Add a table of contents

README.adoc

@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+:toc: macro
+
 = Otto
 
 **link:https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#otto[Chat on IRC]**
@@ -15,12 +17,16 @@ Otto does not aim to be the center of the entire continuous delivery process,
 but rather seeks to interoperate seamlessly with all the various components
 which make CD work for you.
 
+toc::[]
 
 = Status
 
-Otto is currently not usable.
+**Otto is currently not usable.**
 
-The various components are in different states of development, please consult
+There are link:rfc[design documents] in the `rfc/` directory which can help
+describe the state of development for Otto.
+
+The components are in different states of development. Please consult
 the README document in the subfolders for their current purpose and status.
 
 = Development

rfc/0001-otto-systems-design.adoc

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ endif::[]
 | link:https://github.com/rtyler/[R Tyler Croy]
 
 | Status
-| Not Submitted :information_source:
+| Draft :speech_balloon:
 
 | Type
 | Standards
@@ -194,76 +194,8 @@ The isolation of system state further helps Otto bind into reactive, or
 persistent, the other components can be operated only as need.
 
 
-== Backwards Compatibility
-
-[TIP]
-====
-Describe any incompatibilities and their severity.
-Describe how the RFC proposes to deal with these incompatibilities.
-
-If there are no backwards compatibility concerns, this section may simply say:
-There are no backwards compatibility concerns related to this proposal.
-====
-
 == Security
 
-[TIP]
-====
-Describe the security impact of this proposal.
-Outline what was done to identify and evaluate security issues,
-discuss of potential security issues and how they are mitigated or prevented,
-and how the RFC interacts with existing permissions, authentication, authorization, etc.
-
-If this proposal will have no impact on security, this section may simply say:
-There are no security risks related to this proposal.
-====
-
-
-== Testing
-
-[TIP]
-====
-If the RFC involves any kind of behavioral change to code give a summary of how
-its correctness (and, if applicable, compatibility, security, etc.) can be
-tested.
-
-In the preferred case that automated tests can be developed to cover all
-significant changes, simply give a short summary of the nature of these tests.
-
-If some or all of changes will require human interaction to verify, explain why
-automated tests are considered impractical.  Then summarize what kinds of test
-cases might be required: user scenarios with action steps and expected
-outcomes.  Might behavior vary by platform (operating system, servlet
-container, web browser, etc.)?  Are there foreseeable interactions between
-different permissible versions of components?
-Are any special tools, proprietary software, or online service accounts
-required to exercise a related code path (Active Directory server, GitHub
-login, etc.)?  When will testing take place relative to merging code changes,
-and might retesting be required if other changes are made to this area in the
-future?
-
-If this proposal requires no testing, this section may simply say:
-There are no testing issues related to this proposal.
-====
-
-== Prototype Implementation
-
-[TIP]
-====
-Link to any open source reference implementation of code changes for this proposal.
-The implementation need not be completed before the RFC is accepted
-but must be completed before the RFC is given "final" status.
-
-RFCs which will not include code changes may omit this section.
-====
+Securing this system is a sufficiently complex topic to merit it's own RFC.
 
 == References
-
-[TIP]
-====
-Provide links to any related documents.  This will include links to discussions
-on the mailing list, pull requests, and meeting notes.
-====
-
-
-

rfc/0002-execution-manifest.adoc

@@ -34,6 +34,13 @@ endif::[]
 
 |===
 
+
+[WARNING]
+====
+This RFC no longer reflects the current thinking of how agent execution should
+be implemented. It has not yet been updated however.
+====
+
 == Abstract
 
 Otto agents require a well-defined series of operations in order to statelessly

rfc/0005-json-over-http.adoc

@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ endif::[]
 
 |===
 
+[[abstract]]
 == Abstract
 
 Otto is a distributed system in which multiple services need to communicate

rfc/0011-step-library-format.adoc

@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ should wait for a response before proceeding to their next operation.
 For the inter-process communication (IPC) between steps and the agent, the agent
 should bind an HTTP service to a local unix socket on platforms which support it.
 All requests should then be formed as JSON over HTTP, which is further described
-in <<./0005-json-over-http.adoc, RFC #5>>.
+in <<0005-json-over-http.adoc#abstract, RFC #5>>.
 
 Examples of requests are detailed below.
 

rfc/README.adoc

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Below is the list of RFCs:
 
 | 0001
 | link:0001-otto-systems-design.adoc[Otto System Design]
-| Not Submitted :information_source:
+| Draft :speech_balloon:
 
 | 0002
 | link:0002-execution-manifest.adoc[Execution Manifest]