forked from elastic/ecs
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
stages.html
138 lines (130 loc) · 5.29 KB
/
stages.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
<!DOCTYPE html>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<style>
html {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
table {
border-collapse: collapse;
}
th, td {
vertical-align: top;
border: 1px solid black;
padding: 0.3em;
}
ul {
padding: 0 0 0 1.2em;
margin: 0;
}
</style>
<title>ECS Proposal Stages</title>
<h1>ECS Proposal Stages</h1>
<p>These are the stages that an individual RFC advances through before being released for general availability in the Elastic Common Schema (ECS). See the <a href="https://github.com/elastic/ecs/blob/master/rfcs/PROCESS.md">Contributing Guide</a> for broader details about contributing changes to ECS through the RFC process.
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>
<th>Stage
<th>Goals during this stage
<th>Criteria for consideration for this stage
<th>Acceptance into this stage signifies
<th>Acceptable changes to schema in this stage
<th>Breaking changes expected after acceptance into this stage
<th>Recommended types of usage implementation
</tr>
</thead>
<tr>
<td>0
<td>Strawperson
<td>
<ul>
<li>Discuss with domain or subject matter experts the utility of these changes
<li>Discuss with ECS team whether these changes seem appropriate for ECS
</ul>
</td>
<td>Opened RFC pull request for this strawperson at <a href="https://github.com/elastic/ecs">elastic/ecs
<td>The premise of these changes is not obviously useless or inappropriate for ECS
<td>None
<td>Major
<td>N/A
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1
<td>Proposal
<td>
<ul>
<li>Make the case for these changes
<li>Describe the field definitions at a high level
<li>Identify potential challenges and areas that need more clarity
</ul>
</td>
<td>
<ul>
<li>Opened pull request for this proposal revising the existing strawperson
<li>Identified "sponsor" at Elastic who will participate in RFC process and take ownership of the change after the process completes
<li>Types of fields or changes outlined
<li>High-level description of examples of usage
<li>High-level description of example sources of data
<li>Identified potential concerns and implementation challenges/complexity
<li>Subject matter experts identified and weighed in on the high level utility of these changes in the pull request
<li>ECS team weighed in on appropriateness of these changes in the pull request
</ul>
</td>
<td>ECS team accepts the premise of the addition and commits to considering this proposal as it advances.
<td>None
<td>Major
<td>Proof of concepts, demos
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2
<td>Draft
<td>Identify a comprehensive set of field definitions that could be appropriate for real-world usage
<td>
<ul>
<li>Opened pull request for this draft revising the existing proposal
<li>Outlined initial field definitions
<li>Included a real world example source document
<li>Identifies scope of impact of changes to ingestion mechanisms (e.g. beats/logstash), usage mechanisms (e.g. Kibana applications, detections), and the ECS project (e.g. docs, tooling)
<li>Subject matter experts weighed in on technical utility of field definitions in the pull request
</ul>
</td>
<td>The initial field definitions are a comprehensive, though not necessarily complete, model of the addition to the schema. Fundamental questions and concerns are resolved, though some less significant questions remain open.
<td>Draft field definitions can be committed to the ECS schema as "experimental" fields
<td>Iterative
<td>Experimental and beta features
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3
<td>Candidate
<td>Indicate that direct experience from implementations and users is necessary to validate the additions
<td>
<ul>
<li>Opened pull request for this candidate revising the existing draft
<li>Completed field definitions
<li>Included multiple real world example source documents
<li>Existing or newly raised questions and concerns are addressed
</ul>
</td>
<td>There are no further open questions or unaddressed concerns, and the field definitions are complete based on the information and usage experience we have.
<td>Candidate field definitions can be committed to the ECS schema as "beta" fields
<td>Minimal: only those determined to be critical based on usage experience
<td>GA features
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4
<td>Finished
<td>Indicate that the addition is ready for GA release in ECS
<td>
<ul>
<li>Opened pull request for this candidate revising the existing candidate
<li>At least one real-world, production-ready usage implementation exists for the field definitions
<li>Existing or newly raised questions and concerns are addressed
<li>No objections from sponsor, ECS team, or subject matter experts
</ul>
</td>
<td>The field definitions are in use as defined in real-world, production-ready software without raising additional questions or concerns that need to be resolved. The changes are ready to be released as GA in ECS.
<td>Field definitions can be committed to the ECS schema as "GA" fields
<td>None outside major versions
<td>Any
</tr>
</table>