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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 30 August 2011 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 1FBF221F8F5E for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, 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 8iuUimgNNFW4 for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7524221F8F59 for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07EADF240DE; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:25:41 -0400 (EDT)
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 rnltoQbeaA0N; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:25:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.101] (pool-96-231-29-247.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.231.29.247]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49798F24028; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:25:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E5D06AE.601@levkowetz.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:25:34 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9963548E-4AA4-4D13-8E39-9F2A1541BE4E@vigilsec.com>
References: <4E5D06AE.601@levkowetz.com>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:24:13 -0000

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.

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