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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Comments inline.

ditto

>  I've put up new working documents (-01.a and -01.b,
> respectively, at
> 
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/proto/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext/
> 
> and
> 
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/proto/draft-ietf-proto-iab-irtf-tracker-ext/
> 
> but note that more input is needed related to some comments below:
> 
> 
> on 2006-05-14 13:34 Brian E Carpenter said the following:
> 
>>Thanks. Here are my comments on the two drafts.
>>
>>One general question: has Michael Lee reviewed them
>>for gotchas?
> 
> 
> No, not yet.  I'll send a note asking him to check out the -00
> versions.
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> 
>>    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.
> 
> 
> Ok.  What about an additional bullet and requirement:
> 
>    *  An updated state table and state diagram, with restricted
>       features clearly identified in both (R-010).

Thanks

>>>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"?
> 
> 
> Certainly. Added.
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> If the tracker currently supports notification triggers, I'd add
> that here - but I don't think it does,

It does for certain transitions - Michael can advise.

> and in that case I'd suggest
> we pull this information from the tracker in the review support tool
> which Tero Kivinen is currently working on.  I'll forward a copy of
> this mail to him, for information.
> 
> 
>>>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."
> 
> 
> Proposed revision, specifying 'working group document is in "IESG Eval...'
> and adding a clarifying sentence at the end:
> 
>    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
>    working group 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).  Non-WG
>    documents continue to change state to "AD Followup" as before.

Exactly
> 
> 
> 
>>draft-ietf-proto-iab-irtf-tracker-ext-00
>>
>>You don't mention access control.
> 
> 
> Not sure I know exactly what you think of here - this document
> was only supposed to describe the additional IAB and IRTF states
> needed, and having little knowledge of their process, I expect
> someone else to provide the needed text adjustment for those.
> But I get the impression that you also expect special access
> control restrictions associated with the IAB and IRTF states

Well, I hadn't really thought it through - but they presumably will
only have write access for IAB/IRTF drafts respectively.
> 
> 
>>I'm surprised you don't expect "Revised ID Needed" to be used.
> 
> 
> I'm sure it should - I've added it in a couple of places in rev. 01.b,
> but my confidence that these states are accurate until we get text
> from the IAB / IRTF is still low...

:-)

      Brian
> 
> 
> 	Henrik
> 

_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team