[proto-team] Re: PROTO - proceeding on adding PROTO shepherds to the tracker

[resend due to address problem the first time]

Thanks. Here are my comments on the two drafts.

One general question: has Michael Lee reviewed them
for gotchas?

One general suggestion: let's not waste time in the RFC queue
with these. Once they're agreed, just do it. You can post
<?rfc private ?> versions on the PROTO site for the record.

    Brian

draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-00

> 2.  I-D Tracker Write Access
...
>    *  Identification of the actions and information which may not be
>       accessed by all users (R-002).  Such actions and information will
>       be called 'restricted features' in the following.  Some known
>       restricted features are:

It would be good to see an updated and marked-up state table and
state diagram, with the restricted features clearly identified.

> 3.1.  WG Document States
...
> 
>    *  WG Document Awaiting Reviews
>       This document needs reviews (possibly a certain number of reviews,
>       at a minimum) before a WG last call will be done.
> 
>       Possible next states: "Active WG Document", "Parked WG Document",
>       "Publication Requested", "In WG Last Call", "Dead"
> 
>       Permitted sub-states: "0 reviews", "1 reviews", "2 reviews", "3
>       reviews", "4 reviews", "5 reviews", "Awaiting MIB Doctor Review",
>       *** More special review states ***
>       (R-008)

This will be very useful for the proposed early cross-area review
mechanism. (Since the recent IESG retreat, Lisa owns that topic.)
Can we have a substate "Awaiting cross-area review"?

Linked to that, what happens about state change notifications?
For example, the dispatcher for cross-area reviews needs to get
a trigger when the sub-state "Awaiting cross-area review" is set.

> 5.  Modification of Existing States
> 
>    One existing sub-state in the tracker should be modified to reflect
>    the role of the WG document shepherds.
> 
>    The sub-state "AD Followup" is defined as generic and may be used for
>    many purposes by an Area Director.  However, the tracker
>    automatically assigns this sub-state when a document which has been
>    in the "Revised ID Needed" sub-state is updated.  The "AD Followup"
>    sub-state shall continue to exist for the first purpose, but when a
>    document is in "IESG Evaluation - Revised ID Needed" and an update
>    arrives, it shall receive an automatic state change to a new sub-
>    state instead: "Doc Shepherd Followup" (R-022).

But not for non-WG documents, which should still get "AD Followup."

draft-ietf-proto-iab-irtf-tracker-ext-00

You don't mention access control.

I'm surprised you don't expect "Revised ID Needed" to be used.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
proto-team@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team