draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-04.txt   draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-05.txt 
Network Working Group P. Hoffman Network Working Group P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft VPN Consortium Internet-Draft VPN Consortium
Intended status: Informational January 17, 2011 Intended status: Informational January 28, 2011
Expires: July 21, 2011 Expires: August 1, 2011
Requirements for Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker Requirements for Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker
draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-04 draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-05
Abstract Abstract
The document gives a set of requirements for extending the IETF The document gives a set of requirements for extending the IETF
Datatracker to give individual IETF community members, including the Datatracker to give individual IETF community members, including the
IETF leadership, easy methods for tracking the progress of the IETF leadership, easy methods for tracking the progress of the
Internet Drafts of interest to them. Internet Drafts and RFCs of interest to them.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 21, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Context for This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. Context for This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Definitions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3. Definitions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4. Expected user interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.4. Expected user interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5. Discussion of These Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.5. Discussion of These Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Requirements for Tools Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Requirements for Tools Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1. Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1. Requirement: Lists of drafts can be large . . . . . . 7 2.1.1. Requirement: Lists of drafts and RFCs can be large . . 7
2.1.2. Requirement: Every Datatracker user can create a 2.1.2. Requirement: Every Datatracker user can create a
list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.3. Requirement: Read-only views of private lists can 2.1.3. Requirement: Read-only views of private lists can
be made visible to others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 be made visible to others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.4. Requirement: The Datatracker must support optional 2.1.4. Requirement: The Datatracker must support optional
publicly-readable lists for WGs and Area Directors . . 8 publicly-readable lists for WGs and Area Directors . . 8
2.1.5. Requirement: Specifying the drafts that are in a 2.1.5. Requirement: Specifying the drafts and RFCs that
list must be simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 are in a list must be simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.6. Requirement: Adding groups of drafts to a list by 2.1.6. Requirement: Adding groups of drafts to a list by
attribute must be simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 attribute must be simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.7. Tombstone: lists dynamically including other lists . . 10 2.1.7. Requirement: These extensions must not make the
2.1.8. Later Requirement: Users can add comments to say
why they added a draft or group . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.9. Requirement: These extensions must not make the
Datatracker take up too many resources . . . . . . . . 10 Datatracker take up too many resources . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.10. Requirement: Private information must not be 2.1.8. Requirement: Private information must not be
exposed in lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 exposed in lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1. Requirement: Users can be notified when a draft 2.2.1. Requirement: Users can be notified when a draft
changes status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 changes status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.2. Requirement: Every list has Atom feeds associated 2.2.2. Requirement: Every list has Atom feeds associated
with it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 with it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.3. Requirement: Every list has mail streams 2.2.3. Requirement: Every list has mail streams
associated with it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 associated with it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.4. Requirement: Notifications need to specify which 2.2.4. Requirement: Notifications need to specify which
list caused the notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 list caused the notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.5. Later Requirement: The tool must have instructions 2.3. Display in the Datatracker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
on how to use it Atom feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3. Display in the Datatracker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.1. Requirement: Users can define how the rows are 2.3.1. Requirement: Users can define how the rows are
sorted in a display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 sorted in a display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.2. Requirement: Users can choose which attributes to 2.3.2. Requirement: Users can choose which attributes to
display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.3. Requirement: Users can flag drafts with dates in 2.3.3. Requirement: Users can flag drafts with dates in
the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.4. Requirement: Users can specify highlighting of 2.3.4. Requirement: Users can specify highlighting of
drafts with recent changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 drafts and RFCs with recent changes . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4. File Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4. File Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.1. Requirement: Users can get their current list as a 2.4.1. Requirement: Users can get their current list as a
single file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 single file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Possible Tracking of Non-draft Documents . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. Possible Tracking of Other Documents . . . . . . . . 16
A.1. Tracking RFC Status Changes and Errata . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.1. Tracking WG Charter Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.2. Tracking WG Charter Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.2. Tracking IANA Registry Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.3. Tracking IANA Registry Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.3. Tracking Changes in the Liason Statement Directory . . . . 16
A.4. Tracking Changes in the Liason Statement Directory . . . . 17 A.4. Tracking Changes in Documents Outside the IETF Sphere . . 16
A.5. Tracking Changes in Documents Outside the IETF Sphere . . 17
Appendix B. Some Known Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix B. Some Known Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix C. Ideas that Might Be Implemented Later . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix C. Ideas that Might Be Implemented Later . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix D. Differences Between -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix D. Differences Between -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF Datatracker is used by many IETF community members to find The IETF Datatracker is used by many IETF community members to find
the status of Internet Drafts (I-Ds) and view drafts that meet the status of Internet Drafts (I-Ds) and RFCs, and view drafts and
particular criteria. The current Datatracker, found at RFCs that meet particular criteria. The current Datatracker, found
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/>, allows anyone to search for active at <https://datatracker.ietf.org/>, allows anyone to search for
I-Ds and get a list of drafts matching the given criteria. (The active I-Ds and RFCs, and get a list matching the given criteria.
Datatracker also allows for searching RFCs and expired I-Ds, but (The Datatracker also allows for expired I-Ds, but those are not
those are not relevant to this discussion.) relevant to this discussion.)
Users can search in the Datatracker by the filename of the draft, Users can search in the Datatracker by the filename of the draft,
words in the draft's title, author, associated Working Group (WG) or words in the draft's title, author, associated Working Group (WG) or
IETF area, the responsible Area Director (AD), or IESG status. The IETF area, the responsible Area Director (AD), or IESG status. They
returned list of drafts includes five columns: draft filename (with can search for RFCs by number or words in the title. The returned
an active link to an HTMLized version of the draft maintained by the list of drafts and/or RFCs includes five columns: filename or RFC
IETF tools team), the draft's title, the date it was submitted, its number (with an active link to an HTMLized version maintained by the
status in the IETF process, and the responsible AD (if any). For IETF tools team), the document's title, the date it was published,
example, the output of a search in the current Datatracker can be its status in the IETF or RFC process, and the responsible AD (if
seen at <http://imgur.com/snfyl.png>. any). For example, the output of a search in the current Datatracker
can be seen at <http://imgur.com/DD3AL>.
Instead of using the search capability of the Datatracker to manually Instead of using the search capability of the Datatracker to manually
find I-Ds of interest, users might want to create a list of drafts find I-Ds and RFCs of interest, users might want to create a list of
that they normally follow. Some users will want to keep their list drafts that they normally follow. Some users will want to keep their
to themselves, but others will want to allow others to view their list to themselves, but others will want to allow others to view
list. their list.
Different users in the IETF community will have different ways that Different users in the IETF community will have different ways that
they want to get information on draft updates and status. Many users they want to get information on draft and RFC updates and status.
will want to be notified immediately, such as through an Atom feed Many users will want to be notified immediately, such as through an
(see [RFC4287]) or automatically-generated email. Many users will Atom feed (see [RFC4287]) or automatically-generated email. Many
want to only find out about updates when they go to a web page. Many users will want to only find out about updates when they go to a web
users might want to get the data for a list as input to other tools. page. Many users might want to get the data for a list as input to
And, of course, some users will want all three. All of these desires other tools. And, of course, some users will want all three. All of
are related to the overall desire to track drafts through their these desires are related to the overall desire to track drafts
lifecycle. through their lifecycle.
1.1. Usage Scenarios 1.1. Usage Scenarios
The main motivation for these proposed changes to the Datatracker is The main motivation for these proposed changes to the Datatracker is
to allow a variety of potential users to be able to track drafts and to allow a variety of potential users to be able to track drafts and
thus be better able to see when important events happen. A few RFCs, and thus be better able to see when important events happen. A
examples include: few examples include:
o A WG chair might want to keep a list of all the drafts from other o A WG chair might want to keep a list of all the drafts from other
WGs that relate to active drafts in his or her WG. WGs that relate to active drafts in his or her WG.
o That same WG chair might want to help WG members be able to follow o That same WG chair might want to help WG members be able to follow
the same drafts that he or she is following. the same drafts that he or she is following.
o Someone who cares about an established topic such as the DNS may o Someone who cares about an established topic such as the DNS may
want to follow the various drafts that might make changes to the want to follow the various drafts that might make changes to the
DNS. This would include not only drafts that are in the many WGs DNS, as well as seeing if any of the DNS RFCs are later updated
that directly are changing the DNS (DNSEXT, DNSOP, BEHAVE, and so and/or have errata posted against them. This would include not
on), but also individual submissions, IAB drafts, and even IRTF only drafts that are in the many WGs that directly are changing
research. the DNS (DNSEXT, DNSOP, BEHAVE, and so on), but also individual
submissions, IAB drafts, and even IRTF research. It would also
include RFCs from before when WGs were tracked.
o Developers who are not active in the IETF process might want to o Developers who are not active in the IETF process might want to
lightly follow drafts on a particular topic to watch for things lightly follow drafts and RFCs on a particular topic to watch for
that might affect their implementations. things that might affect their implementations.
o An IETF "regular" might want to follow parts of the process by o An IETF "regular" might want to follow parts of the process by
focusing on all the drafts that are being shepherded by a focusing on all the drafts that are being shepherded by a
particular Area Director. particular Area Director.
1.2. Context for This Document 1.2. Context for This Document
This document describes the requirements for extending the This document describes the requirements for extending the
Datatracker for such capabilities. When complete, this document may Datatracker for such capabilities. When complete, this document may
be used to issue an RFP for the design and development of these be used to issue an RFP for the design and development of these
skipping to change at page 6, line 9 skipping to change at page 6, line 16
that would be useful to different types of community members that would be useful to different types of community members
o the ability to share and merge lists with other community members o the ability to share and merge lists with other community members
Note that [RFC2026] describes the process that Internet Drafts go Note that [RFC2026] describes the process that Internet Drafts go
through before they either become RFCs or are abandoned. The through before they either become RFCs or are abandoned. The
Datatracker does not control this process: instead, it simply reports Datatracker does not control this process: instead, it simply reports
on the current state of individual drafts as they go through the on the current state of individual drafts as they go through the
process. process.
During the early discussion of these requirements, some community
members proposed that it would be very useful to track other types of
documents, such as WG charters. Appendixes A through D list these
proposals. It is not clear currently if those sections will be part
of the initial deployment of the requirements in the main body of
this document.
1.3. Definitions Used in This Document 1.3. Definitions Used in This Document
A "user" is an individual person who is member of the IETF community. A "user" is an individual person who is member of the IETF community.
A "list" is an unordered set of Internet Drafts and groups of A "list" is an unordered set of RFCs, Internet Drafts, and groups of
Internet Drafts. Lists are specified by users. In some cases, the Internet Drafts. Lists are specified by users. In some cases, the
authors are role-based, such as a WG chair being the specifier of the authors are role-based, such as a WG chair being the specifier of the
list associated with that WG. list associated with that WG.
An "attribute" is a feature of a draft, such as its filename, its An "attribute" is a feature of a draft or RFC, such as its filename
current state in the IETF process, and so on. Attributes are usually or RFC number, its current state in the IETF or RFC process, and so
displayed as columns in the Datatracker. on. Attributes are usually displayed as columns in the Datatracker.
A "row" is a set of attributes about a single draft that is displayed A "row" is a set of attributes about a single draft or RFC that is
in the Datatracker. displayed in the Datatracker.
A "significant change in status" is all approvals and disposition of A "significant change in status" is all approvals and disposition of
the draft. Assuming that the changes to the Datatracker specified in a draft. Assuming that the changes to the Datatracker specified in
[WGSTATES] and [ALTSTREAMS] are made, "all approvals" means the [WGSTATES] and [ALTSTREAMS] are made, "all approvals" means the
following: following:
o IETF stream: the WG states "Adopted by a WG", "In WG Last Call", o IETF stream: the WG states "Adopted by a WG", "In WG Last Call",
"WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-up", "Parked WG document", and "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-up", "Parked WG document", and
"Dead WG document"; the IESG states "Publication Requested", "In "Dead WG document"; the IESG states "Publication Requested", "In
Last Call", and "IESG Evaluation" Last Call", and "IESG Evaluation"
o IAB stream: "Active IAB Document", "Community Review", and "Sent o IAB stream: "Active IAB Document", "Community Review", and "Sent
to the RFC Editor" to the RFC Editor"
skipping to change at page 7, line 8 skipping to change at page 7, line 8
IRSG Reviews", "In IESG Review", "Sent to the RFC Editor", and IRSG Reviews", "In IESG Review", "Sent to the RFC Editor", and
"Document on Hold Based On IESG Request" "Document on Hold Based On IESG Request"
o ISE stream: "Submission Received", "In ISE Review", "In IESG o ISE stream: "Submission Received", "In ISE Review", "In IESG
Review", "Sent to the RFC Editor", and "Document on Hold Based On Review", "Sent to the RFC Editor", and "Document on Hold Based On
IESG Request" IESG Request"
o All streams: in addition to the above, the disposition states o All streams: in addition to the above, the disposition states
"Approved", "RFC Published", and "Dead" are also included "Approved", "RFC Published", and "Dead" are also included
An "update to an RFC" is the announcement of a newer RFC that updates
or obsoletes the base RFC, or an announcement of an errata posted for
the base RFC.
1.4. Expected user interactions 1.4. Expected user interactions
When a user wants to follow a group of drafts, he or she goes to the When a user wants to follow a group of drafts and/or RFCs, he or she
Datatracker and creates a new list. The requirements for lists are goes to the Datatracker and creates a new list. The requirements for
given in Section 2.1. After a list is created, the user has three lists are given in Section 2.1. After a list is created, the user
ways that he or she might see when drafts in the list are updated: has three ways that he or she might see when drafts and/or RFCs in
the list are updated:
o By going to the Datatracker page for the list (see Section 2.3) o By going to the Datatracker page for the list (see Section 2.3)
o By subscribing to the Atom feed for the list (see Section 2.2.2) o By subscribing to the Atom feed for the list (see Section 2.2.2)
in a feed reader that automatically fetches updates in a feed reader that automatically fetches updates
o By subscribing to the mail stream for the list (see Section 2.2.3) o By subscribing to the mail stream for the list (see Section 2.2.3)
and reading the stream in their mail reader and reading the stream in their mail reader
1.5. Discussion of These Requirements 1.5. Discussion of These Requirements
skipping to change at page 7, line 42 skipping to change at page 7, line 47
2. Requirements for Tools Features 2. Requirements for Tools Features
This section defines the requirements for the tool described earlier This section defines the requirements for the tool described earlier
in this document. The eventual tool, if implemented, may have more in this document. The eventual tool, if implemented, may have more
features than are listed here; however, before this document is features than are listed here; however, before this document is
finished, it should contain as many requirements as possible upon finished, it should contain as many requirements as possible upon
which the IETF community can agree. which the IETF community can agree.
2.1. Lists 2.1. Lists
2.1.1. Requirement: Lists of drafts can be large 2.1.1. Requirement: Lists of drafts and RFCs can be large
An active IETF participant might want to follow the status of An active IETF participant might want to follow the status of
hundreds of drafts. For example, some ADs have 100 drafts in their hundreds of drafts and dozens of RFCs. For example, some ADs have
area, and they may also want to follow drafts outside their area that 100 drafts in their area, and they may also want to follow drafts
affect documents in their area. outside their area that affect documents in their area.
2.1.2. Requirement: Every Datatracker user can create a list 2.1.2. Requirement: Every Datatracker user can create a list
When a user gets a Datatracker account, that account comes with an When a user gets a Datatracker account, that account comes with an
empty list pre-defined. The list can nomrally be modified only by empty list pre-defined. The list can normally be modified only by
the owner of the account, although the Secretariat can also modify the owner of the account, although the Secretariat can also modify
the list as part of its support role for the Datatracker. the list as part of its support role for the Datatracker.
In order for this requirement to be met, it must be easy for any In order for this requirement to be met, it must be easy for any
community member to get a Datatracker account. Account setup must community member to get a Datatracker account. Account setup must
not involve any direct action on the part of the Secretariat. not involve any direct action on the part of the Secretariat.
However, the Secretariat will be responsible for support of However, the Secretariat will be responsible for support of
Datatracker accounts (lots passwords, odd interactions, and so on), Datatracker accounts (lost passwords, odd interactions, and so on),
so this addition of more Datatracker accounts will potentially so this addition of more Datatracker accounts will potentially
increase the amount of work the Secretariat must do. increase the amount of work the Secretariat must do.
The only person who can edit the contents of a private list is the The only person who can edit the contents of a private list is the
person who knows the password to the account with which the list is person who knows the password to the account with which the list is
associated. associated.
2.1.3. Requirement: Read-only views of private lists can be made 2.1.3. Requirement: Read-only views of private lists can be made
visible to others visible to others
skipping to change at page 8, line 39 skipping to change at page 8, line 40
Datatracker view of the list; that URL must be able to be safely Datatracker view of the list; that URL must be able to be safely
shared with others. In this case, "safely" means "will not help shared with others. In this case, "safely" means "will not help
others be able to edit the list". Similarly, the Atom feed others be able to edit the list". Similarly, the Atom feed
associated with a private list should be able to be safely shared associated with a private list should be able to be safely shared
with others> with others>
2.1.4. Requirement: The Datatracker must support optional publicly- 2.1.4. Requirement: The Datatracker must support optional publicly-
readable lists for WGs and Area Directors readable lists for WGs and Area Directors
It is common in the IETF for users to follow the work of an entire It is common in the IETF for users to follow the work of an entire
WG, not just individual drafts within a WG. It is also very common WG, not just individual drafts and RFCs within a WG. It is also very
that some work that is related to a WG happens outside the WG, either common that some work that is related to a WG happens outside the WG,
in other WGs or as individual efforts. Many WG chairs monitor this either in other WGs or as individual efforts. Many WG chairs monitor
outside-the-WG activity for various reasons. this outside-the-WG activity for various reasons.
A smaller number of community members to follow an entire Area's A smaller number of community members to follow an entire Area's
worth of topics. Again, these topics often happen within the WGs of worth of topics. Again, these topics often happen within the WGs of
an area, but not always; for example, some topics related to the an area, but not always; for example, some topics related to the
Security Area happen in WGs in the Applications Area. Security Area happen in WGs in the Applications Area.
Because of this, it would be useful for community members to be able Because of this, it would be useful for community members to be able
to find a list which corresponds to the WGs or Areas in which they to find a list which corresponds to the WGs or Areas in which they
are interested. The WG lists could be maintained by the WG chairs; are interested. The WG lists could be maintained by the WG chairs;
the Area lists would likely be maintained by the ADs. Note that such the Area lists would likely be maintained by the ADs. Note that such
lists are not mandatory; for example, a WG chair might not choose to lists are not mandatory; for example, a WG chair might not choose to
maintain such a list for a WG whose topic is extremely broad. maintain such a list for a WG whose topic is extremely broad.
Both Working Group chairs and Area Directors currently already have Both Working Group chairs and Area Directors currently already have
Datatracker accounts, so fulfilling this requirement only involves Datatracker accounts, so fulfilling this requirement only involves
associating those accounts with the role that controls the list. associating those accounts with the role that controls the list.
Proposed later requirements include having the Datatracker list all 2.1.5. Requirement: Specifying the drafts and RFCs that are in a list
of the publicly-readable lists (or certainly at least the ones must be simple
associated with IETF activities), and having links from WG pages in
Datatracker to the publicly-readable lists maintained by the WG
chairs.
2.1.5. Requirement: Specifying the drafts that are in a list must be
simple
When a user creates a new list, it must be easy to add individual When a user creates a new list, it must be easy to add individual
drafts to the list. This could be done using the Datatracker's drafts and RFCs to the list. This could be done using the
current search facility, and simply adding a "add to list" option for Datatracker's current search facility, and simply adding a "add to
Further, when editing an existing list, it must be easy to add list" option for Further, when editing an existing list, it must be
additional drafts, and it must be easy to remove drafts from a list. easy to add additional drafts and RFCs, and it must be easy to remove
drafts and RFCs from a list.
2.1.6. Requirement: Adding groups of drafts to a list by attribute must 2.1.6. Requirement: Adding groups of drafts to a list by attribute must
be simple be simple
Drafts have many attributes, and some users might want to follow all Drafts have many attributes, and some users might want to follow all
of the drafts that have a particular attribute. Some, but not all, of the drafts that have a particular attribute. Some, but not all,
attributes have values that make sense in specifying lists. It attributes have values that make sense in specifying lists. It
should be easy to add each of the following attributes when adding to should be easy to add each of the following attributes when adding to
or editing a list: or editing a list:
skipping to change at page 10, line 18 skipping to change at page 10, line 14
These attributes are dynamic, and thus the list of drafts that have a These attributes are dynamic, and thus the list of drafts that have a
particular attribute will change after the user adds that attribute particular attribute will change after the user adds that attribute
to a list. The Datatracker should update lists with dynamic to a list. The Datatracker should update lists with dynamic
attributes as often as is sensible for the server environment, such attributes as often as is sensible for the server environment, such
as once an hour or more. as once an hour or more.
Note that some of these attributes are derived by programs created by Note that some of these attributes are derived by programs created by
the IETF Tools Team that parse drafts and are therefore inherently the IETF Tools Team that parse drafts and are therefore inherently
not completely reliable. not completely reliable.
2.1.7. Tombstone: lists dynamically including other lists 2.1.7. Requirement: These extensions must not make the Datatracker take
Earlier versions of this draft had a requirement that lists needed to
be able to include other lists. While this may still be desired, it
was decided that implementing this in a safe and understandable way
would be too difficult. Later versions of the Datatracker might
include this feature.
2.1.8. Later Requirement: Users can add comments to say why they added
a draft or group
In public lists, it might be useful for someone to be able to
understand why particular drafts and/or groups are added. Allowing
the user who put together the list to add a comment field would help
someone else see the motivation.
2.1.9. Requirement: These extensions must not make the Datatracker take
up too many resources up too many resources
Currently, the only state that the Datatracker keeps for its users is Currently, the only state that the Datatracker keeps for its users is
a very small set of attributes assigned to a username-password pair. a very small set of attributes assigned to a username-password pair.
The extensions described here will cause the Datatracker to need to The extensions described here will cause the Datatracker to need to
keep more information, namely lists. Each list might have additional keep more information, namely lists. Each list might have additional
associated state as well. This could lead to the Datatracker needing associated state as well. This could lead to the Datatracker needing
a larger amount of storage and other resources. When this document a larger amount of storage and other resources. When this document
is near completion, it would probably be good to list exactly which is near completion, it would probably be good to list exactly which
new state will be kept on the Datatracker server. new state will be kept on the Datatracker server.
In order to reduce the chance that these extensions would strain the In order to reduce the chance that these extensions would strain the
Datatracker, some sort of denial-of-service prevention should be used Datatracker, some sort of denial-of-service prevention should be used
when the extensions are added. A later requirement might be to cull when the extensions are added.
lists if it seems that storing them on the Datatracker is taking too
many resources. The Datatracker can periodically send mail to the
user reminding them to delete lists that are no longer needed.
Culling presents a problem, however, for user-based lists that are Culling presents a problem, however, for user-based lists that are
made public. The creator of a list might no longer be using it, but made public. The creator of a list might no longer be using it, but
others might be. Thus, it is likely that the Datatracker needs to be others might be. Thus, it is likely that the Datatracker needs to be
be able to maintain lists long-term even if their creators are no be able to maintain lists long-term even if their creators are no
longer using them. longer using them.
2.1.10. Requirement: Private information must not be exposed in lists 2.1.8. Requirement: Private information must not be exposed in lists
Any private information in the Datatracker must be excluded from any Any private information in the Datatracker must be excluded from any
displays of the lists or streams created in this document. This displays of the lists or streams created in this document. This
private information includes private notes in the IESG balloting for private information includes private notes in the IESG balloting for
a draft, and probably other data that currently is restricted to a draft, and probably other data that currently is restricted to
being seen by certain members of the IETF leadership. being seen by certain members of the IETF leadership.
2.2. Notifications 2.2. Notifications
2.2.1. Requirement: Users can be notified when a draft changes status 2.2.1. Requirement: Users can be notified when a draft changes status
Some users do not want to go to the Datatracker's display page to Some users do not want to go to the Datatracker's display page to
find out when a draft has been updated. Instead, they want to be find out when a draft or RFC has been updated. Instead, they want to
notified immediately after the draft is changed. The Datatracker be notified immediately after the change. The Datatracker needs to
needs to support this type of immediate notification, where support this type of immediate notification, where "immediate" means
"immediate" means "within an hour of a change to any draft in the "within an hour of a change to any draft or RFC in the list". This
list". This requirement can be met with Atom feeds and mail streams, requirement can be met with Atom feeds and mail streams, as described
as described in the next two sections. in the next two sections.
The Datatracker might create a generic "notifications engine" that The Datatracker might create a generic "notifications engine" that
can be used to generate the Atom feeds and mail streams. This engine can be used to generate the Atom feeds and mail streams. This engine
can then be used to later add other notification types, such as a can then be used to later add other notification types, such as a
Jabber feed. Jabber feed.
2.2.2. Requirement: Every list has Atom feeds associated with it 2.2.2. Requirement: Every list has Atom feeds associated with it
The list will have two Atom feeds that are generated from the changes The list will have two Atom feeds that are generated from the changes
to the list: one for every change in status, and another for to the list: one for every change in status, and another for
skipping to change at page 12, line 21 skipping to change at page 11, line 47
notification notification
Users might have feeds and/or subscriptions to multiple lists. In Users might have feeds and/or subscriptions to multiple lists. In
order to disambiguate duplicate notifications from multiple lists, order to disambiguate duplicate notifications from multiple lists,
the body of the message in the Atom feed or mail stream needs to say the body of the message in the Atom feed or mail stream needs to say
which list generated the notification. (Ideally, a user who wants which list generated the notification. (Ideally, a user who wants
notifications will make one list based on multiple lists, but if they notifications will make one list based on multiple lists, but if they
subscribe to multiple lists, this requirement will at least suggest subscribe to multiple lists, this requirement will at least suggest
to them that they want to limit their overlapping subscriptions.) to them that they want to limit their overlapping subscriptions.)
2.2.5. Later Requirement: The tool must have instructions on how to use
it Atom feeds
Even though Atom feeds have been around for years, they are new to
many Internet users, and even experienced users only know how to use
them in limited ways. The Datatracker should have at least a few
paragraphs explaining how the Atom feeds that it provides can be used
in different tools such as dedicated feed readers, online feed-
display services, and so on.
2.3. Display in the Datatracker 2.3. Display in the Datatracker
2.3.1. Requirement: Users can define how the rows are sorted in a 2.3.1. Requirement: Users can define how the rows are sorted in a
display display
There are many ways that a user might want to see the Datatracker's There are many ways that a user might want to see the Datatracker's
HTML view of a list. For example, a user might want to normally see HTML view of a list. For example, a user might want to normally see
it in alphabetical order by the drafts' filenames, but after the user it in alphabetical order by the drafts' filenames and RFC numbers,
is of the net for a week, he or she might want to see the list in but after the user is of the net for a week, he or she might want to
order of changes of status so that those drafts changed recently see the list in order of changes of status so that those drafts and
appear at the top of the list. RFCs changed recently appear at the top of the list.
The default is to first list the groups first in alphabetical order The default is to first list the groups first in alphabetical order
by group name, then individual drafts in alphabetical order by draft by group name, then individual drafts in alphabetical order by draft
filename. When displaying a list, the Datatracker should allow easy filename, with RFCs at the end. When displaying a list, the
sorting of the drafts with the following collation orders: Datatracker should allow easy sorting of the drafts with the
following collation orders:
o Alphabetical order by group name followed by individual drafts o Alphabetical order by group name followed by individual drafts and
(default) RFCs (default)
o Alphabetical by draft filename o Alphabetical by draft filename and RFC number
o Alphabetical by draft title
o Alphabetical by document title
o Alphabetical by associated WG o Alphabetical by associated WG
o Date of publication of current version of the draft o Date of publication of current version of the document
o Date of most recent change of status of any type o Date of most recent change of status of any type
o Date of most recent significant change of status o Date of most recent significant change of status
In displays, a particular draft should only included once; for In displays, a particular draft or RFC should only included once; for
example, if someone manually adds draft-ietf-cuteacronym-sometopic to example, if someone manually adds draft-ietf-cuteacronym-sometopic to
his list and also specifies that all drafts from the "cuteacronym" WG his list and also specifies that all drafts from the "cuteacronym" WG
are included in the list, that draft should only appear once in the are included in the list, that draft should only appear once in the
display. The column saying which included list(s) contain this draft display. The column saying which included list(s) contain this draft
helps alleviate this loss of information. helps alleviate this loss of information.
The user might also want to group the files using the groupings in The user might also want to group the drafts using the groupings in
the list, such as "all drafts from this WG" and "all drafts that the list, such as "all drafts from this WG" and "all drafts that
contain this word in the title". contain this word in the title".
The Datatracker should save the last-chosen sorting for display with The Datatracker should save the last-chosen sorting for display with
the definition of the list. the definition of the list.
2.3.2. Requirement: Users can choose which attributes to display 2.3.2. Requirement: Users can choose which attributes to display
There are many attributes that might be displayed, and different There are many attributes that might be displayed, and different
users will have different information that they want to see. Also, users will have different information that they want to see. Also,
users will have different display technologies: someone might users will have different display technologies: someone might
normally use a web browser on a large screen, but at other times use normally use a web browser on a large screen, but at other times use
the browser on their phone. the browser on their phone.
Choosing which attributes should be displayed should be simple for Choosing which attributes should be displayed should be simple for
the user. The Datatracker should save the last-chosen set of the user. The Datatracker should save the last-chosen set of
attributes for display with the definition of the list. The default attributes for display with the definition of the list. The default
is to display is draft filename, draft title, date of current draft, is to display is draft filename or RFC number, document title, date
status in stream process, associated WG or RG, whether it was changed of current draft or RFC publication date, status in stream or RFC
within the last 7 days, and included list(s) which contain this process, associated WG or RG, whether it was changed within the last
draft. 7 days, and included list(s) which contain this draft.
The Datatracker should support display of the following attributes: The Datatracker should support display of the following attributes:
o Draft filename o Draft filename
o Draft title o Draft title
o Date of current draft o Date of current draft
o Status in the IETF process o Status in the IETF process
o Associated WG or RG o Associated WG or RG
o Associated AD, if any o Associated AD, if any
o Changed within the last 1 day o Changed within the last 1 day
o Changed within the last 2 days o Changed within the last 2 days
skipping to change at page 14, line 35 skipping to change at page 14, line 12
a new version by the end of the week. This feature gives the user a a new version by the end of the week. This feature gives the user a
"dashboard" style capability. "dashboard" style capability.
For each draft in a list, the user should be able to set one date- For each draft in a list, the user should be able to set one date-
based deadline. When using the display version of the Datatracker, based deadline. When using the display version of the Datatracker,
if that date has passed and no change in status happened between the if that date has passed and no change in status happened between the
time that the user set the deadline and the set date, the Datatracker time that the user set the deadline and the set date, the Datatracker
will highlight the deadline in red. It must also be easy to remove will highlight the deadline in red. It must also be easy to remove
these deadlines. these deadlines.
2.3.4. Requirement: Users can specify highlighting of drafts with 2.3.4. Requirement: Users can specify highlighting of drafts and RFCs
recent changes with recent changes
The Datatracker cannot easily keep track of when a user last looked The Datatracker cannot easily keep track of when a user last looked
at the page for a particular list. Thus, it instead needs to let a at the page for a particular list. Thus, it instead needs to let a
user say which range of dates they are most interested in. To that user say which range of dates they are most interested in. To that
end, the user needs to be able to easily specify the amount of time end, the user needs to be able to easily specify the amount of time
they consider recent, either as "the past nnn hours", "the past nnn they consider recent, either as "the past nnn hours", "the past nnn
days", or "since this particular date". days", or "since this particular date".
2.4. File Output 2.4. File Output
2.4.1. Requirement: Users can get their current list as a single file 2.4.1. Requirement: Users can get their current list as a single file
Some users have their own tools for displaying and otherwise Some users have their own tools for displaying and otherwise
processing lists of drafts. To make this easier, users should be processing lists of drafts and RFCs. To make this easier, users
able to get a machine-parsable file that has a well-known format and should be able to get a machine-parsable file that has a well-known
syntax that contains all the data that was used to create the current format and syntax that contains all the data that was used to create
display. The order of the records in the file is not important the current display. The order of the records in the file is not
because it is assumed that the user's program will sort the results important because it is assumed that the user's program will sort the
themselves. All attributes will be included because it is assumed results themselves. All attributes will be included because it is
that the user's programs will only deal with the ones the care about. assumed that the user's programs will only deal with the ones the
care about.
When a list is marshaled into a data file, each record in the file When a list is marshaled into a data file, each record in the file
format represents a single draft. In a file, a particular draft is format represents a single draft or RFC. In a file, a particular
only included once; for example, if someone manually adds draft or RFC is only included once; for example, if someone manually
draft-ietf-cuteacronym-sometopic to his list and also specifies that adds draft-ietf-cuteacronym-sometopic to his list and also specifies
all drafts from the "cuteacronym" WG are included in the list, that that all drafts from the "cuteacronym" WG are included in the list,
draft only appears once. that draft only appears once.
This feature will allow anyone to create mash-ups of their own and This feature will allow anyone to create mash-ups of their own and
create their own web sites based on the IETF data. This is create their own web sites based on the IETF data. This is
significantly easier than adding features to the Datatracker, and is significantly easier than adding features to the Datatracker, and is
able to cater to narrower audiences. able to cater to narrower audiences.
The format of the file will be XML or JSON or tab-separated fields in
a text file. The decision on which format is supported will be based
on the desires of the community while discussing this document.
(Imagine how much fun that will be!) Regardless of the format
chosen, a syntax will need to be specified.
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
None. None.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
A tool for tracking the status of Internet Drafts can affect the A tool for tracking the status of Internet Drafts and RFCs can affect
privacy of its users. The requirements for privacy of the the privacy of its users. Someone could possibly determine relevant
Datatracker views are discussed earlier in the document. information about a user if they knew what that user was tracking.
Web applications, particularly those that store data on a web server, Web applications, particularly those that store data on a web server,
are a common source of security issues such as cross-site scripting are a common source of security issues such as cross-site scripting
attacks. The tool described in this document might also use access attacks. The tool described in this document might also use access
control for lists, and access control and authentication also cause control for lists, and access control and authentication also cause
security issues if not implemented properly. security issues if not implemented properly.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
Ideas used in this document were contributed by Scott Bradner, Leslie Ideas used in this document were contributed by Scott Bradner, Leslie
skipping to change at page 16, line 31 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC4287] Nottingham, M., Ed. and R. Sayre, Ed., "The Atom [RFC4287] Nottingham, M., Ed. and R. Sayre, Ed., "The Atom
Syndication Format", RFC 4287, December 2005. Syndication Format", RFC 4287, December 2005.
[WGSTATES] [WGSTATES]
Juskevicius, E., "Definition of IETF Working Group Juskevicius, E., "Definition of IETF Working Group
Document States", draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states (work Document States", draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states (work
in progress), October 2010. in progress), October 2010.
Appendix A. Possible Tracking of Non-draft Documents Appendix A. Possible Tracking of Other Documents
It is not at all clear if any of these will be a requirement, a later It is not at all clear if any of these will be a requirement, a later
requirement, or a non-requirement. Further, even if one or more of requirement, or a non-requirement. Further, even if one or more of
these non-draft items is made a requirement, it is not clear whether these non-draft items is made a requirement, it is not clear whether
they will be included in the same lists with drafts. That is, if they will be included in the same lists with drafts. That is, if
tracking RFC status changes are considered a requirement, it is not tracking IANA registry changes are considered a requirement, it is
clear whether a user would include the RFCs in a list that also not clear whether a user would include the registries in a list that
contains draft, or whether they would need to create two lists, one also contains draft, or whether they would need to create two lists,
for drafts and one for RFCs. one for drafts and one for IANA registries.
A.1. Tracking RFC Status Changes and Errata
The contents of RFCs never change after they are published. However,
that does not mean that nothing alters the meaning of the RFC. In
specific, an RFC can be updated or obsoleted by another RFC; also,
errata can be made against RFCs. A user who cares about the RFC
might want to know when these changes are made.
Currently, the only way for the Datatracker to see these changes is
by polling structured files on the RFC Editor site and parsing them.
A.2. Tracking WG Charter Changes A.1. Tracking WG Charter Changes
It will soon be easier to track changes in WG charters and It will soon be easier to track changes in WG charters and
milestones; see [CHARTERTOOL] for more information. Someone milestones; see [CHARTERTOOL] for more information. Someone
subscribing to the stream for a WG would be able to see each of these subscribing to the stream for a WG would be able to see each of these
changes. With the expected changes, the Datatracker would be able to changes. With the expected changes, the Datatracker would be able to
update WGs in a list without any polling. update WGs in a list without any polling.
A.3. Tracking IANA Registry Changes A.2. Tracking IANA Registry Changes
Developers may need to get values from IANA registries for their Developers may need to get values from IANA registries for their
software/hardware implementations. They might want to know when the software/hardware implementations. They might want to know when the
registry changes, such as additional entries or updates to current registry changes, such as additional entries or updates to current
entries. Thus, being able to be notified when a registry changes entries. Thus, being able to be notified when a registry changes
would be valuable to them. would be valuable to them.
Adding this functionality may be tricky for some registries. For Adding this functionality may be tricky for some registries. For
example, if a developer cared about DKIM signature tags, they would example, if a developer cared about DKIM signature tags, they would
have to subscribe to have to subscribe to
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/dkim-parameters/> which (currently) <http://www.iana.org/assignments/dkim-parameters/> which (currently)
covers a handful of registries, all related to DKIM. Thus, a change covers a handful of registries, all related to DKIM. Thus, a change
to the DKIM hash algorithms would trigger a message showing that the to the DKIM hash algorithms would trigger a message showing that the
registry had changed, even though the DKIM signature tags registry registry had changed, even though the DKIM signature tags registry
had not. had not.
A.4. Tracking Changes in the Liason Statement Directory A.3. Tracking Changes in the Liason Statement Directory
Users might want to know when a new liaison statement is sent by the Users might want to know when a new liaison statement is sent by the
IETF, or when one is received by the IETF. IETF, or when one is received by the IETF.
A.5. Tracking Changes in Documents Outside the IETF Sphere A.4. Tracking Changes in Documents Outside the IETF Sphere
Users might want to track documents that relate to IETF activities Users might want to track documents that relate to IETF activities
but are produced by other standards development organizations (SDOs) but are produced by other standards development organizations (SDOs)
such as the W3C, the IEEE, the Unicode Consortium, the ITU, and such as the W3C, the IEEE, the Unicode Consortium, the ITU, and
others. In order for the tracker to track these documents, it would others. In order for the tracker to track these documents, it would
need to poll occasionally and possibly scrape listings from HTML. need to poll occasionally and possibly scrape listings from HTML.
Appendix B. Some Known Open Issues Appendix B. Some Known Open Issues
This list is mostly meant to remind the author of topics that need to This list is mostly meant to remind the author of topics that need to
be updated in future versions of the document, and to spur readers to be updated in future versions of the document, and to spur readers to
think of even more open issues. think of even more open issues.
o When an AD agrees to sponsor an individual submission, does the o When an AD agrees to sponsor an individual submission, does the
Datatracker consider that draft associated with the AD? If not, Datatracker consider that draft associated with the AD? If not,
that needs to be dealt with here. that needs to be dealt with here.
o The format of the export file will be XML or JSON or tab-separated
fields in a text file. Regardless of the format chosen, a syntax
will need to be specified.
Appendix C. Ideas that Might Be Implemented Later Appendix C. Ideas that Might Be Implemented Later
The following are ideas for the new tool that are not currently being The following are ideas for the new tool that are not currently being
considered for the first round of development, but are being considered for the first round of development, but are being
documented for possible future use. Items here might move between documented for possible future use. Items here might move between
this list and the list of requirements that are expected to be in the this list and the list of requirements that are expected to be in the
first round. first round.
o The Datatracker could list all of the publicly-readable lists (or
certainly at least the ones associated with IETF activities), and
have links from WG pages in Datatracker to the publicly-readable
lists maintained by the WG chairs.
o Earlier versions of this draft had a requirement that lists needed
to be able to include other lists. While this may still be
desired, it was decided that implementing this in a safe and
understandable way would be too difficult. Later versions of the
Datatracker might include this feature.
o In public lists, it might be useful for someone to be able to
understand why particular drafts and/or groups are added.
Allowing the user who put together the list to add a comment field
would help someone else see the motivation.
o The Datatracker might cull lists if it seems that storing them on
the Datatracker is taking too many resources. The Datatracker can
periodically send mail to the user reminding them to delete lists
that are no longer needed.
o The normal Datatracker display could have a button to add a o The normal Datatracker display could have a button to add a
particular draft to the user's personal list. particular draft to the user's personal list.
o Allow each user to determine what "significant change in status" o Allow each user to determine what "significant change in status"
is for the list they create. This could be done by a series of is for the list they create. This could be done by a series of
check boxes for every possible status change. check boxes for every possible status change.
o A list creator can add a list-level comment about who might be o A list creator can add a list-level comment about who might be
interested in following the list. interested in following the list.
o If the agendas for an upcoming meeting are scraped for draft o If the agendas for an upcoming meeting are scraped for draft
names, it would be possible to add an attribute to a draft that names, it would be possible to add an attribute to a draft that
lists that WG agenda(s) on which it appears. lists that WG agenda(s) on which it appears.
o In the section on "Adding groups of drafts to a list by o In the section on "Adding groups of drafts to a list by
attribute", add an attribute for "all drafts that are referenced attribute", add an attribute for "all drafts that are referenced
by any draft in a particular list". by any draft in a particular list".
o Make it possible to add all drafts that have a certain section to o Make it possible to add all drafts that have a certain section to
a list (non-trivial IANA considerations, ASN.1 modules in a list (non-trivial IANA considerations, ASN.1 modules in
appendicies, ...). appendices, ...).
Appendix D. Differences Between -03 and -04 o Even though Atom feeds have been around for years, they are new to
many Internet users, and even experienced users only know how to
use them in limited ways. The Datatracker should have at least a
few paragraphs explaining how the Atom feeds that it provides can
be used in different tools such as dedicated feed readers, online
feed-display services, and so on.
Removed the "early" note from the intro. Appendix D. Differences Between -04 and -05
Added a requirement on private data not being exposed. Removed another "early" note from the intro.
Added an appendix of ideas that could possibly be added later. Moved "later" requirements from the body of the document to the
appendix.
Removed the "legal issues for user data" open issue because no one Moved the open issue of the file format into the open issues list.
listed any.
Moved many open issues to the "possibly later" list. Throughout, made RFC status part of what is in a list.
Author's Address Author's Address
Paul Hoffman Paul Hoffman
VPN Consortium VPN Consortium
Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
 End of changes. 71 change blocks. 
214 lines changed or deleted 190 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/