One document matched: draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-00.txt
TOOLS team A. Rousskov
Internet-Draft The Measurement Factory
Expires: March 10, 2005 September 9, 2004
Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset
draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-00
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 10, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This document specifies requirements for an IETF toolset facilitating
Internet-Draft submission, validation, and posting.
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. State of this draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Status quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Overall toolset operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Upload page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Check action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1 Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2 Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.3 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.3.1 Absolute requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.3.2 Desireable features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Check page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1 External meta-data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Post Now action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Adjust action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. Adjust page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. Post Manually action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14. Bypassing the toolset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
15. Implementation stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
17. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
18. Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A. Comparison with current procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
C. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 17
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
1. Introduction
Public Internet-Drafts are primary means of structured communication
within IETF. Current Internet-Draft submission and posting
mechanisms hinder efficient and timely communication while creating
unnecessary load on the IETF Secretariat. IETF TOOLs team recommends
formalization and automation of the current mechanisms. This
document contains specific automation requirements.
IETF Secretariat and many IETF participants have long been proponents
of automation. This document attempts to reflect their known needs
and wishes, as interpreted by the TOOLs team. [[XXX1: Secretariat
and participant feedback has not yet been fully relayed to TOOLs
team. --Alex]]
2. State of this draft
Nothing has been set in stone. The TOOLs team has not yet reached
consensus on draft details. Questions marked with "XXX" are some of
the known problems the team needs to solve.
Please provide an early high-level review of this draft. Is the
overall scope and functionality of the toolset appropriate? Are there
any key big pieces missing? We need to move fast with these
recommendations, so please do not delay your comments.
Please ignore language and style bugs for now, unless you find a bug
that may result in misinterpretation of the text.
RFC Editor Note: This section is to be removed during the final
publication of the document. [[XXX36: This section has been inspired
by draft-rousskov-newtrk-id-state and related NEWTRK WG discussions.
--Alex]]
3. Scope
TBD: In scope are interface(s) to submit the draft and requirements
on submitted draft review, approval/rejection, and posting.
Definition and sources of draft meta-information (to be used in
Secretariat databases and elsewhere) are also in scope. Out of scope
are things like linking related drafts, draft persistency/archiving,
or providing a "monitor this draft" service. If IETF TOOLs team
defines a general IETF authentication interface, specifics of
authenticating draft submissions become out of this document scope.
4. Terminology
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
Posted draft: A draft accepted into public IETF draft repository and,
hence, publicly available on IETF web site. Posting (a.k.a.,
publication) of a draft does not imply any IETF or IESG review and
endorsement.
Submitter: A human or software submitting an Internet-Draft for
validation or posting.
Authorized Submitter: Any of the draft authors or editors listed in
the draft text and any member of IETF Secretariat staff.
Immediately: without artificial software delays or human interaction.
5. Status quo
This section summarizes the process for draft submission and posting
as it exists at the time of writing.
To get an Internet-Draft posted on IETF web site, an IETF participant
e-mails draft text to the IETF Secretariat, along with an informal
note asking to post the draft. Secretariat staff reads the note,
reviews the draft according to a checklist, and then approves or
rejects the submission. Draft approval triggers the corresponding
announcement to be sent to appropriate IETF mailing lists. Every 4
hours, approved drafts are automatically copied to the IETF drafts
repository and become available on IETF web site.
Collectively, IETF participants submit thousands of Internet-Drafts
per year (about three thousand drafts submitted in the year 2000;
2002: 5K; 2004: 7K). About 30-50% of posted drafts are Working Group
drafts (among some 2,100 drafts, there were about 380 new and 290
updated WG drafts posted in 2003). No statistics is available, but
the vast majority of submitted drafts are approved by Secretariat for
posting.
It usually takes the Secretariat a few minutes to review a given
draft. However, since the Secretariat staff does not work 24/7, does
not work in all time zones, and since approved drafts are posted in
batches every 4 hours, it may take from several hours to a couple of
days to get a draft posted. Due to much higher demand and fixed
processing capacity, postings during the last weeks before IETF
face-to-face meetings take much longer, creating a long queue of
unprocessed drafts that are then announced nearly simultaneously.
To give IETF face-to-face meeting participants time to review
relevant documents, Secretariat does not accept Internet-Draft
submissions close to IETF meetings (regardless of whether a draft is
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
relevant to the upcoming meeting).
Many Working Groups have come up with ad hoc solutions to cope with
posting delays. For example, many draft subversions are "temporary"
published on personal web sites or sent (completely or in part) to
the group list. Alternative means of publication may effectively
replace official IETF interfaces, with only a few major draft
revisions end up being posted on IETF web site.
Informal interfaces for submitting and posting drafts discourage
automation. Lack of submission automation increases Secretariat
load, complicates automated indexing and cross-referencing of the
drafts, and, for some authors, leads to stale drafts not being
updated often enough.
Beyond a short Secretariat checklist, submitted drafts are not
checked for compliance with IETF requirements for archival documents,
and submitters are not notified of any violations. As a result, IESG
and RFC Editor may have to spend resources (and delay standard
approval) resolving violations with draft authors. Often, these
violations can be detected automatically and would have been fixed by
draft authors if authors knew about them before requesting to publish
the draft as a standard.
Technically, anybody and anything can submit a draft to the
Secretariat. There is no reliable authentication mechanism in place.
Initial submissions of WG drafts require WG Chair approval, which can
be faked just like the submission request itself. No malicious
impersonations or fake approvals have been reported to date however.
Lack of authentication is not perceived as a serious problem,
possibly because serious falsification are likely to be noticed
before serious damage can be done. Due to informal and manual nature
of the submission mechanism, its massive automated abuse is unlikely
to cause anything but a short denial of draft posting service and,
hence, is probably not worth defending against. However, future
automation may result in a different trade off.
6. Overall toolset operation
This section provides high-level description for the proposed
toolset. The description is meant to show overall operation and
order; please refer to other sections for details specific to each
step.
To post a draft, the submitter goes through the following sequence of
web pages and actions:
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
Upload page: Interface to copy draft from submitters computer into
the toolset staging area (Section 7). Multiple formats are
accepted. The draft is sent to the Check action.
Check action: Stores the draft in the toolset staging area, extracts
draft meta-data, validates the submission (Section 8). Produces
the Check page.
Check page: Displays draft interpretation and validation results
(Section 9). Draft rendering preview may also be given on this
page. After reviewing draft interpretation and validation
results, the submitter selects one of the following three actions
(a) auto-post draft "as is" now; (b) correct extracted meta-data
and submit draft to Secretariat for manual posting later; or (c)
cancel submission. Automated posting option may not be available
for drafts that failed validation.
Automated posting: If submitter decides to proceed with automated
posting from the Check page, the system authenticates the
submitter and checks whether the submitter is allowed to post the
draft. If submitter is authorized, the draft is immediately
posted, deleted from the staging area, and the submitter is
notified of the result (Section 10).
Manual adjustment and posting: If submitter decides to adjust
meta-data, the draft remains in the toolset staging area, and the
Adjust action (Section 11) presents the submitter with an Adjust
page (Section 12). When submitter makes the adjustments and
proceeds with manual posting, a pointer to the stored draft and
its adjusted meta-data is sent to the secretariat for manual
processing (Section 13).
Cancellation: If submitter decides to cancel the submission, the
draft is deleted from the toolset staging area with no further
actions.
The following diagram illustrates basic submission logic:
/---> Post Now
/
Upload --> Check --+-----> Adjust ---> Send to Secretariat
\
\---> Cancel
Except for the Upload page, pages contain submission session
identifier to provide actions with access to stored information. The
session identifier is invisible to the submitter.
A single action may correspond to multiple programs and, vice versa,
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
a single CGI program may implement several actions. Actions preserve
and exchange state by storing it along with draft. Grouping all
submission-specific information in one subdirectory named using
session identifier may increase robustness and simplify debugging.
Session creation and destruction can then be logged in a global
index.
Ways to partially or completely bypass the toolset are documented in
Section 14
[[XXX4: need to add details on how each action interacts with IETF
infrastructure --Alex]]
[[XXX5: add more details about error handling (generation of error
pages). Or is it obvious enough? --Alex]]
[[XXX6: Secretariat wants to automate "withdraw this ID" action,
which seems out of this toolset scope. --Alex]]
[[XXX27: Mention that the system must handle (somehow) multiple
submitters submitting the same draft. For example, the state should
not be per-draft but per-submit-session. --Alex]]
7. Upload page
To upload the draft, the submitter goes to a well-known URL on IETF
web site. There, two exclusive options are available. First, the
draft text can be uploaded using HTML file input form. This form
provides input fields to upload plain text format of the draft and
all other formats allowed by IETF draft publication rules. At the
time of writing, these formats are: XML (RFC 2629), Postscript, and
PDF.
Second, the draft text can be cut-and-pasted into the form. Only
plain text version of the draft can be submitted this way. [[XXX7:
do we really need this option? Are there any popular browsers or web
libraries that support POST requests but do not support file uploads?
--Alex]]
Submitted forms are handled by the Check action.
[[XXX8: specify that automated submitters can use a post-if-valid
hidden form option to bypass explicit confirmation after the
successful validation step --Alex]].
[[XXX9: specify that automated submitters can use a validate-only
hidden form option to let validator delete drafts from the staging
area after validation. Or should this be a visible option, available
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
to human submitter as well? Perhaps as a "Validate Only" button? Or
should we KISS? --Alex]].
8. Check action
The Check action stores submitted draft (all formats) in the staging
area, and then extracts meta-data and validates each format. Failure
of each operation results in action failure, indicated to submitter
via a non-successful HTTP response status code with a human-friendly
explanation in the response body.
The action needs to store the draft so that successfully validated
drafts can later be auto-posted at submitter request. The action
needs to extract meta-data to perform validation and posting. Drafts
need to be validated to catch broken submissions and to block
automated submissions of malformed final draft versions for IETF Last
Call and IESG review.
8.1 Storage
Validator stores all submitted formats of the draft in a staging area
dedicated to the Toolset. If, after garbage collection, the staging
area is full (i.e., the total used size reached configured maximum
capacity), the operation fails.
8.2 Extraction
Each stored draft format is interpreted to extract draft meta-data.
[[XXX10: mention somewhere that initially, some formats will not be
fully or at all interpreted, but eventually either the format needs
to be interpreted or it should not be accepted for automated posting
--Alex]].
The following meta-data is extracted by the draft interpreter.
identifier: Also known as draft "filename". For example,
draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-13.
revision: A non-negative integer also known as draft version. For
example, 13 in draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-13.
name: Common part of all draft identifiers for all revisions of the
same draft. For example, draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission in
draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-13.
WG: IETF working group identifier. WG value is empty for individual
drafts or non-IETF drafts. For example, "tools" in
draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-13.
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
title: A human-friendly draft title. For example, the title of this
draft is "Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset"
authors: A list of all draft authors. For each author, their first
name, last name, and e-mail are extracted.
abstract: Draft abstract text.
submission date: Draft submission date.
expiration date: Draft expiration date.
[[XXX11: number of pages and size would depend on format version;
they probably should not (do not need to) be specified manually; do
we need to extract them at this stage? --Alex]].
8.3 Validation
IETF standards have to follow a set of syntax and semantics
requirements [[XXX12: provide references to the nits document and IP
policies --Alex]]. Most of those requirements are not enforced for
Internet-Drafts. However, following them may improve draft quality,
reduce IESG load, and increase the chances of the draft being
approved as an RFC.
When validating a given draft, it is important to distinguish between
absolute requirements and desirable draft properties. Both
categories are checked for, but violations have different effects
depending on the category. The two categories are detailed in the
following subsections.
8.3.1 Absolute requirements
Violating any of these requirements would prevent a draft to be
automatically posted. The offending draft would have to be fixed or
submitted for manual posting, with an explanation why the absolute
requirements need to be violated (or why Validator mis-detected
violations).
1. All available meta-data entries must match across all submitted
draft formats. For example, if the interpreter managed to
extract draft title from plain text and PDF version, both titles
must match. This requirement prevents accidental submission of
mismatching formats.
2. A draft must be submitted by an authorized submitter. [[XXX13:
move this lower, we do not know the submitter at this stage
--Alex]][[XXX14: Don't forget the co-author, changed editor, and
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
drafts being posted anonymously (secretariat needs to know who
submitter is, but name doesn't necessarily appear on draft)
--Harald]]
3. A Working Group draft must be approved by the corresponding
working group.
4. Current draft state must allow new revisions to be posted.
[[XXX15: document IESG review states when new revisions are
allowed. Secretariat and Harald opinions seem to differ here.
Secretariat: No revisions are allowed in any state except for
"I-D exists", "AD watching", or an explicit IESG request for a
new revision. Harald: no revisions once submitted for
publication. Need further clarification --Alex]].
5. Correct draft ID (including correct revision number with respect
to already published revisions, if any) must appear in the draft
text.
6. An IETF IPR statement must appear in the draft text. [[XXX16:
add the applicable parts of RFC 2026, 3667 and 3668 - this is
mostly a matter of checking the presence of boilerplate text.
--Henrik]]
[[XXX17: Today, -00 WG drafts are approved by the Chair after
submission, not prior to submission. See "Comparison with current
procedures" section. --Alex]]
8.3.2 Desireable features
Violating any of the following requirements would NOT prevent a draft
to be automatically posted except for draft revision designated for
"publication requested" state (i.e., IETF Last Call and IESG review).
[[XXX18: should we be that strict with last revisions? --Alex]]
TBD: list testable nits here or refer to the nits document. Henrik's
idnits tool is a starting point:
http://ietf.levkowetz.com/tools/idnits/
[[XXX33: What to do when two versions are submitted with a
suspiciously small gap? How small should the gap be to warrant
warnings/actions? --Stanislav]]
9. Check page
The Check page, created by the Check action displays extracted draft
meta-data and validation results. The purpose of the page is to
allow the submitter to verify whether stored draft and automatically
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
extracted meta-data match submitter's intent and to be informed of
validation problems.
Extracted meta-data items that were not successfully extracted or
that failed validation checks must be marked specially (rather than
silently omitted). Validation results include errors and warnings,
with references to normative documents containing corresponding
validation rules.
The submitter can also enter external meta-data (Section 9.1), which
is required for automated posting of the draft. If validation was
successful, an "automatically post the draft now" button is provided.
Regardless of validation results, "adjust and post manually" and
"cancel" buttons are provided.
Finally, a preview of the draft is provided. [[XXX19: should the
entire draft be rendered, especially when submission does not include
plain text format? --Alex]]
[[XXX34: Report the time of the last update. Especially useful when
multiple authors might update. --Stanislav]]
[[XXX35: How about providing a link to generate a nice diff against
the last posted version?. --Alex]]
9.1 External meta-data
TBD: Input fields for meta-data that must be supplied by submitter
and cannot be extracted from the draft:
Which author is the submitter? [[XXX30: with the exception for
Secretariat manual submission? No. Secretariat submits on behalf
of one of the authors. --Alex]][[XXX31: are there any situations
when a draft is submitted by somebody other than author and not on
explicit authors behalf? What happens to IPR "by submitting this
draft I ..." statement then? --Alex]];
Does the author request this submission to be published? (i.e.,
forwarded to IESG or RFC Editor for review and publication as an
RFC or BCP) [[XXX32: clarify that for-publication submissions may
be subjected to more mandatory checks than other drafts.
--Alex]].
10. Post Now action
The Post Now action checks that the draft has been successfully
validated, validates external meta-data (including submitter e-mail),
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
and posts the draft. Submitter is notified of the action progress
and final result.
External data contains submitter e-mail address. As a part of the
validation procedure, the Post Now action checks that the submitter
has access to e-mail sent to that address. The check is performed by
e-mailing a hard-to-guess cookie or token. The submitter is
requested to cut-and-paste the token or go to the token-holding URL
to continue with the submission. If the submitter does not continue,
the submission will eventually timeout. This intermediate dialog
requires storing additional state and generating a token-accepting
web page.
[[XXX2: should the posting program obtain all authors consent?
--Alex]][[XXX26: should responding to e-mail be also supported (as an
alternative to going back to the web page to cut-and-paste the
token)? --Alex]]
If draft posting is successful, toolset state information may be
deleted from the toolset storage area [[XXX21: on-demand garbage
collection may be better from debugging point of view; what may seem
like a successful post may not be that successful --Alex]].
11. Adjust action
The Adjust action generates the Adjust page, populating it with
available extracted meta-data and external meta-data as well as
validation results and preview. Some or all of the information may
be missing, depending on draft interpretation and rendering success.
12. Adjust page
The Adjust page allows the submitter to adjust all extracted draft
meta-data (and, naturally, external meta-data) at will. Such
adjustment is necessary when automated extraction failed to extract
[correct] information. To avoid mismatch between draft and its
meta-data, adjusted drafts cannot be automatically posted and require
manual validation by Secretariat. Secretariat staff can post drafts
with adjusted meta-data as described in Section 14.
In addition to editable meta-data, the page provides read-only
validation results and preview, if available.
The "post manually" and "cancel" buttons are provided. The former is
backed by the "Post Manually" action (Section 13).
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
13. Post Manually action
The Post Manually action sends adjusted meta-data and draft pointer
to the Secretariat for manual validation and posting. A receipt page
is generated instruction the submitter to wait. Secretariat will
notify the submitter once the draft is posted or rejected.
14. Bypassing the toolset
A buggy toolset or unusual circumstances may force a submitter to
submit draft to Secretariat for manual processing. This can be done
by choosing the "manual posting" route supported by the toolset or,
as a last resort, by e-mailing the draft directly to Secretariat. In
either case, an informal "cover letter" has to accompany the draft.
The letter should explain why the automated interface cannot be used.
When processing manual submissions, the Secretariat may be able to
use the toolset. A Manual Validation page similar to the default
Validation page provides authenticated Secretariat staff with
editable meta-data fields and a "force posting" action. The forced
posting action accepts meta-data fields "as is" and proceeds with the
regular posting algorithm [[XXX22: Should we document the details
even though this page is for internal Secretariat use?
--Alex]][[XXX23: Should forced posting script obtain authors consent
or do we want to be able to bypass that as well? --Alex]]
Using manual processing may result in significant posting delays.
The intent of this mode is to provide a way for submitters to bypass
bugs or limitations of automated mechanisms in order to post an
"unusual" draft or to post a draft under "unusual" circumstances.
One example would be a draft that does not contain standard IETF
boilerplate but has a special IESG permission to post the draft with
the experimental boilerplate. Another example is a draft that fails
automated validation tests due to a validator bug.
[[XXX24: mention that sometimes submitter is not the author or chair
so default authentication may not work -- unless we provide an
interface to authorize "other" submitters? --Alex]]
15. Implementation stages
TBD: Come up with a simple way to identify distinct toolset elements/
features and suggest implementation order.
16. Security Considerations
Some. TBD: Talk about why authentication and anti-DoS measures
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
become important once things become automated. When everybody is
using an informal e-mail interface, an automated attack will last
only until the interface is changed. The informal interface can be
changed very quickly. Only the attacker would be suffering from the
change, since others do not automate and, hence, are flexible. Once
things are automated and interfaces are documented, substantially
changing an interface would require rewriting many software agents
that use current interfaces.
[[XXX25: do we need an explicit IESG approval to require
stronger-then-current submitter authentication? --Alex]]
17. IANA Considerations
None.
18. Compliance
TBD: What does it mean to be compliant with (to satisfy) our
requirements? The definition must be usable in the context of IESG
evaluation of Secretariat work on implementing the proposed toolset.
Appendix A. Comparison with current procedures
TBD: This section summarizes major differences between draft
submission approach currently in use by IETF and the proposed
toolset, including violations of the current IETF rules.
o Approval for version -00 of a WG draft. [[XXX28: Clearly point
out that we propose to require that working group chairs post an
approval *before* a -00 is submitted - there is no option to
submit a -00 draft and have it sit and wait for the Chair's
approval. This is a change from current procedure, and may need
approval from outside the tools team. --Henrik]][[XXX29: I am not
sure the current procedure is required by IETF rules. The order
does not seem to be codified anywhere so changing current practice
should not be that difficult. The key is to convince IETF that
the change is worth it long-term. --Alex]]
o The toolset allows posting of draft renderings additional to plain
text as well as XML draft sources. Currently, the Secretariat
only accepts plain text submissions of drafts.
o TBD
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
Appendix B. Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Harald Tveit
Alvestrand (Cisco), Barbara B. Fuller (Foretec), Henrik Levkowetz,
Larry Masinter (Adobe), and Stanislav Shalunov (Internet2).
Special thanks to Marshall Rose for his xml2rfc tool.
Appendix C. Change log
RFC Editor Note: This section is to be removed during the final
publication of the document.
Internal WG revision control ID: $Id: id.xml,v 1.12 2004/09/09
21:11:43 rousskov Exp $
2004/09/09
* Polished high-level page/action summary and replaced text-based
steps diagram with something that looks more like a diagram.
* Added "Comparison with current procedures" section placeholder
for summarizing what this draft improves/changes/violates.
* Frequent draft updates is not always a good thing (Henrik
Levkowetz)
* Added ideas regarding frequent draft updates warnings
(Stanislav Shalunov)
* Added "State of this draft" section to encourage review.
2004/09/02
* Documented all major toolset pages and corresponding actions.
2004/09/01
* Deleted all primary modes except for what used to be called
"Posting Automation". Focus on the latter and mention other
modes as exceptions or side-effects.
* Changed draft outline and depth to describe specific submission
steps and corresponding web pages rather than more general
ideas/requirements.
* Assume, for now, that Chair authorization of WG draft work must
exist for WG draft to be published. This needs to be
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
documented and perhaps relaxed to allow post-submission
approvals.
2004/08/30
* Use "toolset" instead of a less accurate "interfaces" in the
draft title and throughout the text (Henrik Levkowetz)
* Use "post" instead of "publish"" in the draft title and
throughout the text (Barbara B. Fuller and Larry Masinter)
* Nits, clarifications, datapoints (Harald Tveit Alvestrand,
Henrik Levkowetz, Larry Masinter, and Barbara B. Fuller for
the Secretariat)
2004/08/25
* Initial revision.
Author's Address
Alex Rousskov
The Measurement Factory
EMail: rousskov@measurement-factory.com
URI: http://www.measurement-factory.com/
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Draft Submission Toolset: Requirements September 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Rousskov Expires March 10, 2005 [Page 17]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 05:30:49 |