Proto Team H. Levkowetz Internet-Draft D. Meyer Expires: January 10, 2005 July 12, 2004 Protocol Pilot: Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of RFC 3668. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt . The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html . This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2005. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document describes a pilot implementation of a protocol change within the IETF. The essence of the change is to have workgroup chairs more involved in the progress of the document after the workgroup and document editor have handed over the document for publication. The activities involved in this are: 1) providing a writeup for the document, to accompany the request for publication which is sent to the secretariat and the ADs (Area Directors); 2) following up on AD Evaluation comments on a draft to the authors and workgroup; and 3) following up on IESG comments (DISCUSS comments as well as other) on the draft. Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 1] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 1. Introduction As part of the currently ongoing effort to improve the work flow (particularly speed of approval) of documents, the PROTO team [PROTO] is defining pilot projects to test possible protocol changes. This document describes such a pilot. The purpose of the pilot described here is to test offloading follow-up work which an Area Director (AD) traditionally has done. This includes both follow-up after the AD has read through and evaluated a document submitted to the IESG for publication, and follow-up on IESG comments (DISCUSS comments and others) on a document. It is hoped that offloading this onto the chair (or one of the chairs) of the workgroup which submitted the draft will increase the speed of follow-up and the transparency of the process, and reduce the workload of the AD to boot. The pilot does not cover follow-up for drafts which do not originate in a workgroup. For a discussion of the reasoning underlying piloting of process changes, see [JULY14]. 2. Pilot description 2.1 Participants This pilot involves Area Directors of selected areas, and some or all of the chairs for which the Area Director is Area Advisor. 2.2 Running time and pilot size This pilot is to be run not less than 4 months, and not more than 8 months, unless early experience shows it to be clearly detrimental. It is expected that it will be started shortly after the IETF 59 meeting, and completed in time for the results to be reported at the IETF 60 meeting. The pilot should be run with no less than 2 and not more than 6 ADs, and between 5 and 20 workgroups. The running time should be chosen such that the participating ADs and WG chairs have opportunity to get past the initial learning and first-time execution barrier, and get some familiarity with the process before the pilot is closed and evaluated. 2.3 Pilot Process Description 2.3.1 WG Chair Writeup When a draft is ready to be submitted for publication, it is the task of the shepherding workgroup chair to do a document writeup for the Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 2] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 draft. There are two parts to this task. First, answer questions 1-8 so that your responsible Area Director can get insight into the working group process as applied to this draft. These questions may appear redundant in some cases but are written to elicit any tidbits of information that the AD should be aware of. (Pointers to relevant entries in the WG archive will be helpful.) The goal is to inform your AD about any issues that may have come up in IETF meetings, on the mailing list, or in private communication that they should be aware of prior to taking this draft to IESG. Don't be surprised if your AD has further questions. Any significant issues mentioned in the questionnaire will probably lead to a followup discussion with the AD. The second part is to prepare the "Protocol Writeup" which is dually used first as the ballot writeup for the IESG telechat and then the IETF-wide protocol announcement. Item number 9 describes the elements of the writeup. If you haven't done this before, try looking at other protocol announcements (in the IETF Announce archive) and expect some comments from your AD on the draft. 1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG for publication? 2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? 4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway. 5. How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise what are they upset about. Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 3] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). 8. Does the document a) split references into normative/ informative, and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) 9. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a writeup section with the following sections: * Technical Summary * Working Group Summary * Protocol Quality 10. Please provide such a writeup. (We will hopefully use it as is, but may make some changes.) For recent examples, have a look at the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents. 11. Note: * When doing the technical summary, one would expect that the relevant information is in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. It turns out that the step of producing the writeup sometimes points out deficiencies in the introduction/abstract that are also worthy of rectifying. * For the Working Group Summary, was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? (E.g., controversy about particular points, decisions where consensus was particularly rough, etc.) * For the protocol quality, useful information could include: + is the protocol already being implemented? + have a significant number of vendors indicated they plan to implement the spec? + are there any reviewers (during the end stages) that merit explicit mention as having done a thorough review that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document was fine (except for maybe some nits?) Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 4] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 2.3.2 AD Review Shepherding The steps for workgroup chair shepherding of AD reviews are as follows: 1. If there is more than one chair, the chairs decide on which one should be responsible for ensuring that the needed fixes are done when the AD returns comments. This can for instance be done at the time the publication request is sent. It is important that this is an explicit agreement. 2. The AD reads, evaluates and writes comments pretty much as before. However, note that since the communication between AD and authors is not direct, the need for clear and well-articulated review comments is somewhat larger. 3. Depending on the magnitude of the issues found (and other considerations?), the AD returns the full review to the chairs, and requests either: 3.a) that further workgroup work be undertaken to put the document into shape to be published 3.b) that authors and workgroup are informed of the issues found and resolve them in a revised draft 3.c) that the authors fix nits as needed. As covered below, the comments will be posted to the workgroup mailing list. The comments will normally also be posted by the AD in the ID Tracker [IDTRACKER]. Working groups that use issue tracking should also record the issues (and eventually their resolution) in the issue tracker. 4. The chair responsible reads through the AD Evaluation comments, making very certain that all comments are understood, so that it is possible to follow up on them with the authors and workgroup. If there is some uncertainty as to what is requested, this must be resolved with the Area Director. 5. The responsible chair sends the comments to the author(s) and to the workgroup mailing list, in order to have a permanent record of the comments. It is recommended that the chair solicit from the author(s) an estimate on when the fixes will be done - i.e., when the submission of a revised draft can be expected. 6. When incorporating the fixes in the new version of the draft, it is strongly recommended that the revising editor keep a summary Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 5] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 list showing how the issues were addressed issue by issue, and showing what the revised text is. If such a list is forwarded to the AD with the revised draft, it will make it possible for the AD to verify the fixes very quickly. 7. The responsible chair follows-up, nudges and iterates until the authors (and workgroup if required) has fixed the issues found, and submitted an updated draft. At this point, the AD is notified of the revised draft, and provided with the summary list of issues and resulting text changes. In the event that the working group disagrees with a comment raised by the AD or has already considered the issue and previously ruled it out, this must be discussed and resolved with the AD before the new version of the draft is submitted. 8. The Area Director verifies that the issues he found during AD Evaluation are resolved by the new version of the draft. 9. (Hopefully, that's it, but in the worst case this starts over at 1 again...) 2.3.3 IESG Discuss Shepherding In this section we detail the steps that a shepherding WG chair will take in resolving the DISCUSS items against a given ID. The steps are given below, in the order that they are to be executed. 1. Immediately after the weekly IESG conference call, the shepherding WG chair queries the ID tracker [IDTRACKER] to collect any DISCUSS comments raised against the ID. In order to accomplish this, the shepherding WG chair's email address must be added to the "State Change Notice To:" field in the ID tracker. This will result in an email to the shepherding WG chair when the document is moved from the "IESG Evaluation" state to the "IESG Evaluation/New ID Needed state", which occurs after the IESG teleconference. This notification indicates to the the shepherding WG chair that the DISCUSS comments have been registered. Note that there may be exceptional cases when DISCUSS comments are registered after the IESG teleconference. In these cases, the DISCUSSing AD should notify the shepherding WG chair that new comments have been entered. 2. The shepherding WG chair analyses comments from the tracker, and initialises contact with any AD's who have placed comments Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 6] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 (blocking or non-blocking) on a draft, notifying them that the shepherding WG chair is the current document shepherd and seeking any additional clarification necessary to understand the comment. Note that the responsible AD must copied on this correspondence. +------+ Comments +--------+ Comments +-------+ | (i) |-------------> | (ii) | -------------> | (iii) | +------+ Collected +--------+ Understood +-------+ /|\ | | | Comments not fully understood | | (Further AD/shepherding WG chair | | Discussion Required) +----+ 3. The shepherding WG chair then coordinates DISCUSS comments, and builds a a consistent interpretation of the comments. This step may require iteration with step (2). above. That is: +------+ Consistent +-------+ | (ii) |----------------> | (iii) | +------+ Interpretation +-------+ /|\ | | | Further AD/shepherding WG chair | | Discussion Required +--------------------------+ 4. The DISCUSS comments are then communicated to the working group. 5. After the author(s) resolve the issues provided by the shepherding WG chair (i.e., the distilled DISCUSS issues), the shepherding WG chair reviews the updated document to ensure that (in her/his option) the DISCUSS issues have been resolved. Note that the shepherding WG chair may also propose resolutions to these issues, file them in an issue tracker, or do other steps to streamline the resolution of the comments. 6. The shepherding WG chair communicates the resolution-so-far to the responsible AD and the DISCUSSing AD(s). 7. DISCUSSing AD removes DISCUSS comment, or tells the WG why the comment is not resolved. If the DISCUSS comment in question was not resolved to the satisfaction of the DISCUSSing and responsible ADs, two possibilities exist: Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 7] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 1. (a). The process returns to step (3), or 2. (b). The working group can appeal in accordance with the procedures described in RFC 2418 [RFC2418]. Otherwise, the process continues with step (8). 8. The responsible AD moves document to APPROVED state, or sends it back to the IESG for re-review (if the changes are deemed significant). 2.4 Wrap-up At the end of the pilot lifetime, it is expected that an evaluation of the experienced benefits is made, using input solicited from the participating Area Directors and Workgroup Chairs by means of an email questionnaire, web-page form or something similar. The questions are given below, in Section 2.4.2. A per-review questionnaire is also provided in Section 2.4.1. 2.4.1 Questionnaire to be done after each individual AD Review To be done by both WG Chair and AD. R1. I'm submitting this questionnaire as 1. Area Director 2. Workgroup Chair R2. Document name: R3. WG Chair shepherding of the AD evaluation comments for this draft speeded up the procedure: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 8] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 R4. WG Chair shepherding of the AD evaluation comments for this draft resulted in the comments being resolved in a satisfactory manner: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree R5. WG Chair shepherding of the AD evaluation comments for this draft resulted in a more transparent process: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree R6. WG Chair shepherding of the AD evaluation comments for this draft resulted in a more well-documented process: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree R7. The interaction with the document editors in resolving the comments worked out well: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree R8. - Public Comments? R9. - Comments to IESG and PROTO-Team only? R10. WG Chair shepherding of the AD evaluation comments for this draft worked out well, overall: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 9] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 R11. - Public Comments? R12. - Comments to IESG and PROTO-Team only? 2.4.2 Questionnaire for the Pilot as a Whole To be done by both WG Chair and AD. X1. Document name: X2. I clearly understood what was expected of me in this pilot. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree Comments? X3. What is your evaluation of the benefit of the procedure you've tried out in this pilot? 1. Definitely harmful 2. Somewhat harmful 3. Mixed feelings 4. Somewhat beneficial 5. Definitely beneficial Comments? X4. What is your evaluation of the added effort required for the procedure you've tried out in this pilot? 1. Major increased effort 2. Somewhat increased 3. No change 4. Somewhat decreased effort 5. Major decreased effort Comments? Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 10] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 X5. Considering all factors, this procedure should be made the normal way of handling AD evaluation comments. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree Comments? X6. What do you consider to be the major advantages of this procedure change? X7. What do you consider to be the major disadvantages of this procedure change? X8. How would you change the procedure to minimise the disadvantages? X9. Comments to the IESG and PROTO-Team only: 3. Security Considerations This document specifies a pilot implementation of a change in IETF procedures. It does not raise or consider any protocol-specific security issues. When evaluating the result of the pilot, the IESG should check if the changes has reduced the quality of security review and consideration for protocols, and take this into consideration when deciding whether the changes should be made permanent. 4 Informative References [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996. [JULY14] Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A model for IETF Process Experiments", draft-klensin-process-july14-02 (work in progress), April 2004. [SIRS] Carpenter, B. and D. Crocker, "Careful Additional Review of Documents (CARD)by Senior IETF Reviewers (SIRS)", draft-carpenter-solution-sirs-01 (work in progress), June Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 11] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 2003. [IDTRACKER] "The IETF Draft Tracker", Web Application: https:// datatracker.ietf.org/. [PROTO] "The IESG Process and Tools (PROTO) Team", Web Page: http://psg.com/~mrw/PROTO-Team. Authors' Addresses Henrik Levkowetz Torsgatan 71 Stockholm S-113 37 SWEDEN Phone: +46 708 32 16 08 EMail: henrik@levkowetz.com David Meyer EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 12] Internet-Draft WG Chair followup of AD-Comments July 2004 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Levkowetz & Meyer Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 13]