





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]

