[rfc-i] Future interaction of the Datatracker and the RFC Editor's tracker

Sandy Ginoza sginoza at amsl.com
Mon Jul 12 11:34:25 PDT 2010


Greetings,

On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Sandy Ginoza wrote:

>> This message is not to discuss what those states should be; if you are interested in that, please see:
>> 
>> - <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-juskevicius-datatracker-wgdocstate-reqts> and <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states> for the IETF stream; these two documents are in IETF Last Call
>> 
>> - <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker> for the IAB, ISE, and IRTF streams
>> 
>> Both Ed and I quite interested in more input on the documents.
> Thank you for the pointer.  We will send comments on draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker in a separate message.

We see that the following definitions for when a document is passed to the RFC Editor for publication:

IAB
   o  Sent to the RFC Editor -- The IAB processing of this document is
      complete and it has been sent to the RFC Editor for publication.
      The document may be in the RFC Editor's queue, or it may have been
      published as an RFC; this state doesn't distinguish between
      different states occurring after the document has left the IAB.
IRTF
   o  Submitted IRTF Document The document has been submitted for
      publication (and not returned to the IRTF for further action).
      The document may be in the RFC Editor's queue, or it may have been
      published as an RFC; this state doesn't distinguish between
      different states occurring after the document has left the IRTF.
IS
   o  Sent to the RFC Production Center -- The ISE processing of this
      document is complete and it has been sent to the RFC Production
      Center for publication.  The document may be in the RFC Editor's
      queue, or it may have been published as an RFC; this state doesn't
      distinguish between different states occurring after the document
      has left the ISE.

- We suggest that this state name be consistent across the streams, for example "Sent to the RFC Production Center."

- After publication, why wouldn't the tracker show its Status as an RFC as it does currently (e.g., "RFC 5766 (Proposed Standard)")?  

- Is the tracker intended to be one continuous tracker for I-Ds (I-D posting --> WG approval --> IESG review/approval --> RFC submission) or is there a separation between the WG tracker and IESG tracker?

Thanks,

Sandy Ginoza, Director
RFC Production Center
Association Management Solutions, LLC
48377 Fremont Blvd, Ste #117 / Fremont, CA 94538 / USA
Telephone: +1.510.492.4000, Fax: +1.510.492.4001

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20100712/89d6d63b/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list