idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-07.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 31, 2011) is 4774 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Hoffman 3 Internet-Draft VPN Consortium 4 Intended status: Informational March 31, 2011 5 Expires: October 2, 2011 7 Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the 8 Datatracker 9 draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-07 11 Abstract 13 The document gives a set of requirements for extending the IETF 14 Datatracker to give individual IETF community members, including the 15 IETF leadership, easy methods for tracking the progress of the 16 Internet-Drafts and RFCs of interest to them. 18 Status of this Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 2, 2011. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 1.1. Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 1.2. Context for This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 1.3. Definitions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 56 1.4. Expected user interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 1.5. Discussion of These Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 2. Requirements for Tools Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 2.1. Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 2.1.1. Requirement: Lists of I-Ds and RFCs can be large . . . 7 61 2.1.2. Requirement: Every Datatracker user can create a 62 list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 2.1.3. Requirement: Read-only views of private lists can 64 be made visible to others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 2.1.4. Requirement: The Datatracker must support optional 66 publicly-readable lists for WGs and Area Directors . . 8 67 2.1.5. Requirement: Specifying the I-Ds and RFCs that are 68 in a list must be simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 2.1.6. Requirement: Adding groups of I-Ds to a list by 70 attribute must be simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 2.1.7. Requirement: Private information must not be 72 exposed in lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 2.2. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 2.2.1. Requirement: Users can be notified when an I-D 75 changes status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 2.2.2. Requirement: Every list has Atom feeds associated 77 with it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 2.2.3. Requirement: Every list has mail streams 79 associated with it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 80 2.2.4. Requirement: Notifications need to specify which 81 list caused the notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 82 2.3. Display in the Datatracker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 83 2.3.1. Requirement: Users can define their Datatracker 84 document view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 85 2.3.2. Requirement: Users can choose which attributes to 86 display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 87 2.3.3. Requirement: Users can flag I-Ds with dates in the 88 future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 89 2.3.4. Requirement: Users can specify highlighting of 90 I-Ds and RFCs with recent changes . . . . . . . . . . 13 91 2.4. File Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 92 2.4.1. Requirement: Users can get their current list as a 93 single file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 94 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 95 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 96 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 97 6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 98 Appendix A. Possible Tracking of Other Documents . . . . . . . . 15 99 A.1. Tracking WG Charter Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 100 A.2. Tracking IANA Registry Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 101 A.3. Tracking Changes in the Liason Statement Directory . . . . 16 102 A.4. Tracking Changes in Documents Outside the IETF Sphere . . 16 103 A.5. Tracking Additions to the IPR Statement Repository . . . . 16 104 Appendix B. Ideas that Might Be Implemented Later . . . . . . . . 16 105 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 107 1. Introduction 109 The IETF Datatracker is used by many IETF community members to find 110 the status of Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) and RFCs, and view I-Ds and RFCs 111 that meet particular criteria. The current Datatracker, found at 112 , allows anyone to search for active 113 I-Ds and RFCs, and get a list matching the given criteria. (The 114 Datatracker also allows for expired I-Ds, but those are not relevant 115 to this discussion.) 117 Users can search in the Datatracker by the filename of the I-D, words 118 in the I-D title, I-D author list, associated Working Group (WG), 119 IETF area, the responsible Area Director (AD), or IESG status. They 120 can search for RFCs by number or words in the title. The returned 121 list of I-Ds and/or RFCs includes sixTestVM columns: filename or RFC 122 number (with an active link to an HTMLized version maintained by the 123 IETF tools team), the document's title, the date it was published, 124 its status in the IETF or RFC process, IPR statements, and the 125 responsible AD (if any). For example, the output of a search in the 126 current Datatracker can be seen at . [[ Note 127 to RFC Editor: Please remve the preceding sentence ("For example, 128 ...") before publication. ]] 130 Instead of using the search capability of the Datatracker to manually 131 find I-Ds and RFCs of interest, users might want to create a list of 132 I-Ds that they normally follow. Some users will want to keep their 133 list to themselves, but others will want to allow others to view 134 their list. 136 Different users in the IETF community will have different ways that 137 they want to get information on I-D and RFC updates and status. Many 138 users will want to be notified immediately, such as through an Atom 139 feed (see [RFC4287]) or automatically-generated email. Many users 140 will want to only find out about updates when they go to a web page. 141 Many users might want to get the data for a list as input to other 142 tools. And, of course, some users will want all three. All of these 143 assist users in tracking I-Ds through their lifecycle. 145 1.1. Usage Scenarios 147 The main motivation for these proposed changes to the Datatracker is 148 to allow a variety of potential users to be able to track I-Ds and 149 RFCs, and thus be better able to see when important events happen. A 150 few examples include: 152 o A WG chair might want to keep a list of all the I-Ds from other 153 WGs that relate to active I-Ds in his or her WG. 155 o That same WG chair might want to help WG members be able to follow 156 the same I-Ds that he or she is following. 158 o Someone who cares about an established topic such as the DNS may 159 want to follow the various I-Ds that might make changes to the 160 DNS, as well as seeing if any of the DNS RFCs are later updated 161 and/or have errata posted against them. This would include not 162 only I-Ds that are in the many WGs that directly are changing the 163 DNS (DNSEXT, DNSOP, BEHAVE, and so on), but also individual 164 submissions, IAB I-Ds, and even IRTF research. It would also 165 include RFCs from before when WGs were tracked. 167 o Developers who are not active in the IETF process might want to 168 lightly follow I-Ds and RFCs on a particular topic to watch for 169 things that might affect their implementations. 171 o An IETF "regular" might want to follow parts of the process by 172 focusing on all the I-Ds that are being shepherded by a particular 173 Area Director. 175 1.2. Context for This Document 177 This document describes the requirements for extending the 178 Datatracker for such capabilities. When complete, this document may 179 be used to issue an RFP for the design and development of these 180 enhancements to the Datatracker. 182 Some of the requirements in this document are listed as "later 183 requirements". It is expected that items listed in this document 184 would be part of the initial RFP because they provide the highest 185 benefit to the community; the later requirements might be part of a 186 later RFP. 188 The initial general requirements that led to the specific 189 requirements this document described tools that include: 191 o the ability to create one or more (possibly large) lists of I-Ds 192 that they want to follow 194 o the ability to get notifications when individual I-Ds from a list 195 changes state 197 o the ability to see all of the state changes that have occurred on 198 all the I-Ds in a list over a specified range of dates 200 o the ability to set the granularity of the changes (such as "every 201 change", "just approvals and publication", and so on) 203 o the ability to organize their views of a list in many fashions 204 that would be useful to different types of community members 206 o the ability to share and merge lists with other community members 208 Note that [RFC2026] describes the process that I-Ds go through before 209 they either become RFCs or are abandoned. The Datatracker does not 210 control this process: instead, it simply reports on the current state 211 of each I-D as it goes through the process. 213 1.3. Definitions Used in This Document 215 A "user" is an individual person who is member of the IETF community. 217 A "list" is an unordered set of RFCs, I-Ds, and groups of I-Ds. 218 Lists are specified by users. In some cases, the authors are role- 219 based, such as a WG chair being the specifier of the list associated 220 with that WG. 222 An "attribute" is a feature of an I-D or RFC, such as its filename or 223 RFC number, its current state in the IETF or RFC process, and so on. 224 Attributes are usually displayed as columns in the Datatracker. 226 A "row" is a set of attributes about a single I-D or RFC that is 227 displayed in the Datatracker. 229 A "significant change in status" is all approvals and disposition of 230 an I-D. Assuming that the changes to the Datatracker specified in 231 [RFC6174], [RFC6175] and [ALTSTREAMS] are made, "all approvals" means 232 the following: 234 o IETF stream: the WG states "Adopted by a WG", "In WG Last Call", 235 "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-up", "Parked WG document", and 236 "Dead WG document"; the IESG states "Publication Requested", "In 237 Last Call", "IESG Evaluation", and "Sent to the RFC Editor" 239 o IAB stream: "Active IAB Document", "Community Review", and "Sent 240 to the RFC Editor" 242 o IRTF stream: "Active RG Document", "In RG Last Call", "Awaiting 243 IRSG Reviews", "In IESG Review", "Sent to the RFC Editor", and 244 "Document on Hold Based On IESG Request" 246 o ISE stream: "Submission Received", "In ISE Review", "In IESG 247 Review", "Sent to the RFC Editor", and "Document on Hold Based On 248 IESG Request" 250 o All streams: in addition to the above, the disposition states 251 "Approved", "RFC Published", and "Dead" are also included 253 An "update to an RFC" is the announcement of a newer RFC that updates 254 or obsoletes the base RFC, an in-place change to the RFC's maturity 255 level, the RFC's status being changed to historic, or an announcement 256 of an errata posted for the base RFC. 258 1.4. Expected user interactions 260 When a user wants to follow a group of I-Ds and/or RFCs, he or she 261 goes to the Datatracker and creates a new list. The requirements for 262 lists are given in Section 2.1. After a list is created, the user 263 has three ways that he or she might see when I-Ds and/or RFCs in the 264 list are updated: 266 o By going to the Datatracker page for the list (see Section 2.3) 268 o By subscribing to the Atom feed for the list (see Section 2.2.2) 269 in a feed reader that automatically fetches updates 271 o By subscribing to the mail stream for the list (see Section 2.2.3) 272 and reading the mail stream in their mail reader 274 1.5. Discussion of These Requirements 276 [[ This section is to be removed before the RFC is published. ]] 278 This document is being discussed on the datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org 279 mailing list. For more information, see 280 . 282 2. Requirements for Tools Features 284 This section defines the requirements for the tool described earlier 285 in this document. The eventual tool, if implemented, may have more 286 features than are listed here; however, before this document is 287 finished, it should contain as many requirements as possible upon 288 which the IETF community can agree. 290 2.1. Lists 292 2.1.1. Requirement: Lists of I-Ds and RFCs can be large 294 An active IETF participant might want to follow the status of 295 hundreds of I-Ds and dozens of RFCs. For example, some ADs have 100 296 I-Ds in their area, and they may also want to follow I-Ds outside 297 their area that affect documents in their area. 299 2.1.2. Requirement: Every Datatracker user can create a list 301 When a user gets a Datatracker account, that account comes with an 302 empty list pre-defined. The list can normally be modified only by 303 the owner of the account, although the Secretariat can also modify 304 the list as part of its support role for the Datatracker. 306 In order for this requirement to be met, it must be easy for any 307 community member to get a Datatracker account. Account setup must 308 not involve any direct action on the part of the Secretariat. 309 However, the Secretariat will be responsible for support of 310 Datatracker accounts (lost passwords, odd interactions, and so on), 311 so this addition of more Datatracker accounts will potentially 312 increase the amount of work the Secretariat must do. 314 The only person who can edit the contents of a private list is the 315 person who knows the password to the account with which the list is 316 associated. 318 2.1.3. Requirement: Read-only views of private lists can be made 319 visible to others 321 Some users will want to make available a read-only view of their 322 list. Each private list will have a URL that leads to the 323 Datatracker view of the list; that URL must be able to be shared 324 without giving others the ability to edit the list. Similarly, the 325 Atom feed associated with a private list must be able to be shared 326 without giving others the ability to edit the list. 328 2.1.4. Requirement: The Datatracker must support optional publicly- 329 readable lists for WGs and Area Directors 331 It is common in the IETF for users to follow the work of an entire 332 WG, not just single I-Ds and RFCs within a WG. It is also very 333 common that some work that is related to a WG happens outside the WG, 334 either in other WGs or as individual efforts. Many WG chairs monitor 335 this outside-the-WG activity for various reasons. 337 A smaller number of community members to follow an entire Area's 338 worth of topics. Again, these topics often happen within the WGs of 339 an area, but not always; for example, some topics related to the 340 Security Area happen in WGs in the Applications Area. 342 Because of this, it would be useful for community members to be able 343 to find a list which corresponds to the WGs or Areas in which they 344 are interested. The WG lists could be maintained by the WG chairs; 345 the Area lists would likely be maintained by the ADs. Note that such 346 lists are not mandatory; for example, a WG chair might not choose to 347 maintain such a list for a WG whose topic is extremely broad. 349 Both Working Group chairs and Area Directors currently already have 350 Datatracker accounts, so fulfilling this requirement only involves 351 associating those accounts with the role that controls the list. 353 2.1.5. Requirement: Specifying the I-Ds and RFCs that are in a list 354 must be simple 356 When a user creates a new list, it must be easy to add single I-Ds 357 and RFCs to the list. This could be done using the Datatracker's 358 current search facility, and simply adding a "add to list" option to 359 the display of searched-for I-Ds. Further, when editing an existing 360 list, it must be easy to add additional I-Ds and RFCs, and it must be 361 easy to remove I-Ds and RFCs from a list. 363 2.1.6. Requirement: Adding groups of I-Ds to a list by attribute must 364 be simple 366 I-Ds have many attributes, and some users might want to follow all of 367 the I-Ds that have a particular attribute. Some, but not all, 368 attributes have values that make sense in specifying lists. It 369 should be easy to add each of the following attributes when adding to 370 or editing a list: 372 o All I-Ds associated with an particular WG 374 o All I-Ds associated with all WGs in an particular Area 376 o All I-Ds with a particular responsible AD 378 o All I-Ds with a particular author 380 o All I-Ds with a particular document shepherd 382 o All I-Ds that have a reference to a particular RFC 384 o All I-Ds that have a reference to a particular I-D 386 o All I-Ds that are referenced by a particular RFC 388 o All I-Ds that are referenced by a particular I-D 390 o All I-Ds that contain a particular text string 392 These attributes are dynamic, and thus the list of I-Ds that have a 393 particular attribute will change after the user adds that attribute 394 to a list. The Datatracker should update lists with dynamic 395 attributes as often as is sensible for the server environment, such 396 as once an hour or more. 398 Note that some of these attributes are based on heuristics derived by 399 programs that parse I-Ds, and are therefore inherently not completely 400 reliable. 402 2.1.7. Requirement: Private information must not be exposed in lists 404 Any private information in the Datatracker must be excluded from any 405 displays of the lists or mail streams. This private information 406 includes private notes in the IESG balloting for an I-D, and probably 407 other data that currently is restricted to being seen by certain 408 members of the IETF leadership. 410 2.2. Notifications 412 2.2.1. Requirement: Users can be notified when an I-D changes status 414 Some users do not want to go to the Datatracker's display page to 415 find out when an I-D or RFC has been updated. Instead, they want to 416 be notified immediately after the change. The Datatracker needs to 417 support this type of immediate notification, where "immediate" means 418 within an hour of a change to any I-D or RFC in the list. This 419 requirement can be met with Atom feeds and mail streams, as described 420 in the next two sections. 422 The Datatracker might create a generic "notifications engine" that 423 can be used to generate the Atom feeds and mail streams. This engine 424 can then be used to later add other notification types, such as a 425 Jabber feed. 427 2.2.2. Requirement: Every list has Atom feeds associated with it 429 The list will have two Atom feeds that are generated from the changes 430 to the list: one for every change in status, and another for 431 significant change of status. Each Atom feed will have a stable URL 432 that can be used by feed readers. 434 Many IETF users are already using Atom feeds created by the IETF 435 Tools Team for single I-Ds. Using the new feeds for lists described 436 here will allow them to have better selection capabilities to reduce 437 the number of feeds they need to follow. 439 2.2.3. Requirement: Every list has mail streams associated with it 441 A user can subscribe to two mail streams that are generated from the 442 changes to the list: one for every change in status, and another for 443 significant change of status. 445 Note that the mail streams are for each change; they are not batched 446 (such as one message per day). Users who want less frequent but 447 batched notifications need to use the Atom feeds instead of the mail 448 streams. 450 2.2.4. Requirement: Notifications need to specify which list caused the 451 notification 453 Users might have feeds and/or subscriptions to multiple lists. In 454 order to disambiguate duplicate notifications from multiple lists, 455 the body of the message in the Atom feed or mail stream needs to say 456 which list generated the notification. (Ideally, a user who wants 457 notifications will make one list based on multiple lists, but if they 458 subscribe to multiple lists, this requirement will at least suggest 459 to them that they want to limit their overlapping subscriptions.) 461 2.3. Display in the Datatracker 463 2.3.1. Requirement: Users can define their Datatracker document view 465 There are many ways that a user might want to see the Datatracker's 466 HTML view of a list. For example, a user might want the view 467 displayed in alphabetical order by the I-Ds' filenames and RFC 468 numbers, but after the user is off the net for a week, he or she 469 might want the view displayed in order of changes of status so that 470 those I-Ds and RFCs changed recently appear at the top. 472 The default is to list I-Ds in alphabetical order by I-D filename, 473 with RFCs at the end. When displaying a list, the Datatracker should 474 allow easy sorting of the I-Ds with the following collation orders: 476 o Alphabetical by I-D filename and RFC number 478 o Alphabetical by document title 480 o Alphabetical by associated WG 482 o Date of publication of current version of the document 484 o Date of most recent change of status of any type 485 o Date of most recent significant change of status 487 In displays, a particular I-D or RFC should only included once; for 488 example, if someone manually adds draft-ietf-cuteacronym-sometopic to 489 his list and also specifies that all I-Ds from the "cuteacronym" WG 490 are included in the list, that I-D should only appear once in the 491 display. The column saying which included list(s) contain this I-D 492 helps alleviate this loss of information. 494 The user might also want to group the I-Ds using the groupings in the 495 list, such as "all I-Ds from this WG" and "all I-Ds that contain this 496 word in the title". 498 The Datatracker should save the last-chosen sorting for display with 499 the definition of the list. 501 2.3.2. Requirement: Users can choose which attributes to display 503 There are many attributes that might be displayed, and different 504 users will have different information that they want to see. Also, 505 users will have different display technologies: someone might 506 normally use a web browser on a large screen, but at other times use 507 the browser on their phone. 509 Choosing which attributes should be displayed should be simple for 510 the user. The Datatracker should save the last-chosen set of 511 attributes for display with the definition of the list. The default 512 is to display the I-D filename or RFC number, document title, date of 513 current I-D or RFC publication date, status in the RFC stream or RFC 514 process, associated WG or RG, whether it was changed within the last 515 7 days, and included list(s) which contain this I-D. 517 The Datatracker should support display of the following attributes: 519 o I-D filename 521 o I-D title 523 o Date of current I-D 525 o Status in the IETF process 527 o Associated WG or RG 529 o Associated AD, if any 531 o Changed within the last 1 day 532 o Changed within the last 2 days 534 o Changed within the last 7 days 536 There is some leeway for how the Datatracker might display these 537 attributes. For example, the "changed within" attributes might be 538 shown with a check mark or a colored box. 540 2.3.3. Requirement: Users can flag I-Ds with dates in the future 542 When tracking I-Ds, some users want to be able to say "tell me if 543 this I-D has not changes state by a particular date" such as when an 544 I-D is starting a two-week last call or an I-D author has promised a 545 new version by the end of the week. This feature gives the user a 546 "dashboard" style capability. 548 For each I-D, the user should be able to set a marker date by which 549 an update is expected. The Datatracker display will provide a visual 550 indication if the marker date has passed but no change in status has 551 occurred. It must be very easy for the user to remove these update- 552 expected markers. 554 2.3.4. Requirement: Users can specify highlighting of I-Ds and RFCs 555 with recent changes 557 The Datatracker cannot easily keep track of when a user last looked 558 at the page for a particular list. Thus, it instead needs to let a 559 user say which range of dates they are most interested in. To that 560 end, the user needs to be able to easily specify the amount of time 561 they consider recent, either as "the past nnn hours", "the past nnn 562 days", or "since this particular date". 564 2.4. File Output 566 2.4.1. Requirement: Users can get their current list as a single file 568 Some users have their own tools for displaying and otherwise 569 processing lists of I-Ds and RFCs. To make this easier, users should 570 be able to get a machine-parsable file that has a well-known format 571 and syntax that contains all the data that was used to create the 572 current display. The order of the records in the file is not 573 important because it is assumed that the user's program will sort the 574 results themselves. All attributes will be included because it is 575 assumed that the user's programs will only deal with the ones the 576 user cares about. 578 When a list is marshaled into a data file, each record in the file 579 format represents a single I-D or RFC. In a file, a particular I-D 580 or RFC is only included once; for example, if someone manually adds 581 draft-ietf-cuteacronym-sometopic to his list and also specifies that 582 all I-Ds from the "cuteacronym" WG are included in the list, that I-D 583 only appears once. 585 This feature will allow anyone to create mash-ups of their own and 586 create their own web sites based on the IETF data. This is 587 significantly easier than adding features to the Datatracker, and is 588 able to cater to narrow audiences. The format of this file has yet 589 to be determined. 591 3. IANA Considerations 593 None. 595 4. Security Considerations 597 A tool for tracking the status of I-Ds and RFCs can affect the 598 privacy of its users. Someone could possibly determine relevant 599 information about a user if they knew what that user was tracking. 601 Web applications, particularly those that store data on a web server, 602 are a common source of security issues such as cross-site scripting 603 attacks. The tool described in this document might also use access 604 control for lists, and access control and authentication also cause 605 security issues if not implemented properly. 607 5. Acknowledgements 609 Ideas used in this document were contributed by Scott Bradner, Leslie 610 Daigle, Spencer Dawkins, Aaron Falk, Russ Housley, Tero Kivinen, 611 Barry Leiba, John Levine, Henrik Levkowetz, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andy 612 Malis, Ray Pelletier, Blake Ramsdell, Julian Reschke, Jim Schaad, 613 Yaron Sheffer, Robert Sparks, Andrew Sullivan, and Sean Turner. 615 6. Informative References 617 [ALTSTREAMS] 618 Hoffman, P., "Data Tracker States and Annotations for the 619 IAB, IRTF, and Independent Submission Streams", 620 draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker (work in progress), 621 September 2010. 623 [CHARTERTOOL] 624 Hoffman, P., "Requirements for a Working Group Charter 625 Tool", draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool (work in progress), 626 October 2010. 628 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 629 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 631 [RFC4287] Nottingham, M., Ed. and R. Sayre, Ed., "The Atom 632 Syndication Format", RFC 4287, December 2005. 634 [RFC6174] Juskevicius, E., "Definition of IETF Working Group 635 Document States", RFC 6174, March 2011. 637 [RFC6175] Juskevicius, E., "Requirements to Extend the Datatracker 638 for IETF Working Group Chairs and Authors", RFC 6175, 639 March 2011. 641 Appendix A. Possible Tracking of Other Documents 643 It is not at all clear if any of these will be a requirement, a later 644 requirement, or a non-requirement. Further, even if one or more of 645 these non-I-D items is made a requirement, it is not clear whether 646 they will be included in the same lists with I-Ds. That is, if 647 tracking IANA registry changes are considered a requirement, it is 648 not clear whether a user would include the registries in a list that 649 also contains I-Ds, or whether they would need to create two lists, 650 one for I-Ds and one for IANA registries. 652 A.1. Tracking WG Charter Changes 654 It will soon be easier to track changes in WG charters and 655 milestones; see [CHARTERTOOL] for more information. Someone 656 subscribing to the mail stream for a WG would be able to see each of 657 these changes. With the expected changes, the Datatracker would be 658 able to update WGs in a list without any polling. 660 A.2. Tracking IANA Registry Changes 662 Developers may need to get values from IANA registries for their 663 software/hardware implementations. They might want to know when the 664 registry changes, such as additional entries or updates to current 665 entries. Thus, being able to be notified when a registry changes 666 would be valuable to them. 668 Adding this functionality may be tricky for some registries. For 669 example, if a developer cared about DKIM signature tags, they would 670 have to subscribe to 671 which (currently) 672 covers a handful of registries, all related to DKIM. Thus, a change 673 to the DKIM hash algorithms would trigger a message showing that the 674 registry had changed, even though the DKIM signature tags registry 675 had not. 677 A.3. Tracking Changes in the Liason Statement Directory 679 Users might want to know when a new liaison statement is sent by the 680 IETF, or when one is received by the IETF. 682 A.4. Tracking Changes in Documents Outside the IETF Sphere 684 Users might want to track documents that relate to IETF activities 685 but are produced by other standards development organizations (SDOs) 686 such as the W3C, the IEEE, the Unicode Consortium, the ITU, and 687 others. In order for the tracker to track these documents, it would 688 need to poll occasionally and possibly scrape listings from HTML. 690 A.5. Tracking Additions to the IPR Statement Repository 692 Users might want to know when a new IPR statement is submitted. 694 Appendix B. Ideas that Might Be Implemented Later 696 The following are ideas for the new tool that are not currently being 697 considered for the first round of development, but are being 698 documented for possible future use. Items here might move between 699 this list and the list of requirements that are expected to be in the 700 first round. 702 o The Datatracker could list all of the publicly-readable lists (or 703 certainly at least the ones associated with IETF activities), and 704 have links from WG pages in Datatracker to the publicly-readable 705 lists maintained by the WG chairs. 707 o Earlier versions of this I-D had a requirement that lists needed 708 to be able to include other lists. While this may still be 709 desired, it was decided that implementing this in a safe and 710 understandable way would be too difficult. In particular, there 711 was a concern about detecting and handling loops. Later versions 712 of the Datatracker might include this feature. 714 o In public lists, it might be useful for someone to be able to 715 understand why particular I-Ds and/or groups are added. Allowing 716 the user who put together the list to add a comment field would 717 help someone else see the motivation. 719 o The Datatracker might remove lists if it seems that storing them 720 on the Datatracker is taking too many resources. The Datatracker 721 can periodically send mail to the user reminding them to delete 722 lists that are no longer needed. 724 o The normal Datatracker display could have a button to add a 725 particular I-D to the user's personal list. 727 o Allow each user to determine what "significant change in status" 728 is for the list they create. This could be done by a series of 729 check boxes for every possible status change. 731 o A list creator can add a list-level comment about who might be 732 interested in following the list. 734 o If the agendas for an upcoming meeting are scraped for I-D names, 735 it would be possible to add an attribute to an I-D that lists that 736 WG agenda(s) on which it appears. 738 o In the section on "Adding groups of I-Ds to a list by attribute", 739 add an attribute for "all I-Ds that are referenced by any I-D in a 740 particular list". 742 o Make it possible to add all I-Ds that have a certain section to a 743 list (non-trivial IANA considerations, ASN.1 modules in 744 appendices, MIBs, ABNF, XML modules, ...). 746 o Even though Atom feeds have been around for years, they are new to 747 many Internet users, and even experienced users only know how to 748 use them in limited ways. The Datatracker should have at least a 749 few paragraphs explaining how the Atom feeds that it provides can 750 be used in different tools such as dedicated feed readers, online 751 feed-display services, and so on. 753 Author's Address 755 Paul Hoffman 756 VPN Consortium 758 Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org