IAB documents should be "adopted" not "active"

[mallory]

Description

When viewing an IAB document in the datatracker, drafts are marked "active" if they are current drafts that the IAB is working on. However that is not the terminology that we use in practice: instead we say they are "adopted". Please if we could have that slight change in the datatracker that would make our meetings a bit smoother so that we can more easily see what we have committed to working on.

Code of Conduct

• [X] I agree to follow the IETF's Code of Conduct

[rjsparks]

This is the draft state of the document, in a state machine that is shared by all streams (and non-stream users). It's the common state machine for all drafts in the I-D Repository and Archive.

Would it be sufficient if the draft-stream-iab state were modified rather than the draft state?

These show in these places:

indeed, it is likely a bug that the draft shows as being in the IAB stream yet has no IAB state. The effort might be best placed on addressing that issue.

Further, the use-case of answering "What drafts have we committed to work on" should probably be directly addressed. We should look at clarifying search result pages like https://datatracker.ietf.org/stream/iab/, and maybe enabling the documents tab for the IAB at https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/

[mirjak]

This was discussed during the IAB retreat where we reviewed our document process. We identified that the options for the "IAB state" in the datatracker do not align with our current practice. Please see the following wiki page that documents our process (and was updated after the march discussion): https://www.iab.org/wiki/index.php/IAB_Document_Process

In practice we only use the following states: Candidate IAB Document, Active IAB Document, Community Review, IAB Review, Sent to the RFC Editor

During recent list discussion we identified that the list my not be complete and we might also need: "Dead IAB Document" and "Sent to a Different Organization for Publication". However, on the later state I think the only option where this is used if we request publication as BCP by the IESG and in this case it would probably be good to rename the state accordingly and make that more clear.

All other states (except "Published RFC" of course) can be removed that are listed here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/draft-stream-iab/

Also note that we don't use any of the tags listed here as well: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/draft-stream-iab/

I guess we could keep the "Revised I-D Needed" tag and maybe also a more generic "Document Shepherd Followup" tag, however, all other tags are rather unclear in when and how to use them.

Of course there is generally no issue in keeping these states and tags and not using them, however, there has been confusion about our process in the past and maybe removing these things makes it more clear.

Further, and now finally back to the original issue raised here, there is an IAB state "Active IAB Document" and, even if we don't clear up the states, we would really like to rename that state to "Adopted IAB Document" in order to exactly avoid any confusion about the general draft status. We never discussed the general draft status and as it is global it should of course not be changes. I think this was a misunderstanding about the word "status".

[rjsparks]

Thanks for the clarification! Will digest and propose a set of changes.

[aretana]

FWIW, the used states ("Candidate IAB Document, Active IAB Document, Community Review, IAB Review, Sent to the RFC Editor") reflect the normal processing of a document that is taken to completion. I would like to keep the other states, including Dead and even Parked, for the cases where the publication process may not be straightforward.

Also, "Sent to a Different Organization for Publication" could also be used for the general case of moving a document to the IETF (not just as a BCP through the IESG) or the ISE.

[mirjak]

Not sure we would ever use "Parked" rather than "dead". If so, we would need to exactly tell Cindy when to use it.

Also if we send it through the IEFT or ISE, we should rather not adopt it in the first place. If we unfortunately did, I think "dead" would be fine as well. However if we want to have state for then I think it would be different from "went thought the whole IAB process and has consensus and was then sent to IESG for BCP'ing it" and we should separate them out.