Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Where to report issues with the format tools (vs the format-related RFCs)

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:11:31 -0500

All -

On the 11-Sep tools call, we had a discussion about where to track 
issues with the rfc formatting tools being developed. I want to continue 
that conversation, and make some progress before we get to the 9-Oct 
tools call. Note that tracking issues with the new format RFCs and thier 
bis documents is a separate matter - those are being handled in github, 
with the bis-project for each associated draft.

On the call, we talked about reusing and extending the existing xml2rfc 
trac instance, or extending the datatracker instance, and asked for 
other ideas. Alice pointed out that the RPC is already familiar with the 
xml2rfc trac instance that has been in place for several years. Given 
the RPCs (and at least some of the rest of the community's) familiarity 
with the existing xml2rfc trac instance, it seems natural to extend that 
instance to handle issues for the other format tools. We could also take 
this opportunity to move the xml2rfc trac instance from tools.ietf.org 
to a secretariat-hosted machine, probably trac.ietf.org.

There is already exisiting confusion around where to report sofware 
issues. I think it's important minimize adding to that.

Combining everything into one big tracking system isn't really feasible 
without some huge disruptions,
Keeping separate trackers for each of the format tools is unappealing 
because it would add to the existing confusion around where to report 
issues.

So, I think extending the xml2rfc trac instance (and possibly moving it 
to trac.ietf.org) is the right course of action.

Other thoughts? Please weigh in soon. Again, I'd like to make progress 
on this before the next tools call, and I'd _really_ like to have the 
result in place before we get to IETF 103.

RjS

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:36:15 -0700

How many of the tools themselves are being developed on Github?

-Ekr

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 7:11 AM Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 10:55:01 -0500

None, though I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that Jim was using Github 
for his own convenience early in the development of three of them. I am 
not finding links to github for them at this point.

The authoritative source for those three (rfclint, svgcheck, and 
xmldiff) are here.
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/browser/#branch/hawk

You can also find distribution here:

https://pypi.org/project/rfc-xmldiff/

https://pypi.org/project/rfclint/

https://pypi.org/project/svgcheck/

The source for remainder (the formatters, idnits, and the text 
submission converter) are here:

https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/browser/#branch/elft

with these pypi links:

https://pypi.org/project/id2xml/
https://pypi.org/project/xml2rfc/
(the rewrite of idnits is still coming: see 
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/wiki/FormatToolsPlan)

RjS

On 9/28/18 10:36 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 7:11 AM Robert Sparks <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     All -
>
>     this opportunity to move the xml2rfc trac instance from
>     tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org>
>     to a secretariat-hosted machine, probably trac.ietf.org
>     <http://trac.ietf.org>.
>
>     to trac.ietf.org <http://trac.ietf.org>) is the right course of
>     action.
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 18:12:07 -0500

I asked Jim - the github repository he's been using is at

https://github.com/Com-AugustCellars/RfcEditor

RjS

On 9/28/18 10:55 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> for his own convenience early in the development of three of them. I 
> am not finding links to github for them at this point.
>