💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc6359.txt captured on 2024-03-21 at 17:39:55.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Ginoza
Request for Comments: 6359 AMS
Category: Informational M. Cotton
ISSN: 2070-1721 ICANN
A. Morris
AMS
September 2011
Datatracker Extensions to
Include IANA and RFC Editor Processing Information
Abstract
This document captures the requirements for integrating IANA and RFC
Editor state information into the Datatracker to provide the
community with a unified tool to track the status of their document
as it progresses from Internet-Draft (I-D) version -00 to RFC.
Extending the Datatracker to hold document data from I-D version -00
to RFC allows for increased automation between the Datatracker, IANA,
and RFC Editor, thus reducing manual labor, processing errors, and
potential delay. Therefore, this document also describes the
requirements to make such automation possible.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6359.
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
1. Introduction
The IETF Datatracker is a web-based system for managing information
about Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) and RFCs, IPR disclosures, liaison
statements, and several other important aspects of the document
process [IDTRACKER]. In this document, the term "IETF Datatracker"
is used as a generic name for the existing tool used to track state
changes as Internet-Drafts are processed. The word "IETF" in the
name "IETF Datatracker" is not meant to limit use of the tool to the
IETF document stream; this document expands use of the tool to the
other streams described in [RFC4844].
The Datatracker is used to report on the status of I-Ds that have
been submitted to the IESG for evaluation and publication. The
Datatracker will be extended, according to the requirements defined
in [RFC6174] and [RFC6322], to include tracking information about a
document during its progression from version -00 to it being
requested for IESG evaluation. However, the Datatracker, ICANN
(performing the IANA function), and RFC Editor operate on separate
systems with varying degrees of visibility into the processing that
takes place once the stream managers have approved a document for
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
publication as an RFC. This document defines the requirements for
extending the Datatracker to include increased IANA and RFC Editor
state information, so that the Datatracker covers the lifetime of an
I-D from version -00 to RFC publication.
Additionally, this document lists the processes between the IANA, RFC
Editor, and Secretariat (via the Datatracker) that should be
automated for accuracy and timely processing. While this document
includes some details of the IANA, RFC Editor, and Secretariat
process, this document does not define any of the processes. The
processes are continually reviewed for process optimization and need
to remain flexible to adapt to new changes in policy and environment.
Processes are defined and set by each of the entities respectively.
The IANA and RFC Editor are functions independent of the IETF. When
an Internet-Draft enters the IANA queue, IANA retains ownership of
its own data, state names, and tracking systems. Similarly, when an
Internet-Draft enters the RFC Editor's queue, the RFC Editor retains
ownership of its own data, state names, and tracking systems. This
document discusses how the data from the IANA and RFC Editor queues
can be better reflected in the Datatracker to help inform the IETF
community what the state of a document is throughout its lifetime.
Prior to when an Internet-Draft is approved for publication as an
RFC, the Datatracker is the definitive source for tracking IANA
status information, and the IANA data is editable (by IANA and the
Secretariat) in the Datatracker. After an Internet-Draft is approved
for publication as an RFC, the IANA tracking system becomes the
definitive source for tracking IANA status information, and the data
can no longer be edited in the Datatracker. At that point, the data
in the Datatracker is only a reflection of the data in the IANA
tracking system. If there is a discrepancy between the two after
this point, the data in the IANA tracking system is assumed to be
correct.
The RFC Editor's tracking system is always the definitive source for
tracking the RFC Editor status of a document. RFC Editor data is not
editable via the Datatracker. The information in the Datatracker is
always a reflection of the information in the RFC Editor's tracking
system.
2. Integration of Data between the IANA and Datatracker
2.1. IANA Information to Be Added to the Datatracker
Currently, IANA reviews and touches IETF stream documents at 4
different stages in the process from I-D to RFC: IETF Last Call, IESG
Review, Document Approval (for publication), and RFC Publication.
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
Most of these state changes and issues are not captured in the
Datatracker. For the IRTF (Internet Research Task Force) and
Independent streams, the IANA review process begins when IESG Review
is requested. For the IAB (Internet Architecture Board) stream,
review would begin upon request for publication as an RFC.
This section specifies the requirements for including additional IANA
information in the Datatracker.
- IETF Last Call Comments
Currently, IANA reviews I-Ds that have been sent to IETF Last
Call, inputs comments in their data system, and then emails their
comments to authors, WG chairs, and then to the IESG. These
comments are also manually entered into the Datatracker for the
public record. However, it is difficult to determine whether the
IANA issues have been resolved. To help facilitate tracking of
IANA issues, a display is needed to show 5 new IANA substates, in
a similar fashion to how RFC Editor State is currently shown in
the Datatracker (see the example, later in this section, of how
IANA state information could appear in the Datatracker for
draft-example-00).
1) IANA Review Needed
This substate will allow the community, Secretariat, and IANA
to easily track which documents have or have not been reviewed
by IANA. If this substate is NOT set to "IANA Not OK", "IANA
OK -- Actions Needed", or "IANA OK -- No Actions Needed", the
substate should be set to "IANA Review Needed" by default (this
is the first substate for tracking IANA data). For documents
that originate from a non-IETF stream, the default will be
used.
2) IANA OK -- Actions Needed
This substate covers documents that require IANA actions, and
the IANA Considerations section indicates the details of the
actions correctly.
3) IANA OK -- No Actions Needed
This substate covers documents that require no IANA actions,
and the IANA Considerations section indicates this correctly.
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
Note: The substate will be set to "IANA OK -- Action Needed" or
"IANA OK -- No Actions Needed" (from "IANA Not OK") once any
outstanding issues have been resolved. The comments section will
be used to provide details in the History log about whether there
are no IANA actions, the text is OK, or the issues have been
resolved.
4) IANA Not OK
If IANA has issues with the text of the IANA Considerations
section of a document, the substate should be set to "IANA Not
OK", and the comment field should be populated with a
description of the issues and questions. In addition to any
questions IANA may have, IANA will also include in the comments
field whether expert review is required, if the document is
dependent on another document (e.g., document B registers
values in a registry created by document A, which hasn't been
published yet), and if there is a registry expert appointment
required.
5) Version Changed -- Review Needed
This substate will allow the community, Secretariat, and IANA
to easily track which documents have been reviewed and
subsequently when a version of an Internet-Draft in Last Call
has changed, therefore requiring a second review of the
document by IANA to ensure that either the IANA considerations
have not changed, or any changes made to the document affecting
IANA actions are clear. This substate applies to I-Ds that are
in any substate except "IANA Review Needed" and "Version
Changed -- Review Needed".
When new versions are available, the Datatracker will
automatically set the IANA substate to "Version Changed --
Review Needed".
Information providing the status of the IANA review (one of the 5
substates listed above) should be included as part of the evaluation
message (sent to the IESG) so that IANA can determine if, and what,
further action is required.
All comments will be recorded in the History log. However, to reduce
redundancy and manual effort, the Datatracker should provide the
ability to receive state information and related comments from the
IANA tracking system. There should be a notification that comments
have been entered in the IANA-maintained system, and entry of those
comments into the Datatracker and distribution of those comments to
the authors should be automated.
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
- IESG Evaluation
As not all documents receive an IETF Last Call, this state is
sometimes the first time that IANA reviews a document. For a
document that wasn't IETF Last Called, IANA reviews the document,
enters comments in their own tracking system, distributes email to
authors and other interested parties (e.g., WG chairs, ISE
(Independent Submissions Editor)), and then enters those same
comments into the Datatracker, where they are recorded in the
History log. In cases where a document was IETF Last Called, IANA
checks for and reviews version changes and re-reviews documents to
ensure that any identified IANA issues have been resolved.
Comments will continue to be recorded in the History log.
However, to reduce redundancy and manual effort, the Datatracker
should provide the ability for IANA to enter substate information
and related comments into the IANA tracking system, and
distribution of those comments to the authors and entry into the
Datatracker should be automated.
Ideally, the authors will have responded to and resolved any IANA
issues prior to the document being slated for an IESG telechat.
However, if any document continues to have an "IANA Not OK",
"Version Changed -- Review Needed", or "IANA Review Needed"
substate and is slated for the IESG telechat, it should be called
out in the Agenda Package. For example, it could appear as
follows:
o draft-example-00
Title of Internet-Draft
Note: John Doe (jdoe@example.com) is the document shepherd.
Token: Jane Doe
IANA: IANA Not OK
This will ensure that IANA and the Area Directors (ADs) are aware
that there are still IANA issues to be addressed prior to
publication, or that initial or follow-up IANA review is required
and not yet completed (in cases where the substate is listed as
"IANA Review Needed" or "Version Changed -- Review Needed").
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
- Document Approved for Publication
Once a document has been approved for publication, the document
enters the IANA queue and is tracked using IANA-defined states.
This state information is not currently available via the
Datatracker. In order for the community to view the IANA
processing states without being redirected to the IANA queue, the
Datatracker should be extended to include IANA state information
as defined by IANA. For example, IANA state information could
appear in the metadata portion of the document as follows:
Document type: Active Internet-Draft (FOO WG document)
Last updated: 2010-09-20
State: RFC Ed Queue
RFC Editor State: EDIT IANA
IANA State: In Progress
Intended status: Proposed Standard
IANA state-change information will link to the IANA queue, and
will be captured as a line item in the History log. IANA will
notify the Datatracker when changes are made in the IANA queue.
Once the IANA actions have been completed, the Datatracker History
log will be updated to include the actions completed by IANA
(i.e., the author-approved actions). This information will
include the same information that is sent to the RFC Editor upon
completion of IANA actions.
The IANA State field may be any of the states defined by IANA.
The list of IANA state names in use at the time this document was
published is provided in Appendix A; however, IANA states are
defined by IANA and are subject to change. If there are any
discrepancies between the state names listed in this document and
those listed on the IANA queue page
(http://www.iana.org/about/performance/ietf-draft-status/), the
IANA queue is definitive. States may be added or removed by IANA;
IANA will work with the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
(IAOC) to update the Datatracker as necessary.
- RFC Publication
References to the I-D are updated to refer to the RFC once it is
published, and minor updates may be made to match the published
RFC. This data will be tracked in the Datatracker to show when
the references in the IANA registries were updated to include the
newly assigned RFC number.
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
2.2. Future IANA Information to Be Available via the Datatracker
The document "Definition of IETF Working Group Document States"
[RFC6174] includes the following:
4.3.1. Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
This tag means that someone (e.g., an author or editor of the
WG draft, or a WG Chair) has initiated an expert review of the
document and the review has not yet been completed and/or the
resolution of issues raised by the review has not yet been
completed. Examples of expert reviews include cross-area
reviews, MIB Doctor reviews, security expert reviews, and IANA
reviews.
WG drafts tagged with this annotation should retain the tag
until the review is complete and possibly until any issues
raised in the review are addressed.
IANA is in the process of documenting how an expert review is
conducted during the lifetime of an Internet-Draft. Once the process
has been defined, the Datatracker should be updated to indicate if a
document requires "Expert Review" [RFC5226] (either for the entire
document or a portion thereof); if the expert reviewer has issues
with what they are being requested to review; and, if applicable,
whether the expert reviewer has approved or rejected the requested
registration(s). There may be a need to complete expert reviews
again before publication of a document if there have been changes to
the text relevant to the review by the expert. In cases where a new
registry is being created in the document, an indicator of whether an
expert needs to be appointed by the IESG would also be useful.
2.3. Permissions to Change IANA State Information
IANA state changes should be automated, but IANA should have the
ability to log in to the Datatracker to manually update the system as
well.
The IETF Secretariat should also have the ability to change the IANA
state if necessary.
It is expected that this feature would only be used to correct
issues; it is not intended to be part of regular operations.
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
3. Integration of Data between the RFC Editor and Datatracker
For quite some time, the RFC Editor was seen as a black box, where
documents were submitted for publication, went through some process,
and came out as RFCs. Over time, the community asked for a more
transparent process; thus, state information was made available on
the RFC Editor website. Currently, some of that state information is
available from the Datatracker. However, for additional transparency
about the RFC Editor process, the Datatracker should be extended to
hold supplementary RFC Editor state and process (e.g., MISSREF)
information. This section defines the requirements for RFC Editor
state information to be added to the Datatracker to provide more
transparency and allow for a unified end-to-end tracking system.
3.1. RFC Editor Information to Be Added to the Datatracker
Once a document has been approved for publication, the document
enters the RFC Editor queue and is tracked using RFC-Editor-defined
states. Some RFC Editor state information is currently available via
the Datatracker, but the information is not stored in the History
log. RFC-Editor-defined state information will continue to be shown
as is done currently. In addition, a line item will be entered into
the History log each time a document changes state. The RFC Editor
shall continue to provide a queue file to allow data extraction; in
addition, there will be a machine-readable notification to the
Datatracker when state changes are made.
RFC Editor state information should continue to appear in the
metadata portion of the document available using the Datatracker.
For example, an entry might appear as follows (including the IANA
State information):
Document type: Active Internet-Draft (TLS WG document)
Last updated: 2010-09-20
State: RFC Ed Queue
RFC Editor State: EDIT IANA
IANA State: In Progress
Intended status: Proposed Standard
The RFC Editor State field may be any of the states defined by the
RFC Editor. The list of RFC Editor state names in use at the time
this document was published is provided in Appendix B, but RFC Editor
states are defined by the RFC Editor and are subject to change. If
there are any discrepancies between the state names listed in this
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
document and those listed on the RFC Editor queue page
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html), the RFC Editor queue is
definitive. States may be added or removed by the RFC Editor; the
RFC Editor will work with the IAOC to update the Datatracker as
necessary.
Although RFC Editor state information is already available in the
Datatracker, the Datatracker should be updated to include some
additional data that may help individuals understand the status of
their document. In particular, the Datatracker should be updated to
include the following data:
1) links to AUTH48 pages
AUTH48 pages provide information about which authors have approved
the document for publication, whether AD approval is required, and
sometimes a summary of issues that need to be resolved before the
document can move forward.
2) links to the cluster pages
Clusters are defined as documents with normative reference
dependencies, and documents that have been requested for
simultaneous publication. (For more information, see
http://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_def.html.) The cluster pages
provide a view of the entire set of state information for
clustered documents.
Note: The RFC Editor has been working with the cluster data to
provide the community with accurate state information at the
appropriate level of detail. The RFC Editor database may require
significant updates before this data can be integrated with the
Datatracker.
3) RFC metadata upon publication
The RFC Editor will notify the Datatracker when a new RFC has been
published, and the Datatracker should have the ability to
automatically update the relevant fields with data related to the
published RFC. In particular, the RFC number will be recorded in
the Datatracker. However, note that all fields are subject to
change during editing and should be updated; for example, the
document title and the list of authors are sometimes changed, and
character counts and page counts are always changed.
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
4) notation when documents are withdrawn from the RFC Editor queue
If a document is to be removed from the RFC Editor / IANA queues,
the responsible party (e.g., AD or Secretariat) should change the
state of the document in the Datatracker to something other than
"RFC Ed Queue". The Datatracker should provide a text box to
allow the responsible party to record details about the state
change. The state change and the related details will be recorded
in the History log. The state change in the Datatracker will
trigger an email message to the RFC Editor and IANA as
notification that the state of the document has been set to the
newly assigned state, with the details provided in the text box.
The RFC Editor and IANA will update their queues accordingly, and
the document will disappear from their respective queues.
4. Other Updates to the Datatracker
While the primary goal of this document is to update the Datatracker
to display the IANA and RFC Editor process state information, the
Datatracker could hold additional data for use by IANA and the RFC
Editor that would allow for increased automation, thus reducing the
potential for delays and processing errors. This section defines
requirements for updates to the Datatracker to eliminate some of the
administrative tasks currently performed by staff.
4.1. Datatracker to IANA
When a document is approved for publication, data will be provided in
a machine-readable format and will include (in addition to the usual
Document/Protocol Action emails) the data requested by the RFC Editor
in Section 4.2.
4.2. Datatracker to RFC Editor
When a document is approved for publication, data will be provided in
a machine-readable format and will include the following (in addition
to the usual Document/Protocol Action emails):
- I-D String
- Document Title
- Author List
- Author Email Addresses
- Author Organizations (if available)
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
- Expedited Goal Date (if applicable)
Note: This field needs to be editable for post-approval
changes.
- Publication Status (as defined in [RFC2026])
- Consensus (yes/no)
- Source (Working Group or Research Group name, Individual,
or alternate-stream name)
Note: The RFC Editor database may require updates before
Research Group data can be received from the Datatracker.
- IESG Contact
- Document Shepherd <email>
Note: This is the individual currently listed in the
"Personnel" section of a Document/Protocol Action.
- IANA Actions Required
Most of these items are already stored in the Datatracker. However,
the following fields need to be added:
- Expedited Goal Date
- Consensus (yes/no)
- Document Shepherd <email>
- IANA Actions Required
"Consensus" is as used in [RFC5741]; it determines the appropriate
Status of This Memo text to be applied to IETF and IRTF documents.
The Consensus field should be set by the responsible individuals, and
it should be listed in the Agenda Package provided before an IESG
telechat so that the Area Directors can quickly review the status of
the documents under review and correct the field if Consensus was not
received.
Additionally, the Agenda Package provided before an IESG telechat
should show the expiration date of the IETF Last Call. This will be
helpful for the ADs and the Secretariat to track the IETF Last Call
timeline.
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
When a document has been added to the RFC Editor queue (i.e., shows
an RFC Editor state in the Datatracker), an automated note should be
sent to the Secretariat as acknowledgment that the announcement has
been received.
4.2.1. Notifications
The Datatracker should notify the RFC Editor and the Sponsoring AD
when a version of an I-D has been made available after the document
has been approved for publication.
Additionally, the Datatracker should notify the RFC Editor and IANA
when the state of an I-D has been moved to something other than "RFC
Ed Queue" or "RFC Published" -- that is, when it should be removed
from the RFC Editor and IANA processing queues. See item 4) in
Section 3.1 for more details.
4.2.2. Datatracker Extensions for Alternate Streams
Once the Datatracker has been updated for the alternate streams
[RFC6322], the Datatracker should be updated so that the following
are automated:
- The Datatracker should not expire any I-Ds that are under review
for publication.
- The Datatracker should automatically notify the approving body
when an I-D that is under review has been updated (i.e., a new
version has been made available).
- The Datatracker should be updated so that the Agenda package lists
I-Ds according to the stream that requested publication. This
should help provide additional clarity during IESG Reviews, as
there will be a clear indication of from which stream a document
originates.
4.2.2.1. Publication Requests
RFC 6322 [RFC6322] lists the requirements for extending the
Datatracker to account for alternate-stream states and annotations.
In particular, the document introduces the "Sent to the RFC Editor"
state, which means the document is complete and has been sent to the
RFC Editor for publication.
The Datatracker will provide a means for the alternate streams to
generate a uniform publication request. Using the Datatracker, the
stream managers should be able to generate a publication request that
contains the relevant information for any approved I-D.
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
Additionally, the Datatracker will provide the data (the same data
provided for any IETF publication request -- see Section 4.2) in a
machine-readable format. This data will be available to the IANA and
RFC Editor, so that data entry into the IANA and RFC Editor systems
can be automated.
This update will allow the IANA and RFC Editor to handle documents in
a similar manner, regardless of the document's stream.
4.3. Reporting Requirements
The Datatracker should have a "Show Discrepancies" feature. It
should show all records in the Datatracker that fit certain criteria
(that seem to be a discrepancy). In addition to showing data on
screen, it should send an email to defined interested parties at
regular intervals (e.g., weekly). This feature will only be
available to a subset of individuals (namely, IANA, RFC Editor, and
the Secretariat), to ensure that their queues are in sync. This will
be especially helpful as the Datatracker is extended (now and in the
future), to ensure that all parties are receiving the correct
messages/data.
An initial set of discrepancies should be defined, and additional
discrepancies could be defined over time. For example, the initial
set of discrepancies could include the following:
- Show drafts that have passed through the state "Approved
Announcement sent" but do not have an RFC Editor state.
- Show drafts that have IANA state "In Progress", but RFC Editor
State is not equal to "IANA" or does not contain "*A" (see
Appendix B).
- Show drafts that have IANA state "Waiting on RFC Editor" or
"RFC-Ed-Ack", but RFC Editor State is "IANA" or contains "*A"
(see Appendix B).
- Show drafts that have a state of something other than "RFC Ed
Queue" or "RFC Published" that are listed in the RFC Editor or
IANA queues.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not propose any new Internet mechanisms, and has
no security implications for the Internet.
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
Appendix A. Current IANA States and Definitions
The currently defined IANA states are listed below.
* No value (blank) - A new document has been received by IANA, but
no actions have been taken
* In Progress - IANA is currently processing the actions for this
document
* Waiting on Authors - IANA is waiting on the document's authors
to respond
* Waiting on ADs - IANA is waiting on the IETF Area Directors to
respond
* Waiting on WGC - IANA is waiting on the IETF Working Group
Chairs to respond
* Waiting on RFC Editor - IANA has notified the RFC Editor that
the actions have been completed
* RFC-Ed-Ack - Request completed. The RFC Editor has acknowledged
receipt of IANA's message that the actions have been completed
* On Hold - IANA has suspended work on the document
* No IC - Request completed. There were no IANA actions for this
document
IANA states are defined by IANA and are subject to change. If there
are any discrepancies between the state names listed in this document
and those listed on the IANA queue page
(http://www.iana.org/about/performance/ietf-draft-status/), the IANA
queue is definitive.
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
Appendix B. Current RFC Editor States and Definitions
The currently defined RFC Editor Queue states are listed below.
* AUTH = Awaiting Author Action
* AUTH48 = Awaiting final author approval
* EDIT = Approved by the stream manager (e.g., IESG, IAB, IRSG,
ISE), awaiting processing and publishing
* IANA = RFC-Editor/IANA Registration Coordination
* IESG = Holding for IESG Action
* ISR = Independent Submission Review by the ISE
* ISR-AUTH = Independent Submission awaiting author update, or in
discussion between author and ISE
* REF = Holding for normative reference (followed by I-D string of
referenced document)
* RFC-EDITOR = Awaiting final rfc-editor review before AUTH48
* TO = Time-out period during which the IESG reviews document for
conflict/concurrence with other IETF working group work
(followed by date)
* MISSREF = Awaiting missing normative reference
RFC Editor states are defined by the RFC Editor and are subject to
change. If there are any discrepancies between the state names
listed in this document and those listed on the RFC Editor queue page
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html), the RFC Editor queue is
definitive.
Currently, there are also a couple of state annotations used in RFC
Editor state-change emails. These do not alter the Datatracker in
any way, but are listed here for completeness:
*A = indicates that IANA actions are required
*R = indicates potential REFerence holds
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
Normative References
[IDTRACKER] "The IETF Datatracker tool", Web Application:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/, August 26, 2011.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "The
RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5741] Daigle, L., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Streams,
Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December 2009.
[RFC6174] Juskevicius, E., "Definition of IETF Working Group
Document States", RFC 6174, March 2011.
[RFC6322] Hoffman, P., "Datatracker States and Annotations for the
IAB, IRTF, and Independent Submission Streams", RFC 6322,
July 2011.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
input:
Amanda Baber
Glen Barney
Adrian Farrel
Alice Hagens
Paul Hoffman
Russ Housley
Ed Juskevicius
Henrik Levkowetz
Cindy Morgan
Ray Pelletier
Peter Saint-Andre
Robert Sparks
Amy Vezza
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 6359 More Datatracker Updates September 2011
Authors' Addresses
Sandy Ginoza
Association Management Solutions
48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117
Fremont, CA 94538
United States
Phone: +1 (510) 492-4000
EMail: sginoza@amsl.com
URI: http://www.amsl.com/
Michelle Cotton
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
United States
Phone: +310-823-9358
EMail: michelle.cotton@icann.org
URI: http://www.iana.org/
Alexa Morris
Association Management Solutions
48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117
Fremont, CA 94538
United States
Phone: +1 (510) 492-4000
EMail: amorris@amsl.com
URI: http://www.amsl.com/
Ginoza, et al. Informational [Page 18]