Network Working Group                                         P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft                                            VPN Consortium
Updates:                                                    May 28,                                                   July 11, 2011
(if approved)
Intended status: Informational
Expires: November 29, 2011 January 12, 2012

            Requirements for a Working Group Milestones Tool


   The IETF intends to provide a new tool to Working Group chairs and
   Area Directors for the creation and updating of milestones for
   Working Groups.  This document describes the requirements for the
   proposed new tool, and it is intended as input to a later activity
   for the design and development of such a tool.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 29, 2011. January 12, 2012.

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
   ( 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.

1.  Introduction

   [RFC2418] describes the guidelines and procedures for operation of
   IETF Working Groups (WGs).  Every WG has milestones that the WG is
   supposed to meet, such as the publication of a particular Internet-
   Draft or the beginning of discussion on a particular topic.  The WG's
   milestones are commonly listed with the WG's charter, although the
   milestones are not formally part of the charter.

   Today, the tasks associated with creating and updating WG milestones
   are performed manually.  Normally, WG chairs send email to their Area
   Director (AD) requesting that milestones be created or updated, or
   saying that one or more milestone has been met.  These messages
   sometimes come as part of charter creation or updating, but are often
   separate (such as if a current milestone is met but there is no
   reason to update the charter itself).  WG chairs sometimes send mail
   directly to the IETF Secretariat to make a change to the database of
   milestones, such as to change the dates for milestones or to say that
   they are completed.

   In early 2011, the IETF approved a set of requirements for a tool
   that helps ADs with the WG chartering and rechartering process
   [CHARTER-TOOL].  During the IESG discussion of that document, it
   became clear that everyone wanted more automation to the milestones
   process.  This document, and the discussion it will hopefully
   engender, is intended to bring that discussion to a general consensus
   among WG chairs and ADs for the requirements for the eventual tool.

   The IAOC would like to create a better tool for the tasks of WG
   milestone creation and updating, and this document lists the
   requirements for such a tool.  When complete, this document may be
   used to issue an RFP for the design and development of the tool.
   This document was prepared at the request of the IAOC.

1.1.  Discussion of These Requirements

   This document is being discussed on the mailing
   list.  See <> for more
   information. [[ This subsection is to be deleted before publication.

2.  Users of the Tool

   This tool can only be used by WG chairs and ADs, not by other members
   of the IETF community.  The tool will use the login and access
   control features that will already be in place from the outcome of
   the tool created by [CHARTER-TOOL].  It is important to note that
   some people are chairs for more than one WG, and everyone must be
   able to use the tool for all of the WGs that they chair.

   Any AD can add or update any milestone for any WG.  Normally, an AD
   would only add or update milestones in the WGs for which they are the
   responsible AD, but ADs are not bound by such a limitation.  WG
   chairs can only add or update milestones for WGs of which they are

   The IETF Secretariat needs to be able to perform the same tasks as
   the WG chairs and ADs in order to fix problems or to make emergency

   The database will record the date and person who initiates any
   addition of, or change to, a milestone.  The contents of the database
   will be visible to the IETF community so that anyone can see who made
   a particular change to a milestone.

3.  Updating, Adding, and Deleting Milestones

   A WG chair needs to see all of the milestones for that chair's WG in
   the tool.  The chair needs to be able to edit any milestone record
   for that chair's WG.  In each existing record, the chair needs to be
   able to edit the due date, the finished date, the associated
   Internet-Drafts, and the description of the milestone.  The chair
   also needs to be able to delete existing milestones.

   A WG chair needs to be able to add one or more milestone records to
   the database for their WG.  The chair needs to be able to specify the
   due date, zero or more associated Internet-Drafts, and the
   description of the record that he or she is adding.  A WG chair also
   needs to be able to delete one or more existing milestones.

4.  Approval  Automatic Acceptance of Milestone Additions and Changes

   [[ The following proposal is based on early input to this draft, and

   Each change significantly as the these requirements are discussed. ]]

   The responsible AD for made by a WG can specify whether any of the following
   actions can chair will be made without the AD approval for milestones associated
   with automatically accepted by the WG:

   o  create new milestones

   o  delete milestones

   o  change milestone descriptions

   o  change milestone due dates

   o  change which Internet-Drafts are associated with
   tool.  If either chair of a milestone

   o  assert that WG wants to revert a milestone change, such as if a
   change was made in error, those WG chairs can make a subsequent
   change.  It is completed

   The default settings at the time likely that this feature is launched such change-and-revert cycles will
   be that all actions other than changing due dates and asserting
   completion require AD approval.  These settings apply both to
   additions and changes made by happen
   as WG chairs get used to the new tool.

   As noted in Section 2, any AD can change any milestone.  Thus, if a
   WG chair makes an erroneous change to a milestone and by other ADs. does not fix
   the error themselves, any AD may fix it for them.  In practice, it
   would be better if those who make errors fix the errors themselves.

   After this tool is launched, the IETF Secretariat will no longer need
   to post a change to the database: the tool will do this without
   intervention by the Secretariat.

5.  Mapping Milestones to Internet-Drafts

   There is currently no requirement how WG milestones map to Internet-
   Drafts.  While most milestones map one-to-one with Internet-Drafts,
   some milestones do not map to any Internet-Draft (such as those that
   say when a general discussion will begin or finish), and other
   milestones map to multiple Internet-Drafts (such as a milestone that
   covers a topic that has multiple related Internet-Drafts).  Some
   Internet-Drafts are part of more than one milestone.

   The new tool is required to make mappings between milestones and
   Internet-Drafts explicit, and those drafts must be listed in views of
   the milestone.  This change will require a change to the Datatracker
   database to make such an association.

   When an Internet-Draft that is mapped to a milestone changes its
   state to "Submitted to IESG for Publication" as described in
   [RFC6174], the tool will send a message to the WG chairs to remind
   them that they might want to update the milestone.  Note that this
   message will not apply to all Internet-Drafts that are mapped to a
   milestone, so it is up to the WG chairs to decide what to do when
   such a message is received.

6.  Reminders for WG Chairs and ADs

   Milestone changes that do not require AD approval are made
   immediately.  Requested changes that require AD approval are tracked
   by the tool.  If the AD has not approved or rejected the change
   within a week, email listing the request and the request date is sent
   to the WG chairs and AD.  That email is sent every week until the AD
   has approved or rejected the request.

   The tool will also send WG chairs reminders about pending milestones.
   A message is sent when a milestone is one month from being due, at
   the time a milestone is due, and every month in which a milestone is

   The tool will also send WG chairs reminders about Internet-Drafts
   that are mapped to milestones.  A message is sent when such a draft
   is one month from expiring, and at the time that a draft expires.  If
   a milestone is mapped to a draft that is expired, mail reminding the
   chairs of this will be sent weekly.

7.  Viewing Changes in Milestones

   Section 5 of [CHARTER-TOOL] describes an extension to the Datatracker
   to allow the IETF community to view, search, and track changes to WG
   charters.  This document updates those requirements to allow the IETF
   community to view, search, and track changes to WG milestones.

   Section 5.1 of [CHARTER-TOOL] is updated to allow searching for any
   text in a milestone's description, as well as for the name of any
   Internet-Draft name that is mapped to any milestone.

   A new capability will be added to the Datatracker that is similar to
   that described in Section 5.2 of [CHARTER-TOOL], but instead of
   showing differences between charters, it shows differences between
   the full set of milestones.  Any time a milestone is added, deleted,
   or any of its fields changed, the full set of milestones is
   considered changed.  Someone should be able to easily compare two
   full sets of milestones.  They should also be able to see two more
   full sets of milestones with the differences highlighted.  The tool
   should show who made each change when changes are viewed.  These
   features should be found in the same place as the features described
   in Section 5.2 of [CHARTER-TOOL].

   The tool needs to provide an Atom feed [RFC4287] for the changes in
   the milestones for a WG.  The contents of the feed are the full WG
   record, plus an indication of what changed since the last entry in
   the feed and who made the change.  This feed is different than the
   feed described in Section 5.3 of [CHARTER-TOOL], but it should be
   offered to users in the same places as that feed is offered.

8.  IANA Considerations

   None. [[ ...and thus this section can be removed before publication
   as an RFC... ]]

9.  Security Considerations

   Creating a new tool for updating the milestones of WGs does not
   affect the security of the Internet in any significant fashion.

10.  Acknowledgements

   This document draws heavily on ideas from various WG chairs and ADs
   on the mailing list.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

              Hoffman, P., "Requirements for a Working Group Charter
              Tool", draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool (work in progress),
              April 2011.

   [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.

   [RFC6174]  Juskevicius, E., "Definition of IETF Working Group
              Document States", RFC 6174, March 2011.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4287]  Nottingham, M., Ed. and R. Sayre, Ed., "The Atom
              Syndication Format", RFC 4287, December 2005.

Appendix A.  Earlier Proposals

   During the early discussion

   The first few drafts of the requirements for this document in
   the IESG had a different model for
   approval of milestone additions and among WG chair, there was not changes.  Those drafts said "The
   responsible AD for a common agreement about
   how milestones management should be handled.

      Some felt that WG chairs should can specify whether any of the following
   actions can be able to update their milestones made without any AD intervention, as long as the responsible AD was
      informed after each change

      Some felt that ADs need to approve every change before approval for milestones associated
   with the WG: create new milestones, delete milestones, change
      is announced to the community

      Some felt that ADs might approve additions to the list of
      milestones and changing of a milestone's description, but not need
      to approve changing of
   milestone dates

      Some felt that ADs should be able to select descriptions, change milestone due dates, change which WGs could update
      their milestones without AD intervention while allowing others to
      do so freely, or for an AD to be able to set
   Internet-Drafts are associated with a limit on how many
      new milestones milestone, assert that a WG could add before the AD had to intervene

   The requirements given in this document
   milestone is completed."  In addition, the earlier drafts said that
   the default settings
   for the new tool should match when the requirements faced by WG chairs

   Some featured would have been launched would
   be that all actions other than changing due dates and asserting
   completion require AD approval.

   The current draft has quite a different mechanism described in
   Section 4.

   Also, some participants in the early discussion felt that the new
   tool should have a mode where milestones whose essence is that a
   particular draft is sent to the IESG is automatically marked as
   complete when the draft's state is that it has gone to IETF
   consideration.  However, there was a fair amount of disagrement about
   the need for such a mode and whether it would end up restricting
   actions that should remain flexible.

Author's Address

   Paul Hoffman
   VPN Consortium