Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Next Tools Call

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:26:35 -0500

I will be traveling on Nov 20th, so I cannot make the call.  Can the people that are able to make the call able to talk about  http://tools.ietf.org/tools/table?  I have suggested my top 3 for moving to the Secretariat-maintained servers.  I would like to figure out which ones we want to migrate by the end of 2014.

Russ

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:34:57 -0800

My regrets as well.

Bob

On Nov 13, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development

---

From: Scott O Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:04:17 -0500

me also

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:18:44 -0500

We know that moving the draft-foo mail aliases, the wiki pages and the issue trackers to the ietf.org servers is already being worked.  Those have become critical.

Those represent my top three...

Russ

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:22:48 -0800

On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Those represent my top three…

We will get an update on their progress on Wednesday's call next week.

Are there one or two others we should add to the list for getting to this year?

Ray

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:59:00 -0600

I do not see anything marked in the table not already marked critical 
that I believe has become critical.

Are there things that have become critical that are not listed in the table?
(I will continue to think, but I'm not finding anything immediate to 
point towards).

What's the current status of exposing the archive of the draft 
repository from the IETF servers?
Right now, we point to tools.ietf.org for older versions. Is the work 
for putting the older versions on the ietf servers complete?
I don't know the URL that exposes them.

The WG wiki pages and issue trackers are (I think) only one row in the 
table right now. Russ - if you see three rows matching your three 
things, please point at them - I may be misreading one of them.

Who currently has the pen for the table?

RjS

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:47:45 -0500

The tools team has managed this table.  I think Henrik has some automation for some parts because version numbers have been updated.

Russ

On Nov 13, 2013, at 3:59 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> I do not see anything marked in the table not already marked critical that I believe has become critical.
> 
> (I will continue to think, but I'm not finding anything immediate to point towards).
> 
> What's the current status of exposing the archive of the draft repository from the IETF servers?
> Right now, we point to tools.ietf.org for older versions. Is the work for putting the older versions on the ietf servers complete?
> The WG wiki pages and issue trackers are (I think) only one row in the table right now. Russ - if you see three rows matching your three things, please point at them - I may be misreading one of them.
>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:53:50 +0100

> I don't know the URL that exposes them.

This could be done in at least 3 different ways.  Currently, drafts exist
in 5 different directories on the webserver, and are symlinked into a
sixth directory for the purpose of providing one single place where
rfcdiff can look to find earlier copies of a draft to diff against.

The 5 locations are, in priority order:

1.  /a/www/ietf-ftp/internet-drafts/		# Secretariat repository (  5k docs)
2.  /a/www/www6s/draft-archive/			# Secretariat archive 	 ( 68k docs)
3.  /a/www/www6s/draft-archive/internet-drafts/	# Another secr. archive  (  6k docs)
4.  /a/www/www6s/draft-archive/unknown_ids/	# Another secr. archive  ( 41k docs)
5.  /a/www/www6s/draft-archive/expired_without_tombstone# Another arch.	 (  3k docs)
6.  /a/www/www6s/tool-id-archive/		# Snapshot of tools ar.	 ( 96k docs)

It's quite possible that there are items 3, 4, and 5 that should not be
included in the collection, but determining that requires detailed
investigation.  (Since the system was set up, Robert has done some
detailed scrutiny of some of the drafts involved in a different context,
and may have enough data to suggest changes).

Some of the different ways we could make this public are:

A.  Make 2. above visible and discoverable.  That's the archive to which we
    currently retire expired and replaced drafts.

B.  Make several of the archives on the list above visible, without any
    aggregation

C.  Make the symlink archive that rfcdiff uses visible and discoverable.
    That will include the tool-id-archive snapshot, which contains drafts
    with less known provenance than the rest.

> table right now.

Yes.  They are essentially the same tool, and should not be dealt with
independently from each other.

> Russ - if you see three rows matching your three 

The table is generated from individual tool-specific files on the tools
servers.  The files resemble the Debian 'control' files, with some added
ietf-specific annotations.  Whenever I add a new tool to the set which is
exposed on the front page of tools.ietf.org, I do so by adding a control
file for it.  Both the tools front page and the table is then generated
from the control files.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:16:38 -0600

> file for it.  Both the tools front page and the table is then generated
How would you prefer to receive suggested updates to the data in each 
control file
(particularly that used to populate the table)?

Here's a few examples to start with:

I think you should add http://www.ipv.sx/draftr/. What information do 
you need
to do so?

Table row related things:

What is the priority column for? Everything there is "optional".
The Date column is empty. Could it be used for "Date this record was 
updated?"
The meaning of the dates in the Transition column is not clear - should 
they be replaced with something else?

Should id-submission, nomcom, and rfcdiff have their "Transition" 
column  marked done?
For nomcom (which is "IETF Nomcom Support Tool" on the front page) - do 
you still want to have the front page entry?

Those things already in progress should be marked in progress (or 
waiting to start if they're not actively in progress).
(email-aliases, wgtrac, idnits (?), xml2rfc (?) )

Front page related things:

The entry on the front page for " Extract ABNF from a document" appears 
twice.
Once above "Chrome: Rewrite IETF ID URLs..." and once below it.

Does "IETF database" still have legacy perl scripts?

"Download WG drafts" (Eric Rescorla) points to <http://tools.ietf.org/>.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:52:28 +0100

Hi Robert,

> I think you should add http://www.ipv.sx/draftr/. What information do 

I'd prefer to receive suggestions for new tools to list (on the front page
and in the table) from the authors/maintainers of the tool -- that automatically
gives me correct name and email addresses, and also makes sure they know that
the tool is listed, so that if needed they'll let me know if things change.

The format I use can be examplified by the following two entries; what I
normally ask for is the first line and the following paragraph under
description; those are used for tool title and description on the front
page.  The Ietf: entry indicates critical (or not):

Version: 0.11.7
Section: text
Ietf: critical
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>

Package: wgtrac
Architecture: any
Depends: Trac
Category: share
Url: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/trackers
Description: WG Issue Trackers
	Some IETF Working Groups have issue trackers set up to facilitate
	tracking of document issues.  To find the issue tracker of a WG,
	please go to the WG status page and follow the link which says
	'Issues' in the top horizontal menubar.  If there is no such link,
	the WG doesn't have a registered issue tracker.

Version: 
Section: text
Ietf: 
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>, Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>

Package: lyx2rfc
Architecture: mac, linux
Depends: 
Category: author
Url: https://github.com/nicowilliams/lyx2rfc
Repository: https://github.com/nicowilliams/lyx2rfc.git
Description: Write Internet-Drafts using the LyX Editor.
	Use lyx2rfc togeter with LyX to edit Internet-Drafts.  LyX is an open
	source WYSIWYM GUI editor that runs on all major operating systems.
	Currently lyx2rfc outputs XML, text, and HTML, but only runs on Linux.
	A <a href="http://lyx2rfc.org/">web interface</a> is also
	available.

> What is the priority column for? Everything there is "optional".

That's not used by us.  I can remove it.  It's part of the debian control
file format.

> The Date column is empty. Could it be used for "Date this record was 

Hmm.  I don't think it should be; and yes, we could use it for that.

> they be replaced with something else?

It should be showing when a transition was made.

> Should id-submission, nomcom, and rfcdiff have their "Transition" 

I've used 'Done' only when I don't have a date to put there.  

> you still want to have the front page entry?

I guess, yes, but it should point to the current tool.  Updated.

> (email-aliases, wgtrac, idnits (?), xml2rfc (?) )

Umm.  Where did you intend to put that?  idnits is already marked as
transitioned in December 2009.

> Once above "Chrome: Rewrite IETF ID URLs..." and once below it.

Ah.  Fixed.

> Does "IETF database" still have legacy perl scripts?

Heh. No.  Fixed.

> "Download WG drafts" (Eric Rescorla) points to <http://tools.ietf.org/>.

It should point to the right directory on tools.  Fixed.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:24:19 -0600

> It should be showing when a transition was made.
Is there a way to make that more obvious? Maybe "completed {{date}}" or 
with a hint in the column header?
> transitioned in December 2009.
Yet the datatracker still points to tools.ietf.org for that on each 
document's main page.
Where should it be pointing?

For the rest, I was suggesting putting that information in the 
Transition column.

RjS

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:32:39 +0100

Hi Robert,

> with a hint in the column header?

Sure.  Fixed with 'Completed {{date}}'

> Where should it be pointing?

http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/

> For the rest, I was suggesting putting that information in the 

Ok. I've updated aliases and trac.  For xml2rfc I don't think we have a plan
for additional changes, and what they would be.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:37:40 +0100

I just tested this:

> http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/

It doesn't seem to be working too well.  It also hasn't been updated with
the latest release I did; it seems that only has been updated to the latest
release I did, something that Glen and Steve have been doing routinely in
the past.

	Henrik

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:54:21 -0600

> release I did, something that Glen and Steve have been doing routinely in
I follow what you've said, but I'd like repeat it slightly differently 
to make sure others did.
I think you're saying that what's currently running is what you 
installed there yourself some time back,
and that you've released new code since then but the new releases didn't 
get installed.

This looks like a good test case for the moving-critical-tools document. 
Looking now to see what it
says about keeping up with new releases of a tool that continues to 
evolve externally... and it's silent.
Hmm.

In this particular case, what _should_ be triggering an update? If we 
had completed the transition,
user reports of trouble would have caught that we were not keeping up 
with bug fixes/new features.
Is resetting to the current release and relying on that enough, or 
should there be something like the
release messages for the datatracker to kick off activity?

More generally, should there be something that does version checks 
against anything that continues
to exist in the wild, and report when those versions are out of sync?

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:12:31 +0100

Hi Robert,

> and that you've released new code since then but the new releases didn't 

No, I've been doing releases regularly since the transition (21 of them,
excluding the latest, since December 2009: 
  http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/changelog), and they have always been
picked up and put in place.

> evolve externally... and it's silent.

There used to be text about this, but I remember that from a long time ago.

> In this particular case, what _should_ be triggering an update?

For the transitioned tools which I still maintain, there's always a release
notification email which goes out to Glen and Steve when I do a release.

> If we 

There's something else, with the front-end script, which doesn't work as
it should.  This needs to be looked into separately.  With respect to the
release messages, they are already going out in much the same manner as
for the datatracker releases (the datatracker release notifications
actually inherited code from the idnits release message handling).

> to exist in the wild, and report when those versions are out of sync?

Hmm.  I don't think so.  Let people who use the services provide feedback,
assuming there's automatic release notifications going out.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:16:24 -0600

> picked up and put in place.
Ok, then I can't parse your original sentence. You have two instances of
"latest release I did" that seem to contradict each other?
I guess the jist is that the most recent release didn't get picked up, 
and this
should be a ticket to get things back on track?

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:19:09 +0100

Hi Robert,

> "latest release I did" that seem to contradict each other?

Oops, sorry :-) 

That should have read:

 It doesn't seem to be working too well.  It also hasn't been updated with
 the latest release I did; it seems that only has been updated to the previous
 release I did, something that Glen and Steve have been doing routinely in
 the past.

> should be a ticket to get things back on track?

Yes.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:22:48 -0600

> I guess, yes, but it should point to the current tool.  Updated.
Thinking about this more. The nomcom tool became part of the datatracker.

The datatracker is already a row in the table. Should things that are 
integrated
remain as separate entries in general?

It would be nice not to accrue lots of rows that aren't really talking 
about the
current status of the tool. (Or if the current status is "became part of 
something
else", it would be nice to move those rows out of the way so that we 
have a view
of this table that drives the focus towards inspecting active things 
that may be
candidates for work).

Also, as we are accruing more functionality into the datatracker itself, 
should
we have a page (or do we already) that speaks to the current major 
functional
pieces?

RjS

---

From: Steve Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:58:07 -0800

HI Henrik,

You're right, I seem to have missed an idnits deployment.  This has now
been done, apologies for the delay.

Best regards,
Steve

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:01:32 +0100

Hi Steve,

> been done, apologies for the delay.

Thanks!  Slip-ups can happen; as I mentioned earlier there's a sequence
of 21 previous releases since the transfer which have been taken care of
just fine :-)

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:31:26 +0100

Hi Robert,

On 2013-11-14 18:22 Robert Sparks said the following:
>>> For nomcom (which is "IETF Nomcom Support Tool" on the front
>>> page) - do you still want to have the front page entry?

>  integrated remain as separate entries in general?

Maybe eventually, but people who knew where to find the nomcom tool in the
past, but don't know where it is now, might go to the tools front page and
look for it.  It should be possible to find it there for some time, I think.

> It would be nice not to accrue lots of rows that aren't really
> talking about the current status of the tool. (Or if the current
> status is "became part of something else", it would be nice to move
> those rows out of the way so that we have a view of this table that
> drives the focus towards inspecting active things that may be 
> candidates for work).

For that purpose, yes.  For the purpose of seeing history, it's still nice
to see things that have been taken care of.  I can always build another table
that does a different selection, of course.

> Also, as we are accruing more functionality into the datatracker
> itself, should we have a page (or do we already) that speaks to the
> current major functional pieces?

Maybe, unless that should be simply a function of the lefthand menubar
of the datatracker itself?

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Alice Russo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:59:05 -0500

Russ wrote:
> I will be traveling on Nov 20th, so I cannot make the call. 

and Ray wrote:
> We will get an update on their progress on Wednesday's call next week

Hm. Several months ago I thought the ongoing time for this call had been moved to (second) Tuesdays at 1 pm ET, so the next call would be Nov. 19th, not 20th.

Did the ongoing schedule get reverted to Wednesdays?

Thanks,
Alice

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:42:59 -0500

Alice

You are correct 

I will modify the WebEx details to Tuesday at 1:00 PM

Ray