[charter-tool] Quick look at draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool-02

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 27 December 2010 23:57 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: charter-tool@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: charter-tool@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89263A68F6 for <charter-tool@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:57:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rSJGV1+BNjOc for <charter-tool@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6058C3A6811 for <charter-tool@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5705F9A47BD; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:00:53 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4vrWZ3q5vdhu; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:59:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-96-231-58-190.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.231.58.190]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814D59A4727; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:00:52 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <p06240880c9385b3cfbf0@[10.20.30.150]>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:59:50 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <997535C7-BE65-46D7-AD78-CC0D63E4A6C8@vigilsec.com>
References: <B5CB4F893F53452599F0A58FF3405C5A@23FX1C1> <p06240880c9385b3cfbf0@[10.20.30.150]>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: charter-tool@ietf.org
Subject: [charter-tool] Quick look at draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool-02
X-BeenThere: charter-tool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <charter-tool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/charter-tool>, <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/charter-tool>
List-Post: <mailto:charter-tool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/charter-tool>, <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:57:48 -0000

I did not do a complete read of the document, but I was looking at it for other reasons, so I thought I would share the comments that emerged with the list.

Section 2.1 -- why is a step-by-step process needed?  It seems to me that the AD should fill in a very simple form, and hit a 'create charter record' button.  It should fail if there is already a record by the proposed name, otherwise it should succeed.  This should not be complex.

Section 2.2 -- any AD should be able to make changes.  The Datatracker has an AD role, and it is used to determine access to many things.  However, all ADs have equal access to everything.  This works will because changes are kept in the history.  Thus, a history of changes (and who made them) is needed here too.

Section 2.3 -- again, and AD can move the charter through the process.

Section 2.3 -- the state machine seems incomplete to me.  I see the process this way:

(A) AD posts a draft charter for "informal" discussion.
    [This may lead to mail list discussion and the posting of one or
    more charter updates.]

(B) AD submits a draft charter for "internal review."
    [The proposed WG is added to the "Current List" of Proposed Working
    Groups, and it automatically appears on the "Working Groups under
    IESG Review" Web page.  The draft charter is sent by email to the
    IESG, the IAB, and the proposed WG Chairs, if they have been named.
    This may lead to mail list discussion and the posting of one or
    more charter updates.]

(C) The AD decides that the charter is ready for external review.
    [The draft charter is placed on the agenda for an upcoming Telechat.]

(D) WG Review (This discussion takes place on the Telechat)
    [The IESG decides if the WG is ready for external review. If not,
    the draft charter goes back to the drawing board or is shelved. If
    so, a "WG Review" message is sent to the IETF Announcement List with
    a copy to the WG mailing list, if it exists, and blind copies to the
    proposed WG Chairs, if they are known. A separate "WG Review"
    message is sent to new-work@ietf.org. Finally, the draft charter
    is placed on the agenda for the next Telechat. Of course, discussion
    may lead to the posting of one or more charter updates.]
    
(E) WG Action Discussion (This takes place on the Telechat)
    [The IESG decides if the WG is ready to be approved.  If not, the
    draft charter goes back to the drawing board or is shelved. If so,
    the proposed WG is deleted from the "Current List" of Proposed
    Working Groups, and it is automatically removed from the "Working
    Groups under IESG Review" Web page. If the mail list is not already
    in place, it is created.  Either way, it is added to the web page of
    WG mail lists. A "WG Action" message is sent to the IETF Announcement
    List with copies to the Chairs of the new WG and to the WG mailing
    list.]

Section 2.4 -- There needs to be two kinds of comments: discuss and comment.  This should reuse as much of the document ballot semantics (and code) as possible.

Russ