Network Working Group R. Sparks Internet-Draft Oracle Intended status: Informational October 19, 2015 Expires: April 21, 2016 Tracking Manual I-D Post Requests draft-sparks-genarea-manualpost-tracking-00 Abstract This memo discusses requirements for improvements to the datatracker related to tracking manual post requests. 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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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 April 21, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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. Sparks Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft manualpost October 2015 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Description of desired functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction The transparency of the ID submission process needs to be improved, particularly for those submissions that are handled directly by the secretariat ("manual" and "forced" submissions). When an author uses the datatracker submission tool, SubmissionEvents are captured, noting when the draft was submitted, when it was approved by previous authors (and by who), when it was approved by a WG chair if such approval was necessary, and when it was posted into the repository. Currently, the document's history shows only that a new version is available. The submission tool presents an option to authors to request that the secretariat finish the submission process. The datatracker captures the candidate document and sends email to the secretariat. Often the request is made because the submission tool was unable to extract the correct meta-data from the document. In this case, the secretariat populates the meta-data, and forces the post. In other cases, there are issues identified by idnits that the secretariat helps diagnose, and the author is guided through fixing the issues and restarting the submission process with a repaired document. Again, SubmissionEvents are captured as the document goes through this process, but for drafts that are forced, the document history does not reflect these events. The secretariat also receives requests to post a draft by direct email, bypassing the submission tool altogether. (Currently, the secretariat receives around 10 such requests each meeting cycle). The secretariat operates the submission tool on behalf of the author. The SubmissionEvents currently captured do not reflect that this was a manual submission request. The secretariat currently relies on a combination of RT and personal email archives to keep track of the outstanding manual submission requests. This project will address these issues through several improvements to the datatracker. Sparks Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft manualpost October 2015 2. Description of desired functionality When a document is posted via the normal submission process, DocEvents reflecting the SubmissionEvents for the initial submission, the approval of previous authors, and the approval of a stream authority (such as WG chairs for a WG -00) will be added to the document. That is, where documents currently typically have a first history entry of "New version available: whatever-00", The first entries will be "New version submitted", "New version approved by previous author: (name)", "WG -00 approved by (name)", "New version available: whatever-00". The entries for subsequent versions are analogous. When manual submission is requested via the submission tool, and the document is posted by the secretariat, DocEvents reflecting that the manual posting was requested, any approvals obtained, and that the document was forced will be added to the document. An example of the entries would be "Manual submission requested by (name)", "Meta-data set to