Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                    E. JuskeviciusRequest for Comments: 6175                                     TrekAheadCategory: Informational                                       March 2011ISSN: 2070-1721Requirements to Extend the Datatrackerfor IETF Working Group Chairs and AuthorsAbstract   This document specifies requirements for new functionality to be   added to the IETF Datatracker tool to make it possible for Working   Group (WG) Chairs and their Delegates to input and update the status   of the Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) associated with their WGs.  After these   requirements are implemented, WG Chairs will be able to use the   Datatracker to provide everyone with more information about the   status and progression of WG I-Ds than is currently 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/rfc6175.Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 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.Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................32. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................33. General Requirements ............................................44. Privilege and Access Control Requirements .......................64.1. For Everyone ...............................................64.2. For IETF Working Group Chairs ..............................64.3. For Delegates of IETF WG Chairs ............................84.4. For IETF WG Document Shepherds .............................84.5. For the Responsible Area Director ..........................94.6. Role of the IETF Secretariat in Granting Permissions .......95. Inputting and Updating WG Document Status Information ..........105.1. WG I-D States .............................................105.2. WG I-D Status Annotation Tags .............................105.3. WG I-D Protocol Writeups ..................................116. Special Requirements for Some WG I-D States and Conditions .....126.1. Call for Adoption by WG Issued ............................126.2. Adopted by a WG ...........................................146.3. WG Document ...............................................146.4. Parked WG Document ........................................166.5. Dead WG Document ..........................................166.6. In WG Last Call ...........................................166.7. WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup .........................176.8. Submitted to IESG for Publication .........................186.9. Revised I-D Needed (Annotation Tag) .......................187. Automatic State Changes for I-Ds ...............................198. WG I-D Status Change Reporting Requirements ....................199. WG I-D Status Reporting Requirements ...........................2010. Error Handling Requirements ...................................2111. Security Considerations .......................................2112. References ....................................................2113. Acknowledgments ...............................................22Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 20111.  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 can track and report on the status of every I-D that   has been submitted to the IESG for evaluation and publication.  In   contrast, the tool currently has almost no ability to track the   status of I-Ds that have not been submitted to the IESG. [RFC6174]   Document authors and others have asked for more visibility into the   status and progression of IETF Working Group (WG) drafts.   This document specifies requirements to extend the Datatracker to   enable status tracking and reporting for WG I-Ds.  After these   requirements are implemented, WG Chairs will be able to use the   Datatracker to provide everyone with more information about the WG   status of the I-Ds associated with their WGs than is currently   possible.2.  Conventions Used in This Document   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.   A "WG draft" is an I-D 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 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.  WG 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.   The phrase "WG status of an I-D" refers to the WG state that an I-D   is in per the definitions inSection 4.2 of [RFC6174].  This phrase   does not refer to an I-D's availability status (e.g., "Expired",   "Active", "Replaced by") as described inSection 3.1 of [RFC6174], or   to any of the IESG states used by IETF Area Directors (ADs) to   describe the status of I-Ds they may be evaluating.  Note that this   phrase encompasses all of the states that a WG I-D may be in, plus   one more (viz. "Call for Adoption by WG Issued").Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   The phrase "I-D associated with a WG" is intended to describe two   types of Internet-Drafts:   -  I-Ds that have been accepted as WG drafts; and   -  I-Ds that are being considered under the guidance of a WG Chair      for adoption by a WG.   An I-D having a filename that contains the string 'draft-ietf-'   followed by a WG acronym is almost always a WG draft and is to be   interpreted as being an "I-D associated with a WG" for the purposes   of this document.   An I-D having a filename that includes the author's name and a WG   acronym but does not include the string '-ietf-' may be a candidate   for adoption by a WG and, if so, is also to be interpreted as being   an "I-D associated with a WG" for the purposes of this document.   The requirements specified in this document use English phrases   ending with "(R-nnn)", where "nnn" is a unique requirement number.   When used in the context of the requirements in this document, the   key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD   NOT", and "MAY" are to be interpreted as described inRFC 2119   [RFC2119].RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make   the intent of standards track documents as clear as possible.  The   same key words are used in this document to make the meaning of the   requirements specified herein as clear as possible.3.  General Requirements   The enhancements to be made to the Datatracker described in this   document MUST be implemented in a manner that provides WG Chairs and   the people they designate to act as their Delegates with the option   to input and update the WG status of some, all, or none of the I-Ds   associated with their WGs using the WG I-D states and I-D status   annotation tags defined in [RFC6174] (R-001).  In other words, the   implementation must not require that WG Chairs change their way of   working, but only provide optional features.  WG Chairs must have the   flexibility to use the enhancements to the Datatracker to track the   WG status of their I-Ds as is most appropriate for them.   To ensure that at least some WG status information is tracked for   every I-D associated with a WG, the Datatracker must be enhanced to   generate a few automatic state transitions for every WG I-D.  The   requirements for this feature are specified inSection 7 of this   document.Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   Requirement R-001 SHALL NOT impair the ability of the Datatracker to   track and display the availability state of any I-D (R-002).  I-D   availability states (e.g., "Active", "Expired", "Replaces") are   described inSection 3.1 of [RFC6174].   The Datatracker SHALL NOT permit users other than a Working Group's   Chairs (e.g., the Chairs of a different IETF WG) to update the WG   status of a WG's documents through the regular Datatracker interface,   unless the privileges to do so have been explicitly delegated to them   by one of the WG's Chairs (R-003).   The user interface to be provided by the Datatracker to WG Chairs   (and their Delegates) to input the WG status of the I-Ds associated   with their WGs SHOULD have a look and feel that is similar to the   interface currently used by ADs to identify the status of I-Ds under   formal evaluation by the IESG (R-004).   Any new pages created to display the status of WG I-Ds SHOULD be   designed to have a look and feel that is similar to the pages   currently provided by the Datatracker to display the status of I-Ds   under formal evaluation by the IESG (R-005).   New javascript user interface code and style sheets implemented to   satisfy the requirements in this document SHOULD reuse or share   existing code where practical so that when a change to the IESG   status of an I-D is entered into the Datatracker, the WG status   tracking for that I-D can benefit, and vice versa (R-006).   The Datatracker MUST date and timestamp every update to the WG status   of an I-D that is associated with a WG and be able to use that   information when it displays the status change history for the I-D   (R-007).  The WG status change history for an I-D MUST also identify   the person or entity that updated the WG status of the I-D (e.g., one   of the WG's Chairs, a Delegate, an AD, the System, the IETF   Secretariat) and describe the change (e.g., "WG State changed from   'a' to 'b'", "WG Annotation Tag 'x' Set (or Reset)") (R-008).   The inputting or updating of the WG status of an I-D SHALL NOT   overwrite any previously archived status change history information   for the I-D; every update to the WG status of an I-D MUST be added to   the status change history log for the I-D (R-009).   WG I-D status tracking MUST be implemented per-draft, not per-WG   (R-010).   WG I-D status tracking SHOULD be implemented as a new front-end to   the Datatracker's existing IESG state machine [IESGIDSM] (R-011).Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   The Datatracker SHALL permit authorized users (e.g., WG Chairs,   Delegates) to change the WG state of a draft independently from the   IESG state of the same I-D and vice versa (R-012).4.  Privilege and Access Control Requirements4.1.  For Everyone   Everyone needs to be able to view information about the WG status of   an I-D without logging on to the Datatracker.  Everyone SHALL be   given 'read' access to WG I-D status information (R-013).   People who need to input, modify or update the WG status of an I-D   (e.g., WG Chairs and their Delegates) need 'write' privileges; these   users SHALL be required to log-on to the Datatracker using a personal   user-id and password (e.g., an IETF tools password) in order to gain   'write' access (R-014).4.2.  For IETF Working Group Chairs   After successfully logging on to the Datatracker as specified in   Requirement R-014, WG Chairs:   -  SHALL be given full 'read' and 'write' privileges to input and      update the WG status information for all of the I-Ds associated      with their WGs (R-015).   -  SHALL be able to able to choose from all of the WG I-D states and      WG I-D status annotation tags defined in [RFC6174] to describe the      current WG status of the I-Ds associated with their WGs (R-016).   -  SHALL NOT be allowed to create new WG I-D states or state names      (R-017).   -  SHALL NOT be allowed to update or modify information that is not      related to the WG status of an I-D (e.g., IANA status, RFC-Editor      status, IESG status) (R-018).   -  SHALL be able to designate a maximum of three people to act as      their Delegates to input and update the WG status of the I-Ds      associated with each of their WGs (R-019).  A suitable way to      specify a Delegate may be to use the individual's current e-mail      address, but the delegation MUST be to the individual identified      by the login credentials used by the Datatracker at any given time      rather than to an e-mail address (R-020).  Individuals must be      able to update their e-mail addresses in the future without      breaking the delegation specified in Requirement R-019.Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   -  SHALL be able to designate a maximum of three different people to      act as their Delegates in a different WG if a WG Chair is also      responsible for the different WG (R-021).   -  SHALL be able to designate people who have other roles in the IETF      process (e.g., are Chairs of different WGs, are ADs in a different      Area) to be their Delegates (R-022).   -  SHALL be able to review and change their Delegates (R-023).   -  SHALL be able to input or upload Document Shepherd protocol      writeups for all of the I-Ds associated with their WGs (R-024).   -  SHALL be able to designate themselves as the Document Shepherds      for some or all of the I-Ds in their WGs (R-025).   -  SHALL be able to designate other people to be Document Shepherds      for one or more of their WG I-Ds if this role will not be      performed by the WG Chairs (R-026).  A suitable way to designate      people to be the Document Shepherds may be to use their e-mail      addresses, but the delegation MUST be to the individuals      identified by the login credentials used by the Datatracker at the      time, rather than to the e-mail addresses (R-027).  The      Datatracker MUST be able to maintain an individual's designation      as a Delegate per R-026 in the event that the person changes their      e-mail address in the future (R-028).   -  SHALL be warned in real-time (e.g., via the Datatracker's regular      user interface) if a person they try to designate as a Delegate or      Document Shepherd does not have the necessary login credentials      for the Datatracker (R-029).  The Datatracker SHALL then allow the      WG Chairs to confirm the original designee or to pick another      (R-030).   -  SHALL be able to review and change the people designated to be      Document Shepherds for each of their WG I-Ds (R-031).   -  SHOULD be able to access the same user interfaces the Datatracker      provides to their Delegates and Document Shepherds in order to      mentor or coach them on how to input and update WG I-D status      information in the Datatracker (R-032).Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 20114.3.  For Delegates of IETF WG Chairs   After successfully logging on to the Datatracker, the Delegates of WG   Chairs (e.g., WG Secretaries) SHALL have the same privileges as their   WG Chairs to input WG I-D status information and Document Shepherd   protocol writeups as specified in Requirements R-015 to R-018   inclusive, R-024, and R-025 (R-033).   The Datatracker SHALL send an e-mail to the Chairs of the WG, the   IETF Secretariat, and to a newly designated Delegate if the newly   designated Delegate does not have a personal user-id and password to   log-on to the Datatracker (R-034).  The purpose of the e-mail is to   notify the WG Chairs that the person they designated to be a Delegate   needs to take action to obtain a personal user-id and password, and   to inform the Delegate that he/she needs to take action (e.g., to   contact the IETF Secretariat) to obtain their own user-id and   password for the Datatracker.4.4.  For IETF WG Document Shepherds   The IETF document shepherding process and the role of an IETF WG   Document Shepherd is described inRFC 4858 [RFC4858].   The requirements in this Section describe the access privileges to be   granted to a WG Document Shepherd who is not a WG Chair or a Delegate   with the privileges specified inSection 4.3.   Per Requirement R-014, each person designated to be a Document   Shepherd for a WG draft needs to have their own personal user-id and   password to log-on to the Datatracker.   The Datatracker SHALL alert the WG Chairs, the IETF Secretariat, and   the newly designated Document Shepherd (e.g., via e-mail) if a person   newly designated as a Document Shepherd does not have a personal   user-id and password to log-on to the Datatracker (R-035).  The   purpose of the e-mail is to notify the WG Chairs that the Document   Shepherd needs to take action to obtain a personal user-id and   password, and to inform the Document Shepherd that he/she needs to   take action (e.g., to contact the IETF Secretariat) to obtain a   personal user-id and password for the Datatracker.   Document Shepherds need to be able to upload or input protocol   writeups into the Datatracker for the WG I-Ds assigned to them.  They   also need to be able to set and reset the WG I-D status annotation   tag called "Doc Shepherd Followup Underway" as defined inSection4.3.10 of [RFC6174] for I-Ds in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for   Writeup" state.Juskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   After successfully logging on to the Datatracker, Document Shepherds   SHALL have restricted 'write' privileges to upload or input protocol   writeups for the WG I-Ds assigned to them when the I-Ds are in the   "WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup" state (R-036).   Document Shepherds SHALL also have the ability to set and reset the   WG I-D status annotation tag called "Doc Shepherd Followup Underway"   as defined inSection 4.3.10 of [RFC6174] (R-037).   The "Doc Shepherd Followup Underway" annotation tag should be set to   indicate when the Document Shepherd has started work on a writeup for   the document.  The absence or resetting of this annotation tag may   indicate the protocol writeup has not yet been started, or has been   put on-hold for some reason, or has been completed.  The log of set   and reset operations performed on this annotation tag will provide   insight into the status of the protocol writeup for a WG I-D.Section 5.3 describes how Document Shepherds may input or upload   protocol writeups to the Datatracker for the WG I-Ds assigned to   them.4.5.  For the Responsible Area Director   After successfully logging on to the Datatracker, an AD SHALL have   the same privileges as a WG Chair to input and update WG I-D status   information, to designate Delegates and Document Shepherds (R-038).   An AD SHALL have the privileges specified in Requirement R-038 for   every WG in his or her Area (R-039).  ADs MUST also retain their   existing privileges to input and update the IESG status of the I-Ds   for which they are responsible (R-040).   To minimize confusion, the Datatracker MUST make it easy for ADs to   distinguish between their IESG-level privileges (to input or update   the IESG status of an I-D) and the WG-level privileges they will   obtain as a result of R-038 and R-039 for I-Ds associated with the   WGs for which they are responsible (R-041).4.6.  Role of the IETF Secretariat in Granting Permissions   The IETF Secretariat is involved in granting permissions to people   who need to log in to the Datatracker.   Before granting permissions to update WG I-D status settings to a   person who does not have them, the IETF Secretariat should verify   that the person requesting the permissions is a WG Chair or an AD, or   has been delegated the authority to update WG I-D status information   by one of the WG's Chairs or a Responsible AD.  The e-mails to be   generated and sent by the Datatracker per Requirements R-034 andJuskevicius                   Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   R-035 will alert the Secretariat that the granting of permissions to   some new people will be needed.5.  Inputting and Updating WG Document Status Information5.1.  WG I-D States   Requirements R-001, R-016, and R017 specify that the WG state of an   I-D may only be described using the states defined inSection 4 of   [RFC6174].   When a WG Chair or Delegate logs on to the Datatracker to input or   change the WG state of an I-D, the Datatracker SHOULD display the   current state of the I-D, the length of time the document has been in   its current state, the amount of time the I-D may continue to remain   in its current state if this information is available (viz.  per   Requirements R-064 and R-083), and the most likely next WG state (or   states) for the I-D (R-042).  The Datatracker MAY use the WG I-D   state machine illustrated inSection 4.1 of [RFC6174] to identify the   'most likely next state' (or states) for an I-D that is associated   with a WG (R-043).   After displaying the information required by R-042, the Datatracker   SHALL make it easy for the WG Chair or Delegate to select a next   state for the I-D and to enter some text to explain the state change   for the I-D's status change history (R-044).  The Datatracker SHALL   encourage the person who updates or changes the WG state of an I-D to   provide some context for the status change by entering text to   describe the change in the I-D's status change history log (R-045).   The Datatracker SHALL allow a WG Chair (or Delegate) to select the   next state for an I-D from the 'most likely' next states described by   Requirement R-043, or from any of the other WG I-D states (per   Requirement R-016) if a different state change is required (R-046).5.2.  WG I-D Status Annotation Tags   WG I-D status annotation tags may be used to describe a condition   that is affecting a document (e.g., why a WG I-D is in the state it   is in) or to indicate an action needed to progress the document;   however, annotation tags do not change the state of WG I-Ds.Section 4.3 of [RFC6174] defines the meaning and usage of the WG I-D   status annotation tags to be added to the Datatracker.   The Datatracker SHALL allow WG Chairs and their Delegates to set and   reset each of the WG I-D status annotation tags defined inSection4.3 of [RFC6174] for every I-D associated with their WGs (R-047).Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   WG I-D status annotation tags SHALL be able to be used individually   or in combination with other annotation tags to describe the status   of any I-D associated with a WG (R-048).   When a WG Chair, Delegate, or Document Shepherd logs in to the   Datatracker to set or reset one or more WG I-D status annotation tags   for the I-Ds they are responsible for, the Datatracker SHOULD display   a summary of all annotation tag set/reset operations to date for   those WG I-Ds, from the present time backwards, split by pages, and   then guide the user to select one (or more) annotation tags to be set   or reset (R-049).  Note that Document Shepherds who are not WG Chairs   may only set and reset the annotation tag called "Doc Shepherd   Followup Underway" per Requirement R-037.   The summary of annotation tag set/reset operations (required by   R-049) SHALL also indicate when each annotation tag attached to the   current state of each I-D was set or reset and the identity of the   person or entity that set or reset each I-D status annotation tag   (R-050).   The Datatracker SHALL allow more than one annotation tag to be set or   reset per logon, and the Datatracker SHALL encourage the user to   input some text to explain why each annotation tag is being set or   reset (R-051).5.3.  WG I-D Protocol Writeups   The IESG currently requires a protocol writeup for every WG I-D   before the I-D is submitted to the IESG for evaluation.   When a user (e.g., WG Chair, Document Shepherd) logs in to the   Datatracker to input or upload a protocol writeup for an I-D, the   Datatracker SHOULD make it easy for the user to understand the   current status of the protocol writeup for every I-D for which he/she   is responsible (R-052).  The Datatracker SHOULD indicate at least the   date when the most recent protocol writeup was uploaded or inputted   for each I-D and the identity of the person or entity that performed   the upload or input operation (R-053).   After displaying the information required by R-053, the Datatracker   SHALL provide the user with an interface to input or upload a   protocol writeup for the I-Ds that he/she is responsible for, and to   set or reset the "Doc Shepherd Followup Underway" annotation tag for   I-Ds (R-054).  The Datatracker SHALL encourage the user to set or   reset the "Document Shepherd Followup Underway" annotation tag before   the end of each protocol writeup uploading or inputting session and   to input some descriptive text (for context) to be stored in I-D's   status change history log (R-055).Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   Per Requirement R-100, the Datatracker will send an e-mail to the   author of a WG draft (and carbon copy (CC) the WG Chairs and   Delegates) when the protocol writeup for the I-D is loaded into the   Datatracker.  A copy of the e-mail SHALL also be sent to the Document   Shepherd if he/she is not the WG Chair (or Delegate) as notification   that the protocol writeup for the I-D was successfully loaded into   the Datatracker (R-056).   Recall that WG Chairs and their Delegates shall be able to input a   protocol writeup for any of their WG drafts at any time per   Requirements R-024 and R-033.   If a Document Shepherd who is not a WG Chair or other Delegate   attempts to upload or input a protocol writeup for an I-D that is not   in the WG state called "WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup", the   Datatracker SHOULD warn the Document Shepherd that it may be too   early to input a writeup, and then direct the Document Shepherd to   contact one of the WG's Chairs for guidance (R-057).  The WG Chair   may decide to move the I-D into the "WG Consensus: Waiting for   Writeup" state to enable the Document Shepherd to upload his/her   protocol writeup, or the WG Chair may upload the protocol writeup as   specified in Requirement R-024.   Requirement R-032 specifies that WG Chairs should be able to access   the Document Shepherd user interface and call up a display of the   same WG document protocol writeup status information that the   Datatracker provides to each of a WG Chair's designated Document   Shepherds.  This is to enable each WG Chair (or Delegate) to be able   to mentor new Document Shepherds and to review the workload assigned   to each Document Shepherd.  WG Chairs (and their Delegates) who are   logged in to the Datatracker with their normal privileges SHALL be   able to access the Document Shepherd user interface without having to   logout and log back in to the Datatracker (R-058).6.  Special Requirements for Some WG I-D States and Conditions6.1.  Call for Adoption by WG Issued   The "Call for Adoption by WG Issued" state may be used to describe a   draft that is being considered for adoption by an IETF WG.  An I-D in   this state has not yet achieved consensus, preference, or selection   in a working group.   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 askedJuskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   an author to write specifically for consideration as a candidate WG   item, and/or an I-D that is listed as a 'candidate draft' in the WG's   charter. [RFC6174]   The Datatracker SHALL allow a WG Chair or Delegate to move an I-D   into the "Call for Adoption by WG Issued" state in her or his WG if   the I-D is not currently being considered for adoption in any other   WG, is not yet adopted by any other WG, is not expired, and has not   been withdrawn (R-059).  An I-D can only be in the "Call for Adoption   by WG Issued" state in one WG at a time.   The Datatracker SHALL NOT change the WG status of an I-D that is in   the "Call for Adoption by WG Issued" state until the I-D expires,   until the WG Chair (or Delegate) moves the I-D into a different   state, or until it is decided that the WG will not adopt the I-D,   whichever comes first (R-060).  In case a WG decides not to adopt an   I-D that is in the "Call for Adoption by WG Issued" state, the   Datatracker SHALL allow the WG Chairs (and Delegates) to cancel their   interest in the I-D (R-061).   The Datatracker SHALL transition the state of an I-D that expires or   is not adopted (per Requirement R-061) from the "Call for Adoption by   A WG" state into a "NULL" state with respect to the WG state machine   and then update the status change history log of the I-D accordingly   (R-062).  An I-D that is not adopted by a WG may revert back to   having no stream-specific state in the Datatracker.   If a different WG Chair (or Delegate) attempts to move an I-D into   the "Call for Adoption by WG Issued" state in while the I-D is   associated with another WG, the Datatracker will not allow the   attempted state change to occur because of Requirement R-059.  In   this case, the Datatracker SHALL inform the WG Chair or Delegate in   real-time (via the user interface that he/she is logged in to) that   the I-D is currently associated with a different WG and that the   state change they requested cannot be made at this time (R-063).   A WG Chair (or Delegate) who moves an I-D into the "Call For Adoption   By WG Issued" state SHALL be able to, but is not required to, specify   a length of time the I-D may remain in this state (R-064).  It SHALL   be possible to specify the maximum length of time as a "number of   weeks"; however, the maximum length MUST NOT be allowed to extend   beyond the expiry date of the I-D (R-065).  Other ways to specify   this length of time MAY optionally be provided (R-066).   If an I-D is still in the "Call for Adoption by WG Issued" state when   the length of time specified in R-064 runs out, the Datatracker SHALL   send an e-mail to inform the WG Chairs and Delegates that the time   has run out and that the I-D is still in "Call for Adoption by WGJuskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   Issued" state (R-067).  The purpose of this message is to remind the   WG Chairs and Delegates that they had planned to make a decision on   adopting the I-D by now.6.2.  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.   An individual submission 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.   WG Chairs who use this state will be able to clearly indicate when   their WG has adopted an individual submission I-D.  This will   facilitate the Datatracker's ability to correctly capture "Replaces"   information for WG drafts and "Replaced by" information for the   individual submissions I-Ds that are replaced by WG drafts.   The Datatracker shall allow an individual submission I-D to be moved   into the "Adopted by a WG" state if the I-D is not expired and it has   not been withdrawn, been 'replaced by' another I-D, or been adopted   by another IETF WG (R-068).  When a WG Chair or Delegate moves an I-D   into the "Adopted by a WG" state, the Datatracker SHALL confirm this   state change via e-mail to the author of the I-D and to the Chairs   and Delegates or the WG that adopted the I-D (per Requirement R-100).   Requirement R-009 specifies that changes to the WG status of an I-D   shall not overwrite any previously archived I-D status history   information for the I-D.  All status change history information for   an I-D needs to be preserved, including when an I-D is revised and   subsequently approved for posting as a new version-00 "WG Document"   having a different filename (viz. a filename that includes the string   'draft-ietf-' followed by a WG acronym).6.3.  WG Document   The "WG Document" state describes an I-D that has been adopted by an   IETF WG and is being actively developed.   WG Chairs and their Delegates SHALL be allowed to move an I-D that is   not associated with any other WG into the "WG Document" state in   their WG unless the I-D has expired, been withdrawn, or 'replaced by'   another I-D or RFC (R-069).   Alternatively, WG Chairs may rely on the functionality specified in   Requirement R-070 to automatically move a version-00 draft into the   "WG Document" state.Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   The Datatracker SHALL automatically place a new version-00 I-D into   the "WG Document" state if a WG Chair approves the submission of the   I-D for posting in the IETF document repository and if the filename   of the I-D includes the string 'draft-ietf-wgname-' (R-070).   The Datatracker SHOULD encourage the WG Chair to input, confirm, or   correct the filename of the individual submission I-D that is being   'replaced' (if any) by a new version-00 WG draft at the time that the   WG Chair approves the posting of the new I-D (R-071).   The WG Chair (or Delegate) who approves or moves an I-D into the "WG   Document" state for the first time SHALL be encouraged to input an   "Intended Maturity Level" for the I-D as defined inSection 5 of   [RFC6174] if the Datatracker cannot automatically determine this   information for some reason (R-072).  The Datatracker SHALL allow the   "Intended Maturity Level" to be changed after first being set, and   the Datatracker SHALL allow a WG Chair or Delegate to enter this   information at a later time if the "Intended Maturity Level" for an   I-D could not be identified when the I-D was initially moved into the   "WG Document" state (R-073).   The Datatracker SHALL allow WG Chairs and their Delegates to move an   I-D into the "WG Document" state from any other WG I-D state (e.g.,   per Sections3.2 and4.1 of [RFC6174]) if the I-D has not expired,   been withdrawn, or been 'replaced by' another I-D or RFC (R-074).   Under normal conditions, it should not be possible for an I-D to be   in the "WG Document" state in more than one IETF WG at a time.  The   Datatracker SHALL NOT allow a WG Chair or Delegate to move an I-D   into the "WG Document" state in their WG if the I-D is already in   some WG I-D state in a different WG (R-075).   An I-D that is in the "WG Document" state may be transferred from one   WG to a different WG by a Responsible AD.  The Datatracker SHALL   allow a Responsible AD to transfer an I-D from one WG to a different   WG, and it SHALL encourage the AD to input some text for the status   change history log of the I-D to provide context for the transfer   (R-076).  If an AD transfers an I-D, the Datatracker SHALL send an   e-mail to the author of the I-D and CC the Chairs, their Delegates,   and the Responsible ADs (for the WGs affected by the transfer) to   inform them that the I-D has been transferred (R-077).Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 20116.4.  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.   The Datatracker SHALL allow a Responsible AD to transfer a "Parked WG   Document" that is not expired from one WG to a different WG, and it   SHALL encourage the AD to input some text to provide context for the   transfer in the status change history log of the I-D (R-078).   If an AD transfers an I-D, the Datatracker SHALL send an e-mail to   author of the I-D, to the WG Chairs and their Delegates, and to the   Responsible ADs (of the WGs affected by the transfer of an I-D) to   inform them that the I-D has been transferred to a different WG   (R-079).6.5.  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;   however, a "Dead WG Document" that is not resurrected will eventually   expire.   The Datatracker SHALL allow a Responsible AD to transfer an I-D that   is not expired from being in the "Dead WG Document" state in one WG   to a non-dead state in different WG, and the Datatracker SHALL   encourage the AD to input some text to provide context for the   transfer in the status change history log of the I-D (R-080).   If an AD transfers an I-D under the conditions specified by   Requirement R-080, the Datatracker SHALL send an e-mail to the author   of the I-D, the WG Chairs, the Delegates, and the Responsible ADs   (for the WGs affected by the transfer) to inform them that the I-D   has been transferred to a different WG (R-081).6.6.  In WG Last Call   A document that is in the "In WG Last Call" state is an I-D for which   a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) has been issued and is in progress.   Note that WG Last Calls are an optional part of the IETF WG process,   perSection 7.4 of RFC 2418 [RFC2418].   A WG Chair who decides to conduct a WGLC on an I-D may use the "In WG   Last Call" state to track the progress of the WGLC.Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   A WG Chair (or Delegate) SHALL be able configure the Datatracker to   send a WGLC message to one or more mailing lists when he/she moves a   WG draft into the "In WG Last Call" state and be able to select a   different set of mailing lists for each I-D because some documents   may need coordination with other WGs (R-082).   The Datatracker also needs to be able to send an e-mail, after a   specified period of time, to remind or 'nudge' a WG Chair to conclude   a WGLC and to determine a next state for the I-D.   The WG Chair (or Delegate) who moves an I-D into the "In WG Last   Call" state SHALL be required to specify a length of time for the   WGLC (R-083).  The amount of time SHALL be able to be expressed as a   "number of weeks", but it SHALL NOT be allowed to extend beyond the   expiry date of the I-D (R-084).  Other measures of time (e.g., "until   a specific date in the future") MAY optionally be supported (R-085).   The amount of time MUST be able to be changed after first being set   (R-086).   If an I-D is still in the "In WG Last Call" state when the amount of   time specified in R-084 or R-085 runs out, the Datatracker SHALL send   an e-mail to inform the WG Chairs and Delegates that the I-D is still   in the "In WG Last Call" state, and to remind them they had planned   to conclude the WGLC by now (R-087).   Note that a WGLC may lead directly back 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.  The Datatracker   MUST allow this to occur. (R-088)6.7.  WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup   A document in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup" state has   essentially completed its development within the WG, 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 the Document   Shepherd.  The IESG requires that a protocol writeup be completed   before publication of an I-D is requested.   An I-D in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup" state SHALL remain   in this state until the WG Chair (or Delegate) moves the document to   a different state (R-089).Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 17]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   The Datatracker SHOULD be configurable to send an e-mail to a WG's   Chairs and Delegates after a specified period of time to remind or   'nudge' them to check the status of the Document Shepherd's writeup   for an I-D (R-090).  This feature SHOULD look and feel similar to the   way that Requirements R-064 to R-067 inclusive are implemented   (R-091).6.8.  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 WG for   revision.  An I-D in this state may be under review by the IESG, or   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.   The Datatracker SHOULD look for the presence of WG I-D status   annotation tags when a WG draft is moved into this state.  If there   are any tags that have not been cleared or reset, the Datatracker   SHOULD encourage the WG Chairs (or Delegates) in real-time to reset   or clear any extraneous annotation tags (R-092).6.9.  Revised I-D Needed (Annotation Tag)   After an I-D is submitted to the IESG, it may be judged as needing   revision before it can be published as an RFC.  An AD or the IESG as   a whole may return a document to a WG for revision.   An I-D that needs revision may be identified when the Responsible AD   appends the "Revised I-D Needed" annotation tag to the IESG state of   the I-D.   If an AD or the IESG as a whole sends an I-D back to a WG for   revision (e.g., as described inSection 3.2 of [RFC6174]), the WG's   Chairs may decide to change the WG state of the I-D from "Submitted   to IESG for Publication" to a different state and to append one or   more WG I-D status annotation tags to the I-D (e.g., per Sections   4.3.8 or 4.3.9 of [RFC6174]).   The Datatracker SHALL allow, but not require, the WG Chair or   Delegate who attaches a "Revised I-D Needed" annotation tag to the WG   status of an I-D to indicate the number of weeks they expect it will   take for a revised document to be produced (R-093).  The Datatracker   should also prompt the user to consider changing the WG state of the   I-D from "Submitted to IESG for Publication" to something else (e.g.,   Parked WG Document, WG Document, Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead)   (R-094).Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 18]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   If a revised version of the I-D is not submitted to the WG before the   time specified in R-093 elapses, the Datatracker SHALL send an e-mail   to the WG's Chairs and Delegates to remind or 'nudge' them to   followup on the revisions to the document (R-095).   The Datatracker SHALL automatically reset or clear the "Revised I-D   Needed" annotation tag attached to the WG status of an I-D when a   revised version of that I-D is posted (R-096).7.  Automatic State Changes for I-Ds   To reduce the amount of information that WG Chairs and Delegates need   to input to the Datatracker, the tool must automatically generate the   following WG state transitions:   -  The Datatracker will move a version-00 I-D into the "WG Document"      state when a WG Chair approves the posting of an I-D that includes      the string '-ietf-' in its filename (as specified in Requirement      R-070; and   -  The Datatracker SHALL transition a draft into the WG state called      "Submitted To IESG For Publication" at the same time that the I-D      is moved into the "Publication Requested" state in the IESG state      machine by an AD or the IETF Secretariat (R-097).8.  WG I-D Status Change Reporting Requirements   Everyone with 'write' access to WG I-D status information SHALL be   able to obtain a summary display of all status changes made to the WG   I-Ds that *they* are responsible for, from the present time   backwards, split by pages, after successfully logging on to the   Datatracker (R-098).   The Datatracker SHOULD provide a convenient way for WG Chairs to   obtain a summary of all WG I-D status changes made on their behalf by   their Delegates, from the present time backwards, split by pages   (R-099).   The Datatracker SHALL send an e-mail message to the authors of an I-D   and to the Chairs and Delegates of the WG to which the I-D is   associated whenever the WG status of the I-D is updated; the contents   of the e-mail SHALL provide details about the change in the WG status   of the document (e.g., the new state the I-D has been moved to and/or   the names of any newly set or reset I-D status annotation tags), the   date of the change in status, and an indication of who (or which   entity) caused the change to the WG status of the I-D (R-100).Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 19]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 20119.  WG I-D Status Reporting Requirements   The Datatracker SHALL provide everyone with a convenient way to query   the status of every document in an IETF WG and to see a display of   the current status of some or all of the documents in the WG,   including the Document Shepherd protocol writeups for I-Ds that have   been submitted to the IESG and the names of the Document Shepherds   (R-101).   The Datatracker SHALL also provide everyone with the ability to   search for the status of documents written by a specific author, or   I-Ds in a specific WG I-D state or having a specific "Intended   Maturity Level", or having a specific annotation tag attached   (R-102).   The Datatracker's existing I-D status display pages SHOULD be   modified to display at least the metadata and status information for   an I-D that is associated with a WG as shown in the following example   (R-103):   -----------------------------------------------------------------   Document stream:          IETF   I-D availability status:  Active / Expired / Withdrawn / RFC                             Replaces / Replaced by I-D or RFC                             (if applicable)   Last updated:             year-mm-dd (e.g. 2010-11-18)   IETF WG status: *         Applicable WG state & name of WG or WGs   Intended RFC status: **   Informational / Experimental / etc.   Document shepherd: ***    Name of Document Shepherd (if assigned)   IESG status:  ****        Name of applicable IESG state   Responsible AD:           Name of the Responsible AD   -----------------------------------------------------------------   *     The "IETF WG status" SHALL display the current WG state of the         I-D and the WG that the I-D is associated with, and any I-D         status annotation tags that are currently set (R-104).   **    The "Intended RFC status" for I-Ds in the WG state called         "Adopted for WG Info Only" SHOULD be displayed as "None"         (R-105).   **    The field called "Intended RFC status" SHOULD be renamed to         "RFC status" when the Datatracker displays the status of a         document that has been published as an RFC (R-106).Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 20]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   ***   This field SHOULD display the name of the person (or e-mail         address of the person) designated as the Document Shepherd for         the I-D, or be left blank if a Document Shepherd has not yet         been designated (R-107).   ****  This field SHALL display the current IESG status of the         document or the word "None" for documents that are not yet         being tracked by the IESG (R-108).10.  Error Handling Requirements   Errors with respect to inputting or updating the status of a WG   document are possible.   Per Requirement R-009, the creation of new or updated status   information cannot erase, overwrite, or cause the deletion of any   previously entered document status change history information.   Errors in data entry by a WG Chair or Delegate should be corrected by   a WG Chair or Delegate taking action to update any erroneous status   information in the Datatracker with correct information, so that the   correct status of the I-D is displayed.  For example, a document that   was accidentally placed into the wrong state can be moved into the   correct state by the WG Chair (or Delegate), and a comment should be   entered into the document's status change history log to explain what   happened.11.  Security Considerations   This document does not propose any new Internet mechanisms and has no   security implications for the Internet.   However, this document contains specific requirements to add features   to the IETF Datatracker to make it possible for a greater number of   users to input and/or update status information about I-Ds associated   with IETF WGs.  Enhancing the Datatracker may create an opening for   new denial-of-service (DoS) attacks and/or attempts by malicious   users to corrupt the information in the WG document status database.   This document does not propose any specific requirements to mitigate   DoS attacks on the Datatracker.12.  References12.1.  Normative References   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate               Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.Juskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 21]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011   [RFC2418]   Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and               Procedures",BCP 25,RFC 2418, September 1998.   [RFC4858]   Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L., and A. Mankin,               "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to               Publication",RFC 4858, May 2007.   [RFC6174]  Juskevicius, E., "Definition of IETF Working Group               Document States",RFC 6174, March 2011.12.2.  Informative References   [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.   [TRCKREQTS] Levkowetz, H. and Mankin, A., "Requirements on I-D               Tracker Extensions for Working Group Chairs", Work in               Progress, February 2007.13.  Acknowledgments   The author would like to thank Henrik Levkowetz and Allison Mankin   for writing the original I-D [TRCKREQTS] that contained many good   ideas and served as a foundation for this document.   The author would also like to thank Henrik Levkowetz, Alfred Hoenes,   Paul Hoffman, and Subramanian (SM) Moonesamy for their ongoing   support during the writing of this document.  Many of their comments   and suggestions have been used by the author to revise and improve   this document.   The author also offers his gratitude to Russ Housley, Scott Bradner,   Robert Sparks, Spencer Dawkins, and the WG Chairs and other IETF   participants at the wgdtspec BOF at IETF 77 for their inputs,   comments, and suggestions, and Lars Eggert, Tim Polk, Robert Sparks,   Ralph Droms, Adrian Farrel, Alexey Melnikov, and Sean Turner 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 22]

RFC 6175               WG Datatracker Requirements            March 2011Author's Address   Ed Juskevicius   TrekAhead   PO Box 491, Carp, ON   CANADA   EMail: edj.etc@gmail.comJuskevicius                   Informational                    [Page 23]