





Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        P. Hoffman
Request for Comments: 6292                                VPN Consortium
Category: Informational                                        June 2011
ISSN: 2070-1721


             Requirements for a Working Group Charter Tool

Abstract

   The IETF intends to provide a new tool to Area Directors for the
   creation, re-chartering, and closing of Working Groups.  The tool
   will also allow the IETF community to view the status of the
   chartering process.  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 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/rfc6292.

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.




Hoffman                       Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 6292                  WG Charter Tool Reqs                 June 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  WG Charter Process Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  WG Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Naming of Charter Text Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4.  Wording of Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.5.  Access to the Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.6.  Initializing the Tool  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Creating and Rechartering WGs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Chartering a New WG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Rechartering an Existing WG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Ballots for Charter Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Requesting the Closing of a WG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Searching, Comparing, and Tracking Charters  . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Viewing and Searching the Charter Database . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  Seeing Differences between Versions of Pre-Approval
           Wordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  Tracking Charters with an Atom Feed  . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

























Hoffman                       Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 6292                  WG Charter Tool Reqs                 June 2011


1.  Introduction

   [RFC2418] describes the guidelines and procedures for formation and
   operation of IETF Working Groups (WGs).  Since the publication of RFC
   2418 in 1998, the IETF has started many dozen new WGs, and has shut
   down many dozen.  In that time, many WGs have had some (often dozens)
   changes to their charters.

   Today, virtually all of the tasks associated with creating,
   rechartering, and closing a WG are performed manually.  An Area
   Director (AD) requests one of these actions by manually sending a
   message to the Secretariat's ticket system.  A member of the
   Secretariat staff manually updates the internal Secretariat database
   and the IETF Datatracker, manually places the WG on the IESG
   teleconference agenda (when appropriate), and manually sends out all
   of the required messages and announcements.

   The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) would like to
   create a better tool for those tasks, 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.  WG Charter Process Overview

   As described in [RFC2418], a key responsibility of the IESG is the
   creation, re-chartering, and closing of WGs.  Creation and
   rechartering of WGs is a multi-step process that involves internal
   review of a draft charter by the IESG and IAB, an external review of
   the draft charter by the IETF community and by other standards
   bodies, and (likely) approval of a final charter by the IESG.  The
   internal review by the IESG and IAB, and the external review by the
   IETF community, often result in revisions to the draft charter.

   Closing of a WG does not require review or approval by the IESG.
   Rather, a WG may be closed at the request of an AD, normally the Area
   Advisor for the WG.

   Note that the charter and recharter processes do not involve changing
   of WG milestones.  A tool that handles milestone updates will likely
   be created in the future.

2.  General Requirements

   The tool described here holds records for new WGs that are being
   considered as well as for all WGs whose charter are under review.





Hoffman                       Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 6292                  WG Charter Tool Reqs                 June 2011


2.1.  WG Records

   A WG record contains the following fields:

   o  name of the WG

   o  the WG's acronym

   o  names of the WG chairs (if known)

   o  names of the WG secretary (if any)

   o  names of the WG technical advisors (if any)

   o  shepherding AD

   o  IETF area

   o  charter text

   o  mailing list address and archive location

   o  previous mailing list (if any)

   o  other web sites (such as wikis, trackers, and/or project sites, if
      any) including web sites existing prior to the WG formation

   o  earlier acronyms for the WG

   o  explanation for why the WG is being chartered or rechartered (if
      any)

   In addition, a WG record contains the state of the WG in the review
   process.  That state has one annotation: whether or not the state is
   for a proposed WG or for an existing WG undergoing rechartering.
   Some changes in state cause messages to be sent to the Secretariat so
   that the Secretariat can perform additional steps, such as sending
   out mail to various parties about the latest version of the charter
   text, deadlines for an upcoming decision, and so on.

   When a WG record is displayed, that display should also reflect
   whether the WG currently exists or has been closed; that data comes
   from a different part of the Datatracker database.

   Any AD can modify fields in an existing WG record.  Any AD can use
   the tool to change the review state of a WG record.  The normal order
   for steps is shown in this document, but an AD can set the state to
   any valid value at any time.



Hoffman                       Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 6292                  WG Charter Tool Reqs                 June 2011


2.2.  Comments

   During the reviews for WG creation and rechartering, ADs can comment
   on the reviews.  Any AD can add a comment to the record of a WG that
   is under review.  Each comment can be flagged as either "blocking"
   (meaning blocking forward movement until it is resolved) and "non-
   blocking" (meaning that it is only informative or editorial).

2.3.  Naming of Charter Text Proposals

   Charter text proposals are to be kept for historical purposes.  They
   are kept in files with a specific naming pattern.  The pattern for
   charters before a WG is formed is:

   charter-ietf-wgacronym-nn[-mm]

   o  "wgacronym" is the acronym of the proposed WG.

   o  "nn" is a two-digit charter number assigned in sequence.  It
      starts at "00" for before the WG is first chartered; the first
      finished charter has a value of "01".

   o  "mm" is a two-digit proposal number assigned in sequence.  It
      starts at "00" for the first proposal for a particular version of
      charter.  It is omitted in the actual charter file.

   For instance, if the "example" WG is chartered and then rechartered
   twice, you might have the following sequence of files:

   charter-ietf-example-00-00.txt (first proposal)
   charter-ietf-example-00-01.txt (second proposal)
   charter-ietf-example-00-02.txt (third proposal)
   charter-ietf-example-01.txt (first charter)
   charter-ietf-example-01-00.txt (first recharter proposal)
   charter-ietf-example-01-01.txt (second recharter proposal)
   charter-ietf-example-01-02.txt (third recharter proposal)
   charter-ietf-example-02.txt (second charter)
   charter-ietf-example-02-00.txt (next recharter proposal)
   . . .
   charter-ietf-example-03.txt (third charter)

2.4.  Wording of Announcements

   An AD can view and edit the standard "WG Review" and "WG Action"
   announcements before they are sent out during the WG creation,
   rechartering, and closing processes.  If the AD edits the message,
   the Secretariat is alerted to that fact when they receive the
   request.



Hoffman                       Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 6292                  WG Charter Tool Reqs                 June 2011


2.5.  Access to the Tool

   Area Directors and the IETF Secretariat currently have access to
   perform some actions in the Datatracker that other community members
   do not; this access control continues to be used in many of the
   extensions listed in this document.  Further, the IETF Secretariat
   can perform all actions that can be performed by any AD in this tool.

2.6.  Initializing the Tool

   Records for all WGs that are being created, or are in the process of
   charter updates, will be added before the tool is first publicly
   deployed.

   The database should also be initialized with current and historical
   data, namely as much information as is currently known about existing
   and closed WGs that can be done in a mostly-automated fashion.

3.  Creating and Rechartering WGs

3.1.  Chartering a New WG

   Any AD can create a new WG record using a simple web form.  Creating
   a record should succeed as long as there is no other WG with the same
   name.  Names must be unique, so the tool will warn the AD if the
   acronym that is being proposed has been used in earlier WG charter
   proposals and suggest against its use for a new charter.  By default,
   the field in the form listing the shepherding AD will be prepopulated
   with the name of the AD who is filling in the form.  The AD can fill
   in all the fields for the proposed WG.  The names of the WG chairs
   can be left off during the initial chartering process.

   (Some Secretariat tools have trouble with acronyms of more than eight
   characters: they truncate the name.  This will probably be fixed in
   the future.  The new tool should have a configuration setting that is
   set to 8 initially, and it should be adjusted when the Secretariat
   tools are updated.  There may also be problems with names that have
   hyphens in them.  However, WGs that have more than eight characters
   in their names, and WGs with hyphens in their names, have existed for
   over a year.)

   Creating a new WG record causes the Datatracker state for this
   potential new WG to be "Informal IESG review".  When the record is
   created, the AD proposes a length of time (in weeks) for the internal
   review time; the default is one week.

   The review states in which a WG can exist during its initial
   chartering are:



Hoffman                       Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 6292                  WG Charter Tool Reqs                 June 2011


   o  Informal IESG review -- This is the initial state, moved into by
      the tool when an AD creates a WG record.  When the WG record is
      moved to this state, a message is sent to the Secretariat.  The
      normal next state is "Internal review" if the idea is accepted, or
      "Not currently under review" if the idea is abandoned.  The tool
      should prompt the AD if they try to move to the next state in less
      than the minimum elapsed time set by the AD when creating the WG,
      but allow the move if the AD responds to the prompt.

   o  Internal review -- The IESG and IAB are reviewing the early draft
      of the charter; this is the initial IESG and IAB review.  When
      moved to this state, a note is sent to the Secretariat to place
      this on the next IESG telechat and to inform the IAB.  The usual
      next state is "External review" if the idea is adopted, or
      "Informal IESG review" if the IESG decides the idea needs more
      work, or "Not currently under review" if the idea is abandoned.

   o  External review -- The IETF community and possibly other standards
      development organizations (SDOs) are reviewing the proposed
      charter.  When moved to this state, a note is sent to the
      Secretariat to send out the external review announcement to the
      appropriate lists.  The external review announcement will be sent
      out to the normal IETF-related mailing lists.  The AD can specify
      whether or not to send the announcement to other SDOs (with the
      default being that it should be), and the AD can also specify
      additional recipients who should receive the announcement.  When
      moved to this state, a separate note is sent to the Secretariat to
      schedule discussion for the next IESG telechat.  The usual next
      state is "IESG review", although it might move to "Not currently
      under review" if the idea is abandoned during the external review.

   o  IESG review -- The IESG is reviewing the discussion from the
      external review of the proposed charter.  The usual next state is
      "WG exists", or "Not currently under review" if the idea is
      abandoned.

   o  WG exists -- The WG was approved by the IESG.  When moved to this
      state, a note is sent to the Secretariat to publish the charter
      and send the appropriate announcements.  The WG remains in this
      state until there is a request to update the charter.

   o  Not currently under review -- The proposed WG is not being
      considered at this time.  A proposed WG charter will remain in
      this state until an AD moves it to "Informa1 IESG review".

   All states above, except for "WG exists", are given the annotation
   "Initial chartering".




Hoffman                       Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 6292                  WG Charter Tool Reqs                 June 2011


   The chartering process involves the proposed charter appearing on two
   IESG telechats.  The tool should allow an AD and/or the Secretariat
   to select the telechat date for the approval events.  When the
   telechat is selected, the state determines where it appears on that
   telechat's agenda.

3.2.  Rechartering an Existing WG

   Any AD can request that a WG be rechartered using a simple web form.
   This form prompts with the current charter and allows all fields to
   be edited.  Asking for a recharter causes the Datatracker state for
   this WG to be "Informal IESG review".  When the recharter record is
   created, the AD proposes a length of time (in weeks) for the internal
   review time; the default is one week.

   The review states in which a WG can exist during rechartering are:

   o  WG exists; Informal IESG recharter review -- This is the initial
      state, moved into by the tool when an AD asks for a WG to be
      rechartered.  When the WG record is moved to this state, a message
      is sent to the Secretariat.  The normal next state is "WG exists;
      Internal review" if the idea is accepted, or "WG exists" if this
      attempt to recharter is abandoned.  The tool should prompt the AD
      if they try to move to the next state in less than the minimum
      elapsed time set by the AD when asking to recharter the WG.

   o  WG exists; Internal recharter review -- The IESG and IAB are
      reviewing the proposed new charter; this is the initial IESG and
      IAB review of the new charter.  When moved to this state, a note
      is sent to the Secretariat to place this on the next IESG telechat
      and to inform the IAB.  The usual next state is "WG exists;
      External review" if the idea is adopted, or "WG exists; Informal
      IESG review" if the IESG decides the idea needs more work, or "WG
      exists" if the current rechartering is abandoned or if the new
      charter is approved during internal review.

   o  WG exists; External recharter review -- The IETF community and
      possibly other SDOs are reviewing the proposed new charter.  When
      moved to this state, a note is sent to the Secretariat to send out
      the external review announcement to the appropriate lists.  The
      external review announcement will be sent to the normal IETF-
      related mailing lists.  The AD can specify whether or not to send
      the announcement to other SDOs (with the default being that it
      should be), and the AD can also specify additional recipients who
      should receive the announcement.  The usual next state is "WG
      exists; IESG review", although it might move to "WG exists" if the
      current rechartering is abandoned during the external review.




Hoffman                       Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 6292                  WG Charter Tool Reqs                 June 2011


   o  WG exists; IESG recharter review -- The IESG is reviewing the
      discussion from the external review of the recharter.  When moved
      to this state, a note is sent to the Secretariat to schedule
      discussion for the next IESG telechat.  The usual next state is
      "WG exists".

   All states above are given the annotation "Rechartering".

   When rechartering existing WGs, the IESG decides whether or not the
   recharter needs an external review; many do not.

   The rechartering process involves the proposed charter appearing on
   one or two IESG telechats.  The tool should allow an AD and/or the
   Secretariat to select the telechat date for the approval events.
   When the telechat is selected, the state determines where it appears
   on that telechat's agenda.

3.3.  Ballots for Charter Approval

   The current Datatracker has facilities for ballots on adoption of
   Internet-Drafts to become RFCs.  A separate facility needs to be
   created to allow balloting for initial chartering or rechartering
   during IESG review.  The balloting for charter and rechartering will
   allow ADs to express "yes", "no", and "abstain" positions, and will
   allow ADs to change their positions over time.

   As described in Section 2.2, comments can be added to the record for
   a WG.  It is expected that such comments will be added during the
   balloting process.

4.  Requesting the Closing of a WG

   An AD can use the tool to request that the Secretariat close an
   existing WG.  The request action will prompt the AD to provide
   instructions regarding the disposition of each active Internet-Draft
   (such as to withdraw the draft, move it to another WG, convert it to
   an individual submission, and so on), wording for the closure
   announcement, and the status of the WG mailing list (will it remain
   open or should it be closed).

5.  Searching, Comparing, and Tracking Charters

5.1.  Viewing and Searching the Charter Database

   All members of the IETF community can view the public portions of the
   charter database.  This public view should have an explanation of the
   states given in this document.  They can also search for a WG record
   in the tool based on one or more of the following criteria:



Hoffman                       Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 6292                  WG Charter Tool Reqs                 June 2011


   o  WG name (full or partial)

   o  WG acronym

   o  WG charter state

   o  Shepherding AD

   o  Area

   o  Text in any of the fields

   o  Earlier acronyms for the WG

   Further, all users can view all snapshots of earlier versions of a
   WG's charter.  Snapshots include the Area, AD, WG name, WG acronym,
   chairs, and charter text.

5.2.  Seeing Differences between Versions of Pre-Approval Wordings

   It needs to be easy to compare differences between different versions
   of proposed charter language, up to and including the approved
   version.  Using the naming formats given in Section 2, this means
   that it must be easy to compare wgacronym-charter-ss (for the highest
   value of "ss") with wgacronym-recharter-ss-nn.  It must also be
   possible to compare any two versions of approved charters (that is,
   of two values for "ss" in wgacronym-charter-ss).  It also must be
   easy to compare two versions that have different acronyms in the case
   that the acronym changes during the chartering process.

5.3.  Tracking Charters with an Atom Feed

   The tool needs to provide an Atom feed [RFC4287] for the changes in a
   charter.  The contents of the feed are the full WG record, plus an
   indication of what changed since the last entry in the feed.

6.  Security Considerations

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

7.  Acknowledgements

   This document draws heavily on earlier work done on this topic by
   other writers, such as previous IESG and IAB members.  Various
   members of the IESG contributed many suggestions to this document.
   In particular David Harrington, Robert Sparks, and Russ Housley
   contributed a great deal of wording and many ideas.



Hoffman                       Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 6292                  WG Charter Tool Reqs                 June 2011


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

8.2.  Informative References

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

Author's Address

   Paul Hoffman
   VPN Consortium

   EMail: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org

































Hoffman                       Informational                    [Page 11]

