Re: [iola-wgcharter-tool] A question about the states in RFC 6292

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Wed, 31 August 2011 10:41 UTC

Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.com>
X-Original-To: iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F2321F85F2 for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nn6d+JKsmubF for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31:214:22ff:fe21:bb]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 203BD21F8591 for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brunello.autonomica.se ([2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e]:62843 helo=brunello.netnod.se) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1QyiFJ-00076F-KE; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:42:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4E5E0FFA.5030802@levkowetz.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:42:02 +0200
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <4E5D06AE.601@levkowetz.com> <9963548E-4AA4-4D13-8E39-9F2A1541BE4E@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <9963548E-4AA4-4D13-8E39-9F2A1541BE4E@vigilsec.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig9A5A5F5157971914E80372B9"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: housley@vigilsec.com, iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org)
Cc: iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [iola-wgcharter-tool] A question about the states in RFC 6292
X-BeenThere: iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the IOLA / WG Charter Tool Project <iola-wgcharter-tool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iola-wgcharter-tool>, <mailto:iola-wgcharter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iola-wgcharter-tool>
List-Post: <mailto:iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iola-wgcharter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-wgcharter-tool>, <mailto:iola-wgcharter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:41:07 -0000

Hi Russ,

On 2011-08-31 00:25 Russ Housley said:
> Henrik:
> 
> I see a  problem with your proposal as I understand it.
> 
> When there is a charter in place, a recharter is a discussion about
> replacing that charter. The potential recharter can take many
> revisions, and while this is happening, the original charter remain
> the 'active' one. When the recharter is approved, it become the
> 'active' one. So, during the recharter there are two documents in
> play.

You're right.  The simplest way to handle this would be to simply let
the charters be multiple documents, named for instance

  charter-foowg-00  with revs 00, 01, 02 etc (charter-foowg-00-00.txt etc.)
  charter-foowg-01  with revs 00, 01, 02 etc (charter-foowg-01-00.txt etc.)

and publish the final, approved version as charter-foowg-00.txt, etc. if
we want to keep exactly to the numbering scheme in the RFC.  Then the
charters would have different independent states.

I guess we should then also introduce a state 'Superseded' or 'Obsoleted'
or 'Historic' for old charters once new ones has been put in place.  There
could also be a replaces/replaced-by relationship linking the documents.

Do you think that would work?


Best regards,

	Henrik

> Russ
> 
> 
> On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> While implementing the WG Charter tool, we discovered a potential problem
>> with the state description in RFC 6292,
>>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6292
>>
>> The RFC describes one set of review states for a WG during initial
>> chartering, and another set of review states during re-chartering:
>>
>> Initial:
>>   o  Informal IESG review
>>   o  Internal review
>>   o  External review
>>   o  IESG review
>>   o  WG exists
>>   o  Not currently under review
>>
>> Rechartering:
>>   o  WG exists; Informal IESG recharter review
>>   o  WG exists; Internal recharter review
>>   o  WG exists; External recharter review
>>
>> Now, the objects which exists in the database which are relevant for
>> the chartering process are two:  A *WG Object* (which before the RFC 6292
>> extensions can be in one of two states: 'Active' and 'Concluded'), and a
>> *Document Object*, the Charter, which potentially can get any set of
>> appropriate states we care to assign it.
>>
>> There is no 'WG Review' object to hold a 'review state', and there seems
>> to be a mixture in what the review states listed above applies to - WG,
>> charter, or a review process.
>>
>> Our suggestion, and the way we have implemented this in the code currently,
>> is to split the states up as described below.  From these states, all of
>> the 'review states' above can be synthesized if desired, although we would
>> propose that it's more straightforward to display the WG state and the
>> Charter document state directly:
>>
>>  * The WG object keeps its current states, and gets a new one:
>> 	o Proposed
>> 	o Active
>> 	o Concluded
>>
>>  * The Charter Document Object gets the following states:
>> 	o Informal IESG Review
>> 	o  Informal IESG review
>> 	o  Internal review
>> 	o  External review
>> 	o  IESG review
>> 	o  Not currently under review
>> 	o Approved
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> 	Henrik
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iola-wgcharter-tool mailing list
>> iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-wgcharter-tool
> 
>