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

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

[resent to correct Ray's address again]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: PROTO - proceeding on adding PROTO shepherds to the tracker
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:47:26 +0200
From: Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>
To: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],   Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Hi Brian,

Comments inline.  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).

 >> 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, 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.


 > 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?

 > 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...


	Henrik

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