Proto E. Juskevicius Internet Draft TrekAhead Intended status: Informational May 14, 2010 Expires: November 14, 2010 Requirements to Extend the Datatracker for WG Chairs and Authors draft-juskevicius-datatracker-wgdocstate-reqts-01.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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 November 14, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 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. Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 Abstract This document specifies requirements for new functionality to be added to the Datatracker tool to make it possible for IETF working group chairs and/or their delegates to indicate and update the status of working group documents. It also describes additional functions to enable IETF chairs and others to more easily follow the progression of working group documents from their earliest stages. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................2 2. Conventions used in this document..............................3 3. General requirements...........................................3 4. Privilege and Access Control requirements......................5 4.1. For everyone..............................................5 4.2. For IETF Working Group Chairs.............................5 4.3. For Delegates of IETF WG Chairs...........................6 4.4. For WG Document Shepherds.................................6 4.5. For the IETF Secretariat..................................7 4.6. For the Responsible Area Director.........................7 5. Inputting and updating WG document status information..........7 6. Special requirements for some document states and conditions...9 6.1. Candidate WG Document.....................................9 6.2. WG Document..............................................11 6.3. In WG Last Call..........................................12 6.4. WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up.......................12 6.5. Submitted to IESG for Publication........................13 6.6. Revised I-D Needed (annotation tag)......................13 7. Status of WG Drafts not tracked by Chairs or Delegates........13 8. WG document status change reporting requirements..............14 9. WG document status reporting requirements.....................15 10. Error handling requirements..................................15 11. "Nice to have" features......................................15 11.1. Querying the status of more than one I-D at a time......15 12. Security Considerations......................................16 13. IANA Considerations..........................................16 14. References...................................................16 14.1. Normative References....................................16 14.2. Informative References..................................17 15. Acknowledgments..............................................17 1. Introduction The IETF Datatracker is a web-based system for managing information about Internet-Drafts (I-Ds), RFCs and several other important aspects of the IETF process [IDTRACKER]. Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 The Datatracker can be used to obtain a lot of information about the status and progression of Internet-Drafts after they have been sent to the IESG for review and publication. A current limitation of the tool is that it has very little information about the status of IETF working group documents. The Datatracker can only discern the basic validity of an I-D (e.g. "I-D Exists", "Expired", "Active") before the I-D is sent to the IESG. This document specifies requirements for new functionality to be added to the Datatracker to make it possible for IETF working group chairs and/or their delegates to input and update the status of working group documents. It also describes additional requirements to enable chairs to manage working group documents from their earliest stages, and to allow document authors (and others) to more easily understand the status of all working group drafts. 2. Conventions used in this document The phrase "working group document" is to be interpreted as being synonymous with "working group I-D" and "working group draft". The same is true for the plural case of each phrase. The phrase "working group document" is not intended to apply to any other document that may be reviewed, discussed, or produced by an IETF working group. Working group meeting materials such as Blue Sheets, agendas, jabber logs, scribe's notes, minutes, and presentation slides are not to be considered as "working group documents" in the context of this document. Several words are used to specify requirements in this document. These words are often capitalised. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. The requirements specified in this document use English phrases ending with "(R-nnn)", where "nnn" is a unique requirement number. 3. General requirements The IETF Datatracker SHALL be enhanced to make it possible for IETF working group chairs and/or their delegates to indicate the status and progression of working group documents. (R-001) Enhancements made to the Datatracker should not radically change the look or feel of the tool for document status entry, querying, or Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 reporting. (R-002) The goal is to add new functionality to the tool, not to redesign the tool. - the user-interface for inputting WG document status information SHOULD have a look and feel that is similar to the interface used by IETF Area Directors to describe the status of documents under formal review by the IESG. (R-003) - any new pages added to Datatracker to display the status of working group documents SHOULD have a look and feel that is similar to the pages currently used to report the status of documents under formal review by the IESG. (R-004) The status of IETF working group documents SHALL be described using the document stream, document states, WG document state machine, working group document annotation tags, and intended document maturity levels specified in [WGDRAFTS]. (R-005) Each IETF working group chair SHALL be able to use the new features added to the Datatracker for some, all, or none of the documents in his or her working group. (R-006) The following two examples clarify this requirement: - the chair of a newly chartered working group may choose to use the Datatracker to report the status of every WG document to provide maximum transparency to the IETF community and to manage the progress of the I-Ds within the working group; - the chair of a working group that has nearly completed its charter or milestones may decide to do otherwise. The WG document states added to the Datatracker SHALL be implemented with a new state machine that MUST be separate from the existing IESG document status state machine. (R-007) The state that a working group document is in, in each state machine, MUST be able to be independently updated by the respective primes for each state machine (viz. WG chairs and their delegates, and Area Directors). (R-008) All of the requirements specified in sections 3 to 10 inclusive of this document MUST be considered in the design of enhancements to the Datatracker. (R-009) Consideration SHOULD also be given to the implementation of some or all of the 'nice to have' features described in section 11. (R-010) Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 4. Privilege and Access Control requirements 4.1. For everyone Every member of the IETF community SHOULD be able to obtain information about the status of a working group document without being required to log-on to the Datatracker. Everybody SHALL be allowed "read" access to working group document status information. (R-011) People who need to input, modify or update the status of a working group document will require "write" privileges; these people SHALL be required to log-on to the Datatracker using a personal user-id and password (e.g. an IETF tools password). (R-012) Not everyone will be given "write" access. 4.2. For IETF Working Group Chairs When an IETF working group chair decides to input, modify or update the status information for a document in his or her working group, he or she SHALL be required to log-on to the Datatracker using a personal user-id and password (e.g. IETF tools password). (R-013) After successfully logging-on to the Datatracker, the WG chair: - SHALL be given full "read" and "write" privileges to input and to update information about the status of all documents associated with his or her working group; (R-014) - SHALL be able to designate one or more people to be granted full "read" and "write" privileges to assist with inputting and/or updating the status of documents in the chair's working group; (R-015) - SHALL be able to designate the IETF Secretariat as an additional delegate to be granted full "read" and "write" privileges to input or update information about the status of documents in the chair's working group; (R-016) - SHALL be able to review and make changes to the list of designated delegates for his or her working group; (R-017) The identifier for each delegate SHOULD be the person's e-mail address; (R-018) - SHALL be able to assign a person to be a Document Shepherd for a working group document if this role will not be performed by the chair or a designated delegate. (R-019) The identifier for the Document Shepherd SHOULD be the person's e-mail address. (R-020) Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 4.3. For Delegates of IETF WG Chairs After successfully logging-on to the Datatracker, the delegate of an IETF working group chair SHALL be granted the same privileges as the working group chair to input and/or update working group document status information. (R-021) Every person designated to be the delegate of an IETF working group chair WILL REQUIRE a personal user-id and password to log-on to the Datatracker. (R-022) The Datatracker SHOULD alert the chair and the newly designated delegate (e.g. via e-mail) if the person newly designated as a delegate of the chair does not have a personal user-id and password to log-on to the Datatracker. (R-023) This will inform the chair that the delegate needs to take action to obtain a personal user-id and password, and it will inform the delegate that he/she needs to take action to obtain a personal user-id and password for the Datatracker. Before granting a personal user-id and password to a delegate who does not have one, the Datatracker SHOULD verify the person making the request has been designated to be a delegate by a working group chair. (R-024) 4.4. For WG Document Shepherds The IETF document shepherding process and the role of an IETF working group Document Shepherd is described in RFC 4858 [RFC4858]. Every person designated to be a shepherd for a working group draft WILL REQUIRE a personal user-id and password to log-on to the Datatracker. (R-025) A Document Shepherd who does not have a personal user-id and password will need to obtain one. Before granting a personal user-id and password to a Shepherd, the Datatracker SHOULD verify the person making the request has been designated as a Document Shepherd by the chair of a working group. (R-026) A Document Shepherd SHALL be granted restricted "write" privileges to modify and update status information about a WG document when it is in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up" state. (R-027) A Document Shepherd SHALL be allowed to upload and modify the PROTO write-up for a working group document in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up" state in the Datatracker. (R-028) Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 The Document Shepherd SHALL also be granted access to set and reset the document status annotation tag defined in Section 3.5.12 of [WGDRAFTS] called "Doc Shepherd Follow-Up Underway" for an I-D in the state called "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up". (R-029) - The setting the "Doc Shepherd Follow-Up Underway" annotation tag shall indicate the Document Shepherd has started work on the write- up for the document; (R-030) - The absence or resetting of this annotation tag for a document in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-up" state shall indicate the write-up has not yet been started, or has been put on-hold for some reason. (R-031) 4.5. For the IETF Secretariat The IETF Secretariat SHALL be granted the same access privileges as the working group chair has, to input and/or update working group document status information if the Secretariat has been designated as a delegate of the working group chair for this purpose. (R-032) 4.6. For the Responsible Area Director The Datatracker SHALL identify the Responsible Area Director for each IETF working group that uses the Datatracker to track WG documents, and grant full "read" and "write" privileges to the Area Director for information about the status of documents in the working groups that he or she is responsible for. (R-033) 5. Inputting and updating WG document status information The state of an IETF working group document (which a chair has decided to track using the Datatracker) SHALL only be described using the working group document states and state names specified in Section 3.3 of [WGDRAFTS]. (R-034) The creation of ad hoc WG document states and/or state names WILL NOT be an option. (R-035) The normal progression of an I-D through an IETF working group SHALL be assumed to follow the sequence of state changes illustrated in the state machine diagram in Section 3.4 of [WGDRAFTS]. (R-036) After a working group chair or delegate logs-on to the Datatracker to update the state of a working group document, he/she SHOULD be informed of the current state of the document, the amount of time that the document has been in its current state and the time remaining that the document may continue to remain in its current state (if that information is available) and the most likely next Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 state (or states) that the document may transition into according to the working group document state machine. (R-037) He/she SHALL then be presented with an ability to select a most likely next state for the I-D and to enter some text about the state change (into a comment log). (R-038) As a general principle, the Datatracker should always prompt the person making a change to the status of a WG document to input some text to explain the reason for the status change. A working group chair or delegate should not be constrained by the "most likely next state" for any working group document. A working group chair or delegate SHOULD be able to change the state of a working group document from its current state to any other state. (R-039) To facilitate R-039, the Datatracker SHOULD display a pull-down menu of every other possible WG document state and then prompt the chair (or delegate) to select the next state for the document from the pull-down menu. (R-040) If the next state for the document is selected from the pull-down menu, the Datatracker SHALL REQUIRE the chair or delegate to enter some text into a comment log (e.g. for its WG document status change history log file) to explain the reason for the state change to the community. (R-041) When a working group chair or delegate logs into the Datatracker to set or reset an annotation tag (used to describe a condition that may affect the state of a document), the Datatracker SHOULD display a summary of the last 'n' substate changes made to the document (i.e. the last 'n' annotation tag set/reset operations, where 'n' is selectable) and then guide the chair or delegate to select the one (or more) annotation tags to be set or reset. (R-042) - A pull-down menu listing every possible working group document annotation tag MAY be displayed to facilitate R-042. (R-043) - The summary of recent tag set/reset operations SHOULD include the date when each of the last 'n' tags were set or reset, and the e-mail address of the person who set or reset each tag, and a link to any text (e.g. in a history or comment log) that explains why each tag was set or reset. (R-044) The Datatracker SHOULD allow one or more annotation tags to be set or reset per log-on and the Datatracker SHOULD prompt a chair or delegate to consider inputting text into a comment log to explain why a tag is being set or reset. (R-045) Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 6. Special requirements for some document states and conditions 6.1. Candidate WG Document The "Candidate WG Document" state may be used to describe an Internet-Draft that is being considered for adoption by an IETF working group. 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 to be considered by a working group, if the chair has agreed with the request; - an I-D that the WG chair asked an author to write; or - an I-D listed as a 'candidate draft' in the WG charter. The Datatracker SHALL allow a working group chair or delegate to identify an I-D as a "Candidate WG Document" for her or his WG if the I-D is not expired and the document has not yet been adopted by any IETF working group. (R-046) The Datatracker SHOULD NOT allow a document that is expired or that already been adopted by an IETF working group to be moved into the "Candidate WG Document" state. (R-047) It is not uncommon for an author to 'shop' a document to multiple working groups hoping to get the draft adopted somewhere. The Datatracker SHALL allow a document to be in the "Candidate WG Document" state for more than one working group at a time if the conditions specified by R-046 and R-047 are met. (R-048) Requirements R-049 to R-061 inclusive are intended to minimize the time needed by working group chairs and/or their delegates to manage documents placed into the "Candidate WG Document" state. The objectives are as follows: - a chair (or delegate) should be able to identify a document as a candidate for adoption in her or his working group if requirements R-046 to R-048 inclusive are met; - a chair (or delegate) should not have to update the status of a candidate document again unless he/she decides to adopt the document in his/her working group; and - a second (or third, or fourth) chair or delegate who may take an interest in the same candidate document should not create a problem Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 or a coordination headache for any other working group chair or delegate. The code to be designed to track documents in the "Candidate WG Document" State should be designed to operate as follows: - the first chair (or delegate) to move an I-D into the candidate state shall specify the length of time the I-D may be in the candidate state; - the second (or third or fourth ...) chair or delegate to identify the same document as a candidate in his/her working group will be informed of the current status of the document, and will be given an opportunity to extend the period of time that the I-D may remain in the candidate state; and - the Datatracker will automatically change the state of the document to "Not Adopted by a WG" when the time runs out, unless someone logs-on to the Datatracker and moves the document into some other state first. Requirements R-049 to R-061 are detailed specifications for the implementation of this feature. The first chair (or delegate) to move an I-D into the "Candidate WG Document" state SHALL be REQUIRED to specify a length of time that the document may remain in this state. (R-049) The length of time that an I-D may remain in the "Candidate WG Document" state SHOULD be specified as a number of weeks, or a specific date in the future, or a milestone such as "two weeks after the end of the next IETF meeting". (R-050) Before a different chair (or delegate) is allowed to identify the same document as a candidate for adoption in his or her (different) working group, the Datatracker SHALL indicate that the document is already in the candidate state for another IETF working group and display the name of the other working group and the amount of time remaining that the document may remain in the candidate state. (R-051) If, after reviewing this information, the different chair (or delegate) decides to proceed, the Datatracker SHALL allow the document to be identified as a "Candidate WG Document" for that different working group, and the Datatracker SHALL ask the chair (or delegate) if the amount of time the document may remain in the candidate state is sufficient. (R-052) - If the time remaining is not sufficient, the different chair (or delegate) SHALL be required to specify a longer time which the Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 Datatracker SHALL use to reprogram its timer. (R-053) The time SHOULD NOT be allowed to exceed the date the document "Expires" (as specified the cover page of the I-D). (R-054) After the new date is entered and confirmed, the Datatracker SHALL send an e-mail to the chairs and delegates of every other working group (in which the document is already a candidate) to inform them the document has become a candidate in another WG and that the time the I-D may remain as a candidate has been extended to a new date of (whatever the new date is). (R-055) - If the time remaining is sufficient, the different chair or delegate SHALL be allowed to identify the document as a candidate for her/his working group and the (already running) timer SHALL continue to count-down without interruption. (R-056) In this case, the Datatracker SHALL send an e-mail to the chairs and delegates of every other working group (in which the document is already a candidate) to inform them the document has become a candidate in (yet) another WG and to confirm that the amount of time the I-D may remain as a candidate has not been changed. (R-057) One week before expiry of the timer, the Datatracker SHALL send a nudge via e-mail to every chair and delegate in which the I-D is a "Candidate WG Document". (R-058) The e-mail will alert everyone that the document is still in the candidate state, and that the Datatracker will automatically move the I-D into the "Not adopted by a WG" state unless someone moves it to a different state before the timer expires. (R-059) If a "Candidate WG Document" is adopted in a working group before the timer expires (e.g. if the state of the document is changed to "WG Document" in a working group), the Datatracker SHALL cancel the timer and send an e-mail to the every chair and delegate who had an interest in the document to inform them that the I-D has been adopted by the (insert name of the WG here) WG. (R-060) If a document is not adopted by any working group when the time expires, it will still be in the "Candidate WG Document" state. In this case, the Datatracker SHALL automatically move the document into the "Not Adopted by a WG" state and send an e-mail to the every chair and delegate who was interested in the document to announce the document was not adopted and that its state has been automatically changed. (R-061) 6.2. WG Document A "WG Document" is an I-D that has been adopted by an IETF working group and is being actively developed. Under normal conditions, it Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 should not be possible for an Internet-Draft to be a "WG Document" in more than one working group at a time. The Datatracker SHALL allow a working group chair or delegate to identify an I-D as a "WG Document" in her or his WG if the I-D is not expired and if the document not yet been adopted by any other IETF working group. (R-062) The chair (or delegate) who moves an I-D into the "WG Document" state for the first time SHALL be REQUIRED to indicate the "Intended Maturity Level" for the document, as defined in Section 3.6 of [WGDRAFTS]. (R-063) A WG document may be transferred from one working group to another by the Responsible Area Director. The Datatracker SHALL allow the Responsible Area Director to transfer an I-D from being a "WG Document" in one WG to the same state in a different WG. (R-064) 6.3. In WG Last Call A document "In WG Last Call" is an I-D for which a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) has been issued, and is in progress. Note that working group last calls are an optional part of the IETF working group process, per section 7.4 of RFC 2418 [RFC2418]. A document "In WG Last Call" SHOULD remain in this state until the chair (or delegate) moves the I-D to a different state. (R-065) The chair (or delegate) who moves an I-D into the "In WG Last Call" state SHALL be REQUIRED to specify a length of time that the document may remain in this state. (R-066) The length of time SHOULD be specified as a number of weeks. (R-067) One week before expiry of the timer, the Datatracker SHOULD send a nudge via e-mail to the chair and his/her delegates to remind or 'nudge' the chair to conclude the WGLC and to determine the next state for the document. (R-068) 6.4. WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up A document in the "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up" state has essentially completed its development within the working group, and is nearly ready to be sent to the IESG for publication. The last thing to be done is the preparation of a write-up by a document shepherd. The IESG requires that a proto write-up be completed before publication of the I-D is requested. Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 A document in this state SHOULD remain in this state until the chair (or delegate) moves the document to the next state. (R-069) The Datatracker SHOULD be programmable to send an e-mail to the chair after a specified period of time to remind or 'nudge' the chair to look into the status of the proto write-up. (R-070) 6.5. 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 working group for revision. Under normal conditions, an I-D that has reached this state will have finished it tenure as a working group document. The Datatracker SHOULD look for the presence of annotation tags when a WG document is moved into this state. If there are any tags that have not been cleared or reset, the Datatracker SHOULD send an e- mail to the WG chair to suggest the chair (or delegate) log-on to the Datatracker to clear the extraneous tags. (R-071) 6.6. Revised I-D Needed (annotation tag) After an I-D is submitted to the IESG, it may be judged to need revision before it can be published as an RFC. An AD or the IESG as a whole may return a document to a working group for revision. A document that needs revision may be identified when the chair, delegate, or the Responsible Area Director logs-on to the Datatracker to append one of the "Issue Raised - Revision Needed" annotation tags to the status of the document. The Datatracker SHALL REQUIRE the person who attaches one of these annotation tags to a document which had been in the "Submitted to IESG for Publication" state to change the state of the document to something else (e.g. Parked WG Draft, WG Document, Waiting for WG Chair Go- Ahead) and to indicate a period of time that the document may remain in the new state. (R-072) The Datatracker SHOULD be programmable to send an e-mail to the chair and delegate after a specified period of time to remind or 'nudge' the chair and delegates to follow-up on the revisions to the document. (R-073) 7. Status of WG Drafts not tracked by Chairs or Delegates Requirement R-006 provides each IETF WG chair with the freedom to use the WG document states defined in [WGDRAFTS] to indicate the status and progression of documents in his or her working group. Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 The same requirement also allows each IETF WG chair to decide to *not* log-on to the Datatracker to manually input or update the status of drafts in her/his working group. The Datatracker MUST allow for the possibility that some WG chairs will not manually input or update the status of some WG drafts. (R-074) To provide some visibility into the status of WG documents that are not manually tracked by a WG chair or delegate, the Datatracker SHOULD be programmed to automatically indicate the following: - The Datatracker SHOULD automatically indicate the state of I-D to be "WG Document" if the title of the I-D includes the name of the WG and the I-D is not expired and the I-D has not been manually moved into some other state by a WG Chair or delegate within one week of its submission to the I-D repository. (R-075) The Datatracker SHALL generate and send an e-mail to the WG chair and his/her delegates immediately after the submission of any I-D that includes the WG name in its title if the I-D is not already in one of the WG document states defined in [WGSTATES}. (R-076) - The Datatracker SHALL indicate that the status of an I-D that is in the "WG Document" state is to "Expired" if the document is more than six months old, and "Active" otherwise. (R-077) - The Datatracker SHALL automatically change the state of an I-D in the "WG Document" state to be "Submitted to IESG for Publication" in the WG state machine if the WG chair or delegate has not manually moved the document into this state by the time the Responsible Area Director identifies the I-D as being in the "Publication Requested" state in the IESG state machine. (R-078) 8. WG document status change reporting requirements Anyone with "write" access to WG document status information SHOULD be able to obtain a summary display of "everything that has changed with respect to the WG documents I am responsible for, since my last log-on" or "during the last 'n' weeks", where 'n' may be specified by the person who logged-on. (R-079) The Datatracker SHOULD provide a convenient way for a WG chair to obtain a summary of all status changes made to WG documents on his/her behalf by a delegate, since the last log-in by the chair or in the last 'n' weeks, where 'n' may be specified by the chair. (R-080) Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 9. WG document status reporting requirements The Datatracker SHALL provide a WG chair with an ability to create a list of all the drafts that he/she needs to follow in a single-page view. (R-081) The drafts to be followed may be all from the same working group, or they may be from different working groups, and they may include individual documents as well. (R-082) The Datatracker SHALL provide everyone with a convenient way to query the status of every document in an IETF working group and to see a display of the status of some or all of the documents in the working group. (R-083) The Datatracker SHALL also provide everyone with the ability to search for documents written by a specific author, or I-Ds in a specific WG document state, or having a specific 'intended maturity level', or having a specific annotation tag attached. (R-084) 10. Error handling requirements Errors with respect to inputting or updating the status of a WG document are possible. As a general rule, changes to the status of a working group document should be added to a history for each document that the Datatracker should maintain for every working group. The creation of new or updated status information MUST NOT erase, overwrite or cause the deletion of any previously entered status information. (R-085) Errors in data entry by a chair or delegate SHOULD be corrected by updating any erroneous status information in the Datatracker until the status of the document is correctly recorded. (R-086) For example, a document that was accidentally placed into the wrong state can be moved into the correct state by the chair (or delegate), and a comment msy be entered into the document's history log to explain what happened. 11. "Nice to have" features 11.1. Querying the status of more than one I-D at a time Many members of the IETF community do not have a log-on user-id or password for the Datatracker. They would appreciate having an ability to have the Datatracker display the status of more than one working group document at a time, in response to a single query. For example, people who volunteer to serve on drafting groups may be Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 interested in the status of several different drafts, in more than one working group. A "nice to have" feature would be to allow anyone to set up a drafting group document status page (on the Datatracker) to display the status of more than one document at a time. Each such page could be identified by a large random string of characters in a URL, and the Datatracker could have a garbage collection function to delete pages that have not been accessed in a long period of time (e.g. 6 months). The basic idea of this feature is to allow anyone to go to a page on the Datatracker and say "I want to create a status display page for a set of I-Ds". After appropriate Q&A and/or selection of the drafts to be tracked, the Datatracker could confirm that it has created the requested status display page by saying "OK. Whenever you wish to see the status of this group of drafts, go to: https://datatracker.ietf.org/pagegroups/07539aec572dfce01e81564999 12. Security Considerations This document does not propose any new internet mechanisms, and has no security implications for the internet. 13. IANA Considerations This document does not require any new number assignments from IANA, and does not define any new numbering spaces to be administered by IANA. RFC-Editor: Please remove this section before publication. 14. References 14.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels', RFC 2119, March 1997. [WGDRAFTS] Juskevicius, E., "Definition of WG Document States", work-in-process, draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-03, May 2010. [RFC4858] Levkowetz, H., et al., "Document Shepherding from Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Working Group Document States May 2010 Working Group Last Call to Publication", RFC 4858, May 2007. [RFC2418] Bradner, S., Ed., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 14.2. Informative References [IDTRACKER] "The IETF Datatracker tool", Web Application: https://datatracker.ietf.org/, May 1, 2010. [PROTO] Levkowetz, H., and Mankin, A., "Requirements on I-D Tracker Extensions for Working Group Chairs", draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-03, February 8, 2007. 15. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Henrik Levkowetz and Allison Mankin for writing the original I-D [PROTO] that contained many good ideas and served as a foundation for this document. The author would also like to thank Henrik Levkowetz, Scott Bradner, Robert Sparks, Spencer Dawkins, Russ Housley, Paul Hoffman, Andy Malis, other WG chairs and the participants in the wgdtspec BOF at IETF 77 for their comments and suggestions for requirements to extend the Datatracker. This document was initially prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. Author's Address Ed Juskevicius TrekAhead PO Box 491, Carp, ON CANADA Email: edj.etc@gmail.com Juskevicius Expires November 14, 2010 [Page 17]