RFC-Ed-Ack - Request completed. The RFC Editor has acknowledged receipt of IANA's message that the actions have been completed * On Hold - IANA has suspended work on the document * No IC - Request completed. There were no IANA actions for this document IANA states are defined by IANA and are subject to change. If there are any discrepancies between the state names listed in this document and those listed on the IANA queue page (http://www.iana.org/about/performance/ietf-draft-status/), the IANA queue is definitive.Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011Appendix B. Current RFC Editor States and Definitions The currently defined RFC Editor Queue states are listed below. * AUTH = Awaiting Author Action * AUTH48 = Awaiting final author approval * EDIT = Approved by the stream manager (e.g., IESG, IAB, IRSG, ISE), awaiting processing and publishing * IANA = RFC-Editor/IANA Registration Coordination * IESG = Holding for IESG Action * ISR = Independent Submission Review by the ISE * ISR-AUTH = Independent Submission awaiting author update, or in discussion between author and ISE * REF = Holding for normative reference (followed by I-D string of referenced document) * RFC-EDITOR = Awaiting final rfc-editor review before AUTH48 * TO = Time-out period during which the IESG reviews document for conflict/concurrence with other IETF working group work (followed by date) * MISSREF = Awaiting missing normative reference RFC Editor states are defined by the RFC Editor and are subject to change. If there are any discrepancies between the state names listed in this document and those listed on the RFC Editor queue page (http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html), the RFC Editor queue is definitive. Currently, there are also a couple of state annotations used in RFC Editor state-change emails. These do not alter the Datatracker in any way, but are listed here for completeness: *A = indicates that IANA actions are required *R = indicates potential REFerence holdsGinoza, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011Normative References [IDTRACKER] "The IETF Datatracker tool", Web Application:https://datatracker.ietf.org/, August 26, 2011. [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",BCP 9,RFC 2026, October 1996. [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC Series and RFC Editor",RFC 4844, July 2007. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 5226, May 2008. [RFC5741] Daigle, L., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates",RFC 5741, December 2009. [RFC6174] Juskevicius, E., "Definition of IETF Working Group Document States",RFC 6174, March 2011. [RFC6322] Hoffman, P., "Datatracker States and Annotations for the IAB, IRTF, and Independent Submission Streams",RFC 6322, July 2011.Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their input: Amanda Baber Glen Barney Adrian Farrel Alice Hagens Paul Hoffman Russ Housley Ed Juskevicius Henrik Levkowetz Cindy Morgan Ray Pelletier Peter Saint-Andre Robert Sparks Amy VezzaGinoza, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011Authors' Addresses Sandy Ginoza Association Management Solutions 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117 Fremont, CA 94538 United States Phone: +1 (510) 492-4000 EMail: sginoza@amsl.com URI:http://www.amsl.com/ Michelle Cotton Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 United States Phone: +310-823-9358 EMail: michelle.cotton@icann.org URI:http://www.iana.org/ Alexa Morris Association Management Solutions 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117 Fremont, CA 94538 United States Phone: +1 (510) 492-4000 EMail: amorris@amsl.com URI:http://www.amsl.com/Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 18]
[8]ページ先頭