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

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Tue, 30 August 2011 15:49 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 70FE821F8CE1 for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 dwU8H-ikNC+C for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:49:07 -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 CA03B21F8CDF for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40695 helo=brunello.netnod.se) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1QyQZi-0007k7-OS; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:50:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4E5D06AE.601@levkowetz.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:50:06 +0200
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on merlot.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Subject: [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: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:49:07 -0000

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