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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

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I guess we should then also introduce a state 'Superseded' or 'Obsoleted'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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-wgcharter-tool
> 
>