Id tracker States: An Internet Draft’s Path Through the iesg thomas Narten

ID Tracker States: An Internet Draft’s Path Through the IESG

• Thomas Narten

• [e-mail]

• Atlanta IETF

• 2002-11-20

Introduction

• “ID Tracker” tool shows state of IDs on IESG's plate

• https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi

• Under development for more than a year

• Under general use by IESG 6 +/- months

• Still under development/refinement

Primary Benefits

• Keeps track of all IDs on IESG’s plate

• Public view of each document's state (and history)

• Clearly identify who has action token for next steps

• Reduce confusion about an ID's actual status

• Public access to any IESG comments

• Reduce possibility of “losing” documents (as has sometimes happened in the past…)

Work-Flow Model of ID Processing

• All documents travel along well-defined path through system

• Path reflected as state machine; each state:

• Indicates what the next step is
• Who has the action
• What events move document to another state

ID States

• Within ID tracker, documents are:

• Always in exactly one state
• May also be in a sub state (providing more detail)
• May include a “note” field with additional explanation

Where IDs Start

• WG documents, individual submissions, etc.

• In one of two states:

• ID Exists - means just that
• AD is Watching - document is in ID Tracker for easy tracking by AD

State: Publication Requested

• Via formal request from WG (via Section 7.5 of RFC 2418, plus cc [e-mail])

• Via a submission directly to RFC editor

• Via a direct request to an AD

• Additional details:

• Need to assign a shepherding AD
• Need to assign to an area
• no action has been taken by AD yet

State: AD Evaluation

• AD has begun review process:

• Is intended status right? (Info? Experimental? Proposed Standard? BCP?)
• Is Last Call needed?
• Is expert review needed? (e.g., MIB doctor, security, etc.)
• ID Nits taken care of?
• Has AD convinced herself that document is ready for next step?

State: Expert Review

• AD may ask someone else to review

• Perhaps needs review from particular angle

• Operational impacts?
• Security?
• Something else?

• Comments from review may result in:

• Additional discussion with WG/authors
• Need for revision

State: Last Call Requested

• Last Call is required for Standards Track or BCP documents

• MAY be requested if broad review/notice is needed

• AD makes formal request when document is really ready

State: In Last Call

• Last Call has actually started

• Last Call message has been sent to ietf-announce

• Now just waiting for LC to end

State: Waiting For Writeup

• Protocol Actions include explanation of action

• Sent out if/when document is approved

• Written up by AD for rest of IESG to read as part of the (soon-to-happen) full IESG review

State: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead

• Comments/issues may arise during Last Call

• Additional discussion may be needed (or still be on going)

• Revision of document may be needed

• AD needs to ensure document really is ready for formal consideration by entire IESG

• When ready, AD requests document be put on IESG agenda for full IESG review

State: IESG Evaluation

• The entire IESG is (finally!) reviewing the document

• Each AD reviews and brings up any issues

• For standards track, a formal Evaluation records issues and ensures each AD has expressed an opinion

State: Defer

• An AD wanted more time to review

• Invoked no more than once, the first time a document appears on agenda

Document Approved States

• State: Approved - Announcement to be Sent

• IESG has approved the document
• Secretariat needs to send out the announcement

• State: RFC Ed Queue

• document is recorded in queue at http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html

• State: RFC Published

• RFC has been published!

Do Not Published States

• State: DNP - Waiting for AD Note

• Sometimes, IESG concludes that a document just shouldn't be published
• Pretty rare in practice
• More often, we say “document has the following problems, not suitable to be published in current form”.
• Reason for DNP needs to be written up

• State: DNP - Announcement to be Sent

• DNP note has been written up

• State DNP – Announcement Sent

• Note has been sent to author

Sub States

• For some states, state itself is too coarse to really describe state sufficiently

• Sub state provides finer grain of explanation

• Similar sub states apply to many states, e.g.:

• IESG Evaluation
• AD Evaluation

Sub-State: Point Raised -Writeup Needed

• One or more ADs has an issue

• Point needs to be written up

• Decision to formally raise a “discuss” often made only after voice telechat discussion

• Writeup produced shortly after telechat

Sub-State: AD Follow up

• AD holds token for determining next steps, but next steps are unclear

• May be discussing issues within WG

• May need to ascertain whether WG/author response addresses concern or question

• May need to get feedback from another AD

• Lots of different possible reasons why actual state is unclear

Sub-State: Revised ID Needed

• Determination has been made that revised ID is needed

Sub-State: External Party

• Review or followup from External party needed (i.e., someone other than Author or AD)

• See “note” field for more details