From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 4 18:42:11 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20860; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 18:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIaOt-0004WN-70; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:50:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIaG3-00067U-Gf; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:41:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIa7O-0004Yg-4p; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:32:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20061; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 18:32:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av7-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net ([81.228.10.110]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIaFO-0004DM-5L; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:40:43 -0400 Received: by av7-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4B12837E53; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 00:32:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.183]) by av7-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3749037E46; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 00:32:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2779337E44; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 00:32:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DIa7B-0000ww-JA; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:32:13 +0200 Message-ID: <4251C06C.1040606@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:32:12 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, Tools Team Discussion , WG Chairs X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:41:22 -0400 Subject: [Tools-discuss] idnits v1.63 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, A new version of idnits - v1.63 - is now available from http://ietf.levkowetz.com/tools/idnits/ . This version is intended for use between now and May 6, the date when the secretariat will start enforcing strict adherence to RFC 3978 and RFC 3979. In idnits v1.63 a warning has been added for drafts which use 3667 boilerplate instead of 3978 boilerplate, where those differ. The 3978 boilerplate is now also required to be verbatim, with none of the slight variations which was accepted earlier (e.g., "he" instead of "he or she", or "the author" instead of "each author"). I expect to release another version of idnits around May 1st; in that version a regular error will be reported for non-conforming boilerplate, instead of v1.63's warning. At that time idnits will also become less forgiving towards run-together boilerplate paragraphs. (Currently it in many cases attempts to match 2 or more consecutive boilerplate paragraphs to draft text which seems to match the beginning of the boilerplate text, but is too long...) Any comments should go to tools-discuss@ietf.org. Regards, Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 4 19:09:14 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23307; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIap5-0005VI-9m; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:17:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIagg-0003B9-TQ; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:08:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIage-0003B1-Pa; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:08:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23233; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIaoe-0005UW-Sp; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:17:10 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2005 16:08:41 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.91,148,1110182400"; d="scan'208"; a="625650419:sNHT31967376" Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j34N8ZDr003615; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.32.244.218] (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with SMTP id BDQ35402; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:08:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4251C06C.1040606@levkowetz.com> References: <4251C06C.1040606@levkowetz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <767568730020e55e7f0b807382a67563@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Baker Fred Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:08:36 -0700 To: Henrik Levkowetz X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: WG Chairs , xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, Tools Team Discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: idnits v1.63 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:32 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > In idnits v1.63 a warning has been added for drafts which use 3667 > boilerplate instead of 3978 boilerplate, where those differ. The 3978 > boilerplate is now also required to be verbatim, with none of > the slight variations which was accepted earlier (e.g., "he" instead > of "he or she", or "the author" instead of "each author"). Boy, that's brilliant. I wasn't aware that all IETF contributors are male and each draft has exactly one author. What other appropriate simplifying assumptions have I overlooked all these years? _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 4 19:22:34 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24528; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:22:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIb1z-0005ye-OY; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:30:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIatZ-0005xb-Bo; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:22:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIatX-0005xT-W1; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:22:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24506; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-red.research.att.com ([192.20.225.110] helo=mail-white.research.att.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIb1Y-0005uv-Ah; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:30:29 -0400 Received: from bright.research.att.com (bright.research.att.com [135.207.20.189]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45878197354; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from fenner@localhost) by bright.research.att.com (8.12.11/8.12.10/Submit) id j34NLwI2008758; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:21:58 -0700 Message-Id: <200504042321.j34NLwI2008758@bright.research.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII To: fred@cisco.com References: <4251C06C.1040606@levkowetz.com> <767568730020e55e7f0b807382a67563@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:21:58 -0800 From: Bill Fenner Versions: dmail (linux) 2.6d/makemail 2.10 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: idnits v1.63 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Fred, The simplification that Henrik mentions is that the boilerplate must now exactly match that in RFC 3978 / 1id-guidelines, since that's what the lawyers and the IPR WG OK'd; previously it was considered OK for an author to change, e.g., the "he or she" in the template to "he" on a document with only male authors, or the "each author" to "the author" on a document with only one author. Bill _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 4 19:38:25 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25920; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:38:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIbHJ-0006UG-IR; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:46:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIb7k-0008H8-4m; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:36:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIb7h-0008H0-N8; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:36:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25827; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu ([128.2.185.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIbFj-0006Px-2c; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:45:08 -0400 Received: from SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU ([128.2.209.170]) by minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu id aa00642; 4 Apr 2005 19:35 EDT Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:35:12 -0400 From: Jeffrey Hutzelman To: Baker Fred , Henrik Levkowetz Message-ID: <118A637ED3B5F6E05FB08233@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <767568730020e55e7f0b807382a67563@cisco.com> References: <4251C06C.1040606@levkowetz.com> <767568730020e55e7f0b807382a67563@cisco.com> Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01qckfaRMxlN31FJfq3EdP2EA7VpQw/ZgWPk3O30k=; token_authority=postmaster@andrew.cmu.edu X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: WG Chairs , xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, Tools Team Discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: idnits v1.63 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, April 04, 2005 04:08:36 PM -0700 Baker Fred wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:32 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> In idnits v1.63 a warning has been added for drafts which use 3667 >> boilerplate instead of 3978 boilerplate, where those differ. The 3978 >> boilerplate is now also required to be verbatim, with none of >> the slight variations which was accepted earlier (e.g., "he" instead >> of "he or she", or "the author" instead of "each author"). > > Boy, that's brilliant. I wasn't aware that all IETF contributors are male > and each draft has exactly one author. What other appropriate simplifying > assumptions have I overlooked all these years? All Internet users speak, read, and write English and only English? :-) _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 04:44:26 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA24177; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:44:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIjnn-0007an-FT; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 04:52:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIjfb-0000ck-Jd; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 04:44:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIjRy-0006BO-Uo; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 04:30:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23163; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pne-smtpout1-sn2.hy.skanova.net ([81.228.8.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIja4-000788-5w; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 04:38:41 -0400 Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (213.64.174.195) by pne-smtpout1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (7.1.026.7) id 41E3216700A708BB; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:29:59 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DIjRf-0003rJ-7y; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:29:59 +0200 Message-ID: <42524C86.7010307@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:29:58 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Baker Fred References: <4251C06C.1040606@levkowetz.com> <767568730020e55e7f0b807382a67563@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <767568730020e55e7f0b807382a67563@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 04:44:21 -0400 Cc: WG Chairs , xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, Tools Team Discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: idnits v1.63 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Fred, On 2005-04-05 1:08 am Baker Fred said the following: > On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:32 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> In idnits v1.63 a warning has been added for drafts which use 3667 >> boilerplate instead of 3978 boilerplate, where those differ. The 3978 >> boilerplate is now also required to be verbatim, with none of >> the slight variations which was accepted earlier (e.g., "he" instead >> of "he or she", or "the author" instead of "each author"). > > Boy, that's brilliant. I wasn't aware that all IETF contributors are > male and each draft has exactly one author. What other appropriate > simplifying assumptions have I overlooked all these years? I think maybe you misunderstood what I tried to convey. The tool would earlier accept any of the following so that a single male or single female author, as well as several authors, could use appropriate wording: "By submitting this Internet-Draft, the author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79." "By submitting this Internet-Draft, the author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79." "By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79." However, with the explicit message that no such variations to the boiler- plate should be accepted by the secretariat, idnits will no longer accept them either. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 14:55:43 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18406; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DItLR-0004oA-VL; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:04:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItCh-0008RS-Bh; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:55:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIplp-0003gv-CY; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:15:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29172; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:15:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIpty-00053x-KV; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:23:40 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate2.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j35FF296145108; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:15:02 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j35FF2Zm222230; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 17:15:02 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j35FF1oR028651; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 17:15:02 +0200 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j35FF0Xk028630; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 17:15:01 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-221-43.de.ibm.com [9.146.221.43]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA96612; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 17:14:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4252AB70.8050209@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:14:56 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Nelson, David" References: <2A5E4540D4D5934D9A1E7E0B0FDB2D69010322A4@MAANDMBX2.ets.enterasys.com> In-Reply-To: <2A5E4540D4D5934D9A1E7E0B0FDB2D69010322A4@MAANDMBX2.ets.enterasys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:55:10 -0400 Cc: Bill Fenner , wgchairs@ietf.org, xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, fred@cisco.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: idnits v1.63 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nelson, David wrote: > Bill Fenner writes... > > >> The simplification that Henrik mentions is that the boilerplate must >>now exactly match that in RFC 3978 / 1id-guidelines, since that's what >>the lawyers and the IPR WG OK'd; previously it was considered OK for > > an > >>author to change, e.g., the "he or she" in the template to "he" on a >>document with only male authors, or the "each author" to "the author" >>on a document with only one author. > > > I can't imagine that an attorney who was asked to review the IPR > boilerplate would not approve each of the versions to accommodate the > gender and number of authors, assuming that someone were to ask the > question in that fashion. In my experience, "flexibility" problems laid > at the feet of legal counsel are often, in fact, a failure to ask the > right questions of counsel in the first instance. :-) Possibly, but the approved BCP is the approved BCP, and its language was carefully written to cover all cases. Brian _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 14:56:36 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18530; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DItMI-0004pa-KL; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:05:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItCw-0008Rg-Km; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:55:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIonh-0001mW-Ox for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:13:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23624 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tutakai.map-ne.com ([69.25.196.14] helo=Mail.MAP-NE.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIovp-0002wV-Vw for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:21:31 -0400 Received: by Mail.MAP-NE.com (Postfix, from userid 105) id EADAA3F746; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:13:01 -0400 (EDT) To: tools-discuss@ietf.org In-reply-to: <42284FBF.1010806@levkowetz.com> (message from Henrik Levkowetz on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:08:31 +0100) From: "Michael A. Patton" References: <42284FBF.1010806@levkowetz.com> Message-Id: <20050405141301.EADAA3F746@Mail.MAP-NE.com> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:13:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:55:25 -0400 Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: New tool prototypes X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe I just spent some time playing with the HTMLized agendas and WG status pages. Yes, I realize these are agendas for the just past meeting, but I was exploring with an eye towards being familiar with how they worked and (most importantly) to think about feedback. So, here's a report. Henrik was almost the only one I sent to for reasons that I'll get to below... First, I found it very nice, in general. But, I did actually think of one suggestion that might be very helpful. Often there are individual submission IDs that are intended to be relevant for a specific WG. While these are not official WG docs, it might be useful to have them listed in a section at the end of the draft status page. While in the long run it would be nice for this to actually be captured by the ID submission process, it can be done today with better than 90% success just by noting if the facet of the file name following the author field is an IETF WG acronym. Most authors intending a draft for a specific WG usually do that. So, that was the suggestion I was going to make. The rest of this message chronicals the saga of what followed my having the idea of that improvement... First, a quick glance at the left margin showed a "Feedback" entry. I said "my how nice"...and one of the items was a wiki. I'd used several other wikis and thought I'd go there. Unfortunately, I didn't quite find what I was looking for. There was a page for suggesting additional tools which I considered editing, but it didn't seem quite right (and I wasn't exactly sure which sub-heading to use, but that's the glory of a wiki, if I goofed someone who knew better could fix it), there didn't seem to be anything like suggested improvements. So I decided to defer on this option. OK, so we fall back to the mailing list. There's an item in the "Feedback" heading for that, we'll try that next. Unfortunately, when I click that I get a page whose body contains only: %(content)s Latest update: which I think is a typo in some prototype page somewhere (shouldn't the "s" be inside the parens?). This happens from the several places that I've tried. I might have been able to guess the mailing list address from the URL of that page (and would have been right): http://tools.ietf.org/ext/www1.ietf.org/mailman//listinfo/tools-discuss but now I had three things to report, with some of greater importance, so I decided on an approach that would guarantee at least one useful party would get it. I found the email announcement in my mailer (which is where I'd actually started the exploration from) and just did a "reply to author" figuring that Henrik could forward as appropriate. Luckily in the process of typing up this report and doing additional research, I did happen upon a page with the mailing list explicitly mentioned, so I updated the "To:" field in the partially composed reply and edited the last sentence of the first paragraph. And now off it goes... -MAP _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 14:56:58 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18561; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DItMb-0004q1-KX; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:05:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItCw-0008Rl-OV; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:55:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIpLy-000722-Fg; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:48:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26697; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gtfw2.enterasys.com ([12.25.1.128] ident=firewall-user) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIpU2-00044G-HQ; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:56:57 -0400 Received: from NHROCAVG2.ets.enterasys.com ([134.141.79.124]) by gtfw2.enterasys.com (0.25.1/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j35EmLZC007621; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NHROCCNC2.ets.enterasys.com ([134.141.79.124]) by 134.141.79.124 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:48:21 -0400 Received: from source ([134.141.79.122]) by host ([134.141.79.124]) with SMTP; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:48:21 -0400 Received: from maandmbx2 ([134.141.93.31]) by NHROCCNC2.ets.enterasys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:21 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:19 -0400 Message-ID: <2A5E4540D4D5934D9A1E7E0B0FDB2D69010322A4@MAANDMBX2.ets.enterasys.com> Thread-Topic: idnits v1.63 Thread-Index: AcU5bTyYrZnJdPYtTCqGEedTAjb+DwAgJ4QQ From: "Nelson, David" To: "Bill Fenner" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Apr 2005 14:48:21.0202 (UTC) FILETIME=[82F4FB20:01C539EE] X-pstn-version: pmps:sps_win32_1_1_0c1 pase:2.8 X-pstn-levels: (C:79.5348 M:98.0742 P:95.9108 R:95.9108 S:93.6037 ) X-pstn-settings: 4 (0.2500:0.7500) p:13 m:13 C:14 r:13 X-pstn-addresses: from forward (org good) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:55:25 -0400 Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: idnits v1.63 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill Fenner writes... > The simplification that Henrik mentions is that the boilerplate must > now exactly match that in RFC 3978 / 1id-guidelines, since that's what > the lawyers and the IPR WG OK'd; previously it was considered OK for an > author to change, e.g., the "he or she" in the template to "he" on a > document with only male authors, or the "each author" to "the author" > on a document with only one author. I can't imagine that an attorney who was asked to review the IPR boilerplate would not approve each of the versions to accommodate the gender and number of authors, assuming that someone were to ask the question in that fashion. In my experience, "flexibility" problems laid at the feet of legal counsel are often, in fact, a failure to ask the right questions of counsel in the first instance. :-) -- Dave _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 15:52:24 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01348; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:52:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIuEH-0000Lq-Dz; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:00:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItgS-0003ru-Qc; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:25:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItgR-0003rp-Q7 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:25:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22886 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:25:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tutakai.map-ne.com ([69.25.196.14] helo=Mail.MAP-NE.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DItoc-0005xz-Ic for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:34:24 -0400 Received: by Mail.MAP-NE.com (Postfix, from userid 105) id BB0BB3F746; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:25:52 -0400 (EDT) To: henrik@levkowetz.com In-reply-to: <4252E39B.1090208@levkowetz.com> (message from Henrik Levkowetz on Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:14:35 +0200) Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: New tool prototypes From: "Michael A. Patton" References: <42284FBF.1010806@levkowetz.com> <20050405141301.EADAA3F746@Mail.MAP-NE.com> <4252E39B.1090208@levkowetz.com> Message-Id: <20050405192552.BB0BB3F746@Mail.MAP-NE.com> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:25:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:14:35 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz On 2005-04-05 4:13 pm Michael A. Patton said the following: > [I suggested] individual > submission IDs that are [relevant be] > listed in a section at the end of the draft status page. Agreed. This will be in the next update I make to the prototype. Yeah, I think it'll turn out to be quite useful. ... > OK, so we fall back to the mailing list. There's an item in the > "Feedback" heading for that, we'll try that next. Unfortunately, when > I click that I get a page whose body contains only: > %(content)s > Latest update: > which I think is a typo in some prototype page somewhere (shouldn't > the "s" be inside the parens?). Ok, so the long and short of this is (if I got it right): 1) Check up the wiki pages and fix as needed, 2) Add an explicit Feedback mailing-list address to the prototype pages Actually, #2 wasn't what I was saying, but also is a good idea. There is a link for "mailing list", it's just that the page it links to is broken... As for the wiki, a little thought makes me think there should be a wiki page listing tools that you have (i.e. the drafts status page and the HTMLized agendas so far), linking to one page per each with a place for suggestions re that tool. -MAP _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 16:08:22 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08112; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:08:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIuTi-0002sx-JZ; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:16:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItmR-0004nm-VH; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:32:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItmQ-0004nD-Gs for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:32:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23869 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DItub-0006F3-Re for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:40:34 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j35JVV3a043457; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 13:31:32 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:30:31 -0600 To: blilly@erols.com References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 2005/03/02 (MST), wrote: > I've suggested (via Reply-To) discussion on the IETF list. Bruce, Thanks a lot for reviewing and commenting on the draft! I am preparing a revision to address Last Call comments. I am not on the IETF list anymore (too much noise), so I am CCing Tools discussion list instead. Please feel free to forward elsewhere. > It seems odd that there is no provision for upload of nroff source > (RFC 2223) mentioned in sections 7 and 8 of the draft. The motivation for uploading XML sources is that they are used by tools and humans processing submitted drafts. For example, RFC Editor is often using authors' XML sources. We expect such uses to grow once XML sources are easily available. In fact, the submission tool itself is expected to extract useful metadata from XML sources. What would be the motivation for uploading nroff sources? I understand that some folks prefer to create drafts using nroff, MS Word, or other formats, but what would be the primary benefit of uploading those sources to IETF repositories? And if nroff sources are accepted, should we accept MS Word and other source formats? Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 16:27:16 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13043; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIum2-0004ZH-PW; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:35:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIuaj-0005O0-1Y; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:24:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItVt-0002cN-Kp for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:15:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21556 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pne-smtpout1-sn2.hy.skanova.net ([81.228.8.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIte2-0005aT-KI for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:23:28 -0400 Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (213.64.174.195) by pne-smtpout1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (7.1.026.7) id 41E3216700A9184D; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:14:36 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DItVT-0007Z1-9J; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:14:35 +0200 Message-ID: <4252E39B.1090208@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:14:35 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael A. Patton" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: New tool prototypes References: <42284FBF.1010806@levkowetz.com> <20050405141301.EADAA3F746@Mail.MAP-NE.com> In-Reply-To: <20050405141301.EADAA3F746@Mail.MAP-NE.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:24:03 -0400 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Michael, Thanks for the feedback! More below: On 2005-04-05 4:13 pm Michael A. Patton said the following: > I just spent some time playing with the HTMLized agendas and WG status > pages. Yes, I realize these are agendas for the just past meeting, > but I was exploring with an eye towards being familiar with how they > worked and (most importantly) to think about feedback. So, here's a > report. Henrik was almost the only one I sent to for reasons that > I'll get to below... > > > First, I found it very nice, in general. But, I did actually think of > one suggestion that might be very helpful. Often there are individual > submission IDs that are intended to be relevant for a specific WG. > While these are not official WG docs, it might be useful to have them > listed in a section at the end of the draft status page. While in the > long run it would be nice for this to actually be captured by the ID > submission process, it can be done today with better than 90% success > just by noting if the facet of the file name following the author > field is an IETF WG acronym. Most authors intending a draft for a > specific WG usually do that. Agreed. This will be in the next update I make to the prototype. > So, that was the suggestion I was going to make. The rest of this > message chronicals the saga of what followed my having the idea of > that improvement... > > First, a quick glance at the left margin showed a "Feedback" entry. I > said "my how nice"...and one of the items was a wiki. I'd used > several other wikis and thought I'd go there. Unfortunately, I didn't > quite find what I was looking for. There was a page for suggesting > additional tools which I considered editing, but it didn't seem quite > right (and I wasn't exactly sure which sub-heading to use, but that's > the glory of a wiki, if I goofed someone who knew better could fix > it), there didn't seem to be anything like suggested improvements. So > I decided to defer on this option. > > OK, so we fall back to the mailing list. There's an item in the > "Feedback" heading for that, we'll try that next. Unfortunately, when > I click that I get a page whose body contains only: > %(content)s > Latest update: > which I think is a typo in some prototype page somewhere (shouldn't > the "s" be inside the parens?). This happens from the several places > that I've tried. I might have been able to guess the mailing list > address from the URL of that page (and would have been right): > http://tools.ietf.org/ext/www1.ietf.org/mailman//listinfo/tools-discuss > but now I had three things to report, with some of greater importance, > so I decided on an approach that would guarantee at least one useful > party would get it. I found the email announcement in my mailer > (which is where I'd actually started the exploration from) and just > did a "reply to author" figuring that Henrik could forward as > appropriate. > > Luckily in the process of typing up this report and doing additional > research, I did happen upon a page with the mailing list explicitly > mentioned, so I updated the "To:" field in the partially composed > reply and edited the last sentence of the first paragraph. And now > off it goes... Ok, so the long and short of this is (if I got it right): 1) Check up the wiki pages and fix as needed, 2) Add an explicit Feedback mailing-list address to the prototype pages Thanks! Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 16:27:36 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13156; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIumN-0004b0-Fb; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:36:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIuaj-0005O5-6s; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:24:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIu1B-0002pM-JM for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:47:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29371 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:47:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av9-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net ([81.228.10.108]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIu9O-00085v-HR for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:55:50 -0400 Received: by av9-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id EF66937E6F; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:47:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.182]) by av9-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E03F137E47; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:47:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDAD137E4E; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:47:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DIu10-0006rv-Hj; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:47:10 +0200 Message-ID: <4252EB3E.7010504@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:47:10 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael A. Patton" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: New tool prototypes References: <42284FBF.1010806@levkowetz.com> <20050405141301.EADAA3F746@Mail.MAP-NE.com> <4252E39B.1090208@levkowetz.com> <20050405192552.BB0BB3F746@Mail.MAP-NE.com> In-Reply-To: <20050405192552.BB0BB3F746@Mail.MAP-NE.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:24:03 -0400 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2005-04-05 9:25 pm Michael A. Patton said the following: [...] > Ok, so the long and short of this is (if I got it right): > 1) Check up the wiki pages and fix as needed, > 2) Add an explicit Feedback mailing-list address to the > prototype pages > > Actually, #2 wasn't what I was saying, but also is a good idea. There > is a link for "mailing list", it's just that the page it links to is > broken... Ok. > As for the wiki, a little thought makes me think there should be a > wiki page listing tools that you have (i.e. the drafts status page and > the HTMLized agendas so far), linking to one page per each with a > place for suggestions re that tool. Right, that sounds like a good idea. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 16:29:20 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13431; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:29:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIuo3-0004ld-Ri; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:37:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIufG-0006iI-VF; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:28:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIufF-0006gU-Bs for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:28:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13363 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIunQ-0004ju-GT for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:37:15 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j35KSe3a044869; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:28:41 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:27:40 -0600 To: "Frank Ellermann" References: <4225E9F5.28B3@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4225E9F5.28B3@xyzzy.claranet.de> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7fa173a723009a6ca8ce575a65a5d813 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 37af5f8fbf6f013c5b771388e24b09e7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Frank, Thanks a lot for reviewing and commenting on the draft! I am preparing a revision to address Last Call comments. I am not on the IETF list anymore (too much noise), so I am CCing Tools discussion list instead. Please feel free to forward elsewhere. On Wed, 2005/03/02 (MST), wrote: > | If any of the include PIs > s/include/included/ "include PIs" was intentional. I added a phrase defining this unfortunate term. > | the Toolset attempts to generate plain text format from > | submitted XML sources (R70/b). > | > | If XML sources are available, the Toolset generates HTML > | draft format > In the latter case it apparently _also_ generates (X)HTML. In > the former case if an attempt to generate plain text fails, why > not exit with an error mesage instead of _also_ trying HTML ? In the former case, if a generation attept fails, then the draft will not be auto-posted. Please see R113: If any error is found, automated posting becomes impossible (R113/a). This rule applies to all errors, even those that do not refer to R113 and do not explicitly prohibit automated posting. It seemed like a waste of readers attention to explicitly refer to R113 from every rule because there are so many rules that depend on R113. Do you agree? Generating HTML even if plain text generation fails can be useful to give the submitter (and/or the Secretariat) more warnings/errors about HTML generation. I have seen cases where HTML generation would fail for reasons different from plain text generation... Not generating HTML would only save a few CPU cycles and storage bytes. I do not think we should optimize in that direction. > | The Toolset requires author email addresses > It should allow to specify an address outside of the submitted > draft for privacy reasons. The author could use an URL in the > published text, which is not "obviously" a mail address, e.g. > http://purl.net/xyzzy/mailto/webmaster in XML. I think the Toolset allows to specify an address outside of the submitted draft but does not allow automated postings of such anonymous drafts. That is, a draft without an author email would go [via the Toolset] to the Secretariat for manual validation. Do you think that is a reasonable interface? > | An IETF IPR Statement and other boilerplate required for > | drafts according to [RFC3667] and [RFC3668 > s/RFC3667/BCP 78/ and s/RFC3668/BCP 79/ I am not sure I can do the above with xml2rfc. Does anybody know how (without creating a custom reference)? Note that the expanded references at the end of the draft do say "BCP 7x". > Actually I don't understand why "the Toolset" cannot insert an > equivalent ipr="full3667" or ipr="fullshit" on its own behalf, > asking the author how much "fullshit" (s)he's ready to tolerate > at this stage. I think that the Toolset should not create or modify IPR statements. There is too much liability/danger there, and it would complicate the interface. My understanding is that the vast majority of submitted drafts will have one of the standard/approved boilerplates. Given the risks and complications, I would argue that IPR guessing/generation should be out of scope. Any other opinions? > Please note somewhere that submissions to the RfC-editor don't > require "fullshit" as long as they cover it by broader rights. Similar argument applies. The Toolset does not require any specific IPR. It requires specific IPRs only for _automated_ posting of the drafts. I doubt the Toolset can reliably interpret non-standard IPR statements. A human judgement would be required. If IETF standardizes a "broader rights" template, the Toolset should allow automated posting with that IPR, of course. Do you agree with this logic? > | Toolset may try several recent xml2rfc versions > It should also try a decent XML validator before xml2rfc based > on the specified DTD. For the quoted context, I do not think so (the draft here talks about comparing generated plain text version with the submitted plain text version). In general, the Tools team spent a lot of cycles debating whether submitted XML must be valid. I think the current draft reflects the outcome of those discussions by not requiring explicit validity, but we can reopen that debate if others feel like it. > chapter 16 (email-interface) you have the required mail address > even if you can't extract it from the meta-data. Do you mean that the "From" address can be used instead of the email from the draft? What if I did not send my own draft (intentionally or not)? Thank you for all the other comments! I have tried to apply them. Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 19:06:36 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28801; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:06:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIxGI-0002Ty-9v; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:15:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIx5j-0001e7-Nd; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:04:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIx5i-0001d5-AX; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:04:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28633; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:04:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-red.research.att.com ([192.20.225.110] helo=mail-white.research.att.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIxDr-0002RA-D8; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:12:41 -0400 Received: from bright.research.att.com (bright.research.att.com [135.207.20.189]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049A7197354; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from fenner@localhost) by bright.research.att.com (8.12.11/8.12.10/Submit) id j35N3xZg014419; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:03:59 -0700 Message-Id: <200504052303.j35N3xZg014419@bright.research.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII To: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, wgchairs@ietf.org, xml2rfc-xxe@rtg.ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:03:59 -0700 From: Bill Fenner Versions: dmail (linux) 2.6d/makemail 2.10 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Subject: [Tools-discuss] Announcing xml2rfc-xxe plugin 0.6: includes updated IPR options X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: xml2rfc-xxe@rtg.ietf.org List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 [Please follow up on xml2rfc-xxe@rtg.ietf.org or to me directly] I'd like to announce that version 0.6 of my WYSIWYG-esque plugin for editing xml2rfc format using XMLMind's XML Editor is available. The main update is that it supports the new IPR values full3978, noModification3978, and noDerivatives3978. It also fixes the xml.resource.org web form conversion for Windows line-end conventions, adds support for , adds an option to check whether your references to I-Ds and RFCs are up to date, etc. The full changelog is available at http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/xml2rfc-xxe/xml2rfc_help/ChangeLog.html and more information on the plugin itself, and a download link, are available at http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/xml2rfc-xxe/ This version works in both xxe 2.9 and 2.9p1 (released yesterday). Bill _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 19:10:15 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28932; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:10:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIxJo-0002bq-Qj; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:18:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIxAf-00034Q-TA; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:09:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIwCq-00034i-Gg; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:07:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23315; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns5a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.140] helo=ns5.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIwL1-0000TV-AX; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:16:00 -0400 Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns5.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5420E29912; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j35M7OmF002385(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.23 2005/03/23 20:35:49) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:07:24 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j35M7ND6002381(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.2 2005/03/17 23:41:52) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:07:24 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Organization: Bruce Lilly To: "Alex Rousskov" Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:07:20 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:09:20 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue April 5 2005 15:30, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Wed, 2005/03/02 (MST), wrote: > > > I've suggested (via Reply-To) discussion on the IETF list. > > Bruce, > > Thanks a lot for reviewing and commenting on the draft! > > I am preparing a revision to address Last Call comments. > > I am not on the IETF list anymore (too much noise), so I am CCing Tools > discussion list instead. Please feel free to forward elsewhere. I'm copying the IETF list for closure. > > It seems odd that there is no provision for upload of nroff source > > (RFC 2223) mentioned in sections 7 and 8 of the draft. > > The motivation for uploading XML sources is that they are used by tools > and humans processing submitted drafts. Likewise for nroff source. > For example, RFC Editor is often > using authors' XML sources. While I have no data to either confirm or refute that assertion, RFC 2223 section 3 and the draft successor to that document both explicitly state that the RFC Editor uses nroff. > We expect such uses to grow once XML sources > are easily available. In fact, the submission tool itself is expected to > extract useful metadata from XML sources. I suspect that similar metadata could be extracted from nroff source, at least if a suitable macro package (e.g. as described in draft-lilly-using-troff) is used. > What would be the motivation for uploading nroff sources? In addition to extraction of metadata, o nroff is used by the RFC-Editor (RFC 2223 section 3); keeping the same source format from initial draft through RFC production can ease the workload for authors and the RFC Editor o automatic generation of plain text, PostScript, PDF, HTML (including line diagrams, tables, data formats, etc.), preserving page layout, from single source o (if a suitable macro package is used) no need to upload boilerplate; provided that the (IETF copy of the) macro package is maintained, up-to-date boilerplate can be generated automatically o ability for authors w/o access to formatting tools to upload easily- produced document source which can be used to produce a formatted draft > I understand > that some folks prefer to create drafts using nroff, MS Word, or other > formats, but what would be the primary benefit of uploading those sources > to IETF repositories? For nroff, see above. As I haven't suggested other formats, I have no comments at this time regarding putative benefits attributable to them. > And if nroff sources are accepted, should we accept > MS Word and other source formats? For me, source formats other than nroff are uninteresting (i.e. "I don't care"). _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 00:00:07 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA20064; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJ1qN-0003oE-38; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:08:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJ1fV-0008ES-Uk; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:57:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJ1fV-0008EK-1r; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:57:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19840; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:57:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c-24-8-141-221.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.141.221] helo=volx.rousskov.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJ1nl-0003iH-8q; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:06:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.rousskov.org (localhost.rousskov.org [127.0.0.1]) by volx.rousskov.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j363uJPL000880; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:56:24 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) To: ned.freed@mrochek.com, "Bruce Lilly" References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:56:18 -0600 From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 2005/04/05 (MDT), wrote: >> On Tue April 5 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote: > >> While I have no data to either confirm or refute that assertion, RFC >> 2223 section 3 and the draft successor to that document both explicitly >> state that the RFC Editor uses nroff. > > Yes, but speaking from personal experience, that doesn't mean they'll use > _your_ nroff sources. I stopped bothering to send in my nroff sources > when I found out that the RFC Editor wasn't using it That was my (possibly incorrect) impression as well: RFC Editor creates nroff from XML or plain text. Thus, I did not consider nroff as "source" in this context (note that I did not say RFC Editor is not using nroff). Again, I could be wrong. However, I would like to avoid focusing too much attention on current RFC Editor practices, regardless of whether you consider them perfect or arcane. I am sure that folks will write many tools to extract info from XML drafts once XML drafts are available. I would be surprised if the same would happen to nroff sources, especially long-term, especially in competition with XML. There are many reasons, including general knowledge of the subject and libraries availability. Does anybody have any statistics showing the percentage of current Internet-Drafts written using xml2rfc? I do not volunteer, but I suspect there is something specific to xml2rfc plain text output that a simple script can detect while grepping through the drafts archive. Can the same be done for nroff? These stats would help us to understand at least the current environment better... Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 00:11:01 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA20846; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJ20v-00049p-S0; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:19:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJ1lD-0001J5-L8; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:03:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIzEl-0004gw-Ot for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:21:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09170 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:21:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gundel.de.clara.net ([212.82.225.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIzN1-00077o-0I for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:30:15 -0400 Received: from du-001-171.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.171] helo=xyzzy) by gundel.de.clara.net with smtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1DIzRm-000ILl-0O; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 03:35:10 +0200 Message-ID: <42531F53.3194@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:29:23 +0200 From: Frank Ellermann Organization: X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: gmane.text.xml.rfc References: <4225E9F5.28B3@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 22bbb45ef41b733eb2d03ee71ece8243 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:03:22 -0400 Cc: Alex Rousskov , tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68ba2b07ef271dba6ee42a93832cfa4c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > I am not on the IETF list anymore (too much noise) It's rather quiet at the moment, but no problem. > so I am CCing Tools discussion list instead. Please feel > free to forward elsewhere. I'm not on the "tools" list, so let's start an experiment, you post on the "tools" list, Bruce on the general IETF list, and I use the xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource (with a reason, see below). > It seemed like a waste of readers attention to explicitly > refer to R113 from every rule because there are so many > rules that depend on R113. Do you agree? Yes, assuming that it was no forward reference. I read the text top down, and mainly the parts about privacy, xml2rfc, and the new BP 78 / 79. > I think the Toolset allows to specify an address outside of > the submitted draft but does not allow automated postings of > such anonymous drafts. That is, a draft without an author > email would go [via the Toolset] to the Secretariat for > manual validation. Do you think that is a reasonable > interface? As long as it doesn't insist on a visible mail address for the address harvesters it's fine. It could automatically send a challenge to the address specified outside of the draft, with an URL for the confirmation. >> s/RFC3667/BCP 78/ and s/RFC3668/BCP 79/ > I am not sure I can do the above with xml2rfc. Does anybody > know how (without creating a custom reference)? Version 1.29 will handle it, but you have to change your old ipr="full3667". Maybe that's a trick to keep all draft and xml2rfc authors alert, let's hope that 1.29 offers a neutral ipr="fullEULA" (I don't insist on "fullshit" if it's just the actual version of these BCPs ;-) For a general solution (all BCPs by their number) I don't know what can do, probably you can overwrite the "RfC nnnn" by "BCP mm". Or maybe it's better to start separate "bibxml" directories for STDs and BCPs, always referencing the actual RfC(s) for the corresponding STD or BCP (?) In one case it's settled, Scott Hollebeck said that we should now start to use 2234bis... http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis.xml ...instead of 2234 (ABNF), and let the RfC editor fix it later manually, when 2234bis got an RfC number. Something in this bibxml-system cries for PURLs, doesn't it ? Or should existing I-D references simply be updated to reflect the later RfC, e.g. reference.I-D.klyne-hdrreg-mail.xml => reference.RFC.4021.xml ? > I think that the Toolset should not create or modify IPR > statements. There is too much liability/danger there Yes, that's the precise reason why nobody should publish I-Ds before he has published a will and hired a lawyer. It's the IETF who insists on this "fullEULA" ("EULA" is a synoym for a bogus legal statement in the EU, like e-mail "disclaimers"). I'd even grant IETF a "creative commons share alike license" for I-Ds, and more for RfCs. But not this BCP 78/79 legalese, > My understanding is that the vast majority of submitted > drafts will have one of the standard/approved boilerplates. Maybe there are some drafts which are simply never published. My best legal advise (IANAL): Do NOT publish I-Ds unless you really must. Don't bother innocent bystanders with texts that start and end with tons of legal crap, neither you nor your readers know what it really means. Either somebody will sue you, or patent whatever you've written. >>| Toolset may try several recent xml2rfc versions >> It should also try a decent XML validator before xml2rfc >> based on the specified DTD. > For the quoted context, I do not think so (the draft here > talks about comparing generated plain text version with the > submitted plain text version). Okay, then do it elsewhere. > the Tools team spent a lot of cycles debating whether > submitted XML must be valid. Yes, they MUST be valid XML, the 2629 DTD is relatively simple. It's no problem if a valid XML input somehow does not make it through xml2rfc, but if invalid XML apparently works it's bad. At the moment xml2rfc is not very smart to detect and report problems. That's the reason why I posted this on the xml2rfc list, maybe could help to find obscure xml2rfc problems. In one case validator.w3.org found a (trivial) problem missed by xml2rfc. IMHO "valid" XML (as determined by an extra tool, validator.w3.org is officially only for SGML) is a MUST. > we can reopen that debate if others feel like it. Please do this, as it is xml2rfc requires interested users, it would be better if it's never forced to process invalid XML. >> chapter 16 (email-interface) you have the required mail >> address even if you can't extract it from the meta-data. > Do you mean that the "From" address can be used instead of > the email from the draft? No, only if there is no (obvious) address in the draft. > What if I did not send my own draft (intentionally or not)? Same problem as a forged address in the draft, or isn't it ? Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 00:11:20 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA20895; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:11:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJ21F-0004AN-5U; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:19:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJ1lD-0001Iv-Dh; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:03:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIxcx-0001ky-TU; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:38:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01233; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:38:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from machshav.com ([147.28.0.16]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIxlB-0003aB-R5; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:47:07 -0400 Received: by machshav.com (Postfix, from userid 512) id 2AD2CFB2A0; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:38:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from berkshire.machshav.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by machshav.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E19FB28F; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:38:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berkshire.machshav.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D34C3BFDB0; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:38:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 From: "Steven M. Bellovin" To: Bruce Lilly In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:07:20 EDT." <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:38:21 -0400 Message-Id: <20050405233821.6D34C3BFDB0@berkshire.machshav.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:03:22 -0400 Cc: Alex Rousskov , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 In message <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com>, Bruce Lilly writes: >> For example, RFC Editor is often >> using authors' XML sources. > >While I have no data to either confirm or refute that assertion, RFC >2223 section 3 and the draft successor to that document both explicitly >state that the RFC Editor uses nroff. > See slides 24, 61, and 62 of ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/tutorial62.pdf --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 00:11:30 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA20931; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJ21P-0004Ao-E5; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:20:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJ1lD-0001J0-HL; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:03:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIy04-0008L8-R5; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:02:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02985; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:02:24 -0400 (EDT) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Received: from mauve.mrochek.com ([209.55.107.55]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIy8J-0004SR-DQ; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:11:00 -0400 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01LMMBGI1RQO00005R@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:29:26 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:07:20 -0400" <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> Message-id: <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> To: Bruce Lilly X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:03:22 -0400 Cc: Alex Rousskov , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > On Tue April 5 2005 15:30, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > On Wed, 2005/03/02 (MST), wrote: > > > > > I've suggested (via Reply-To) discussion on the IETF list. > > > > Bruce, > > > > Thanks a lot for reviewing and commenting on the draft! > > > > I am preparing a revision to address Last Call comments. > > > > I am not on the IETF list anymore (too much noise), so I am CCing Tools > > discussion list instead. Please feel free to forward elsewhere. > I'm copying the IETF list for closure. > > > It seems odd that there is no provision for upload of nroff source > > > (RFC 2223) mentioned in sections 7 and 8 of the draft. > > > > The motivation for uploading XML sources is that they are used by tools > > and humans processing submitted drafts. > Likewise for nroff source. > > For example, RFC Editor is often > > using authors' XML sources. > While I have no data to either confirm or refute that assertion, RFC > 2223 section 3 and the draft successor to that document both explicitly > state that the RFC Editor uses nroff. Yes, but speaking from personal experience, that doesn't mean they'll use _your_ nroff sources. I stopped bothering to send in my nroff sources when I found out that the RFC Editor wasn't using it (this despite having tried to use the same macro package in the same way, and having switched from a much better system than nroff in the first place in order to be RFC Editor friendly). Shortly after finding out about this I switched to using xml2rfc, in part because Marshall spent considerable time aligning its nroff output with the RFC Editor's needs. And some time after that it became possible to send the RFC Editor the XML source and have them use it. I haven't looked back since. > > We expect such uses to grow once XML sources > > are easily available. In fact, the submission tool itself is expected to > > extract useful metadata from XML sources. Exactly. And powerful tools to assist in this sort of extraction are readily available. > I suspect that similar metadata could be extracted from nroff source, > at least if a suitable macro package (e.g. as described in > draft-lilly-using-troff) is used. Bruce, with all due respect, the effort you have expended on developing this seems to me to be headed in the wrong direction. IMO the place we are at with xml2rfc and the RFC Editor's acceptance of the format is much better than anything can ever get from any scheme that is based on nroff as the primary format. > > What would be the motivation for uploading nroff sources? > In addition to extraction of metadata, > o nroff is used by the RFC-Editor (RFC 2223 section 3); keeping the > same source format from initial draft through RFC production can ease > the workload for authors and the RFC Editor See above. Use of xml2rfc accomplishes this goal. Use of nroff does not. > o automatic generation of plain text, PostScript, PDF, HTML (including > line diagrams, tables, data formats, etc.), preserving page layout, > from single source All possible with the xml2rc format. > o (if a suitable macro package is used) no need to upload boilerplate; > provided that the (IETF copy of the) macro package is maintained, > up-to-date boilerplate can be generated automatically Xml2rfc has been realigned each time the boilerplate requirements have changed. This has proved to be tremendously convenient. > o ability for authors w/o access to formatting tools to upload easily- > produced document source which can be used to produce a formatted > draft IMO neither nroff source nor XML source qualify as "easily produced". But the number of tools for producing and vetting XML is large and growing. (I personally use something called "Exchanger XML Editor".) I don't think the same can be said for nroff. Ned _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 07:53:44 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA01842; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:53:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJ9El-000490-JE; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:02:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJ95C-0007LB-Vf; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:52:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJ95A-0007Kq-9P; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:52:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA01662; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:52:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns5a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.140] helo=ns5.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJ9DU-00043h-P3; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:01:06 -0400 Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns5.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7B229911; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j36BqPR0011428(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.23 2005/03/23 20:35:49) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:52:25 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j36BqOLm011427(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.2 2005/03/17 23:41:52) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:52:24 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf@ietf.org Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:52:19 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504060752.19847.blilly@erols.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Alex Rousskov , IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Bruce Lilly List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue April 5 2005 23:56, Alex Rousskov wrote: > I suspect > there is something specific to xml2rfc plain text output that a simple > script can detect while grepping through the drafts archive. Such as line breaks in the middle of words, followed by loss of indentation? N.B. no smiley. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 09:42:08 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11727; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJAvh-0007pr-5i; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:50:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJAkK-0006gq-RM; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:39:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJAkF-0006gZ-T2; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:39:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11505; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:38:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.132] helo=ns1.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJAsb-0007lp-UB; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:47:38 -0400 Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns1.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E32929929; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:38:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j36DctfS031403(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.23 2005/03/23 20:35:49) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:38:56 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j36DcqmX031399(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.2 2005/03/17 23:41:52) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:38:54 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf@ietf.org Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:38:40 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Rousskov , ned.freed@mrochek.com, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue April 5 2005 19:29, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: > Yes, but speaking from personal experience, that doesn't mean they'll use > _your_ nroff sources. True. But the opportunity is there. > Bruce, with all due respect, the effort you have expended on developing this > seems to me to be headed in the wrong direction. IMO the place we are at with > xml2rfc and the RFC Editor's acceptance of the format is much better than > anything can ever get from any scheme that is based on nroff as the primary > format. I've spent about the same amount of time and effort in developing troff macros as on trying to use xml2rfc (the biggest difficulty being (not) finding a suitably productive XML editor). Even if the macros are not useful to anybody else, they're useful to me; I have 5 drafts currently in various stages produced using them. All I have to show for roughly the same effort in the XML direction is a somewhat better understanding of some XML arcana and loss of respect for some products which heavily hype XML output but which seem incapable of producing RFC-specific XML without major effort (e.g. OpenOffice/StarOffice). In some cases, some heavily-hyped document preparation tools seem incapable of producing simple plain (formatted) text (such as is required for I-Ds)! > > o automatic generation of plain text, PostScript, PDF, HTML (including > > line diagrams, tables, data formats, etc.), preserving page layout, > > from single source > > All possible with the xml2rc format. Tools for producing complex tables, data format diagrams, mathematical equations, line drawings, chemical diagrams, graphs, and formatted ABNF are readily available for use with troff/nroff. I no of none specifically for use with xml2rfc (though I suppose with some effort some of the troff-based tools could be adapted). > > o (if a suitable macro package is used) no need to upload boilerplate; > > provided that the (IETF copy of the) macro package is maintained, > > up-to-date boilerplate can be generated automatically > > Xml2rfc has been realigned each time the boilerplate requirements have changed. > This has proved to be tremendously convenient. Ditto for the macros (as of this morning, there's an update that incorporates the latest versions of 1id-guidelines.txt, ID-Checklist.html (formerly ID-nits), and the change in boilerplate rules scheduled to go into effect a month from today. > > o ability for authors w/o access to formatting tools to upload easily- > > produced document source which can be used to produce a formatted > > draft > > IMO neither nroff source nor XML source qualify as "easily produced". A text editor -- any text editor -- suffices for nroff source. That includes vi, emacs, textpad (MS Windows), SiED (PalmOS), etc. In theory, there exist commercial XML editors for PalmOS, but I suspect thay they are less productive than the ones on other platforms. > But the > number of tools for producing and vetting XML is large and growing. (I > personally use something called "Exchanger XML Editor".) I don't think the same > can be said for nroff. The number of text editors is very large and probably growing. The biggest problem with XML editors is that they are unproductive. Editing XML in all of the ones I've seen goes something like: 1. hunt for mouse 2. move cursor to nondescript icon and click 3. try to figure out what it is 4. type a few characters of text 5. go to step 1 (or see http://www.ivritype.com/xml/) [no, I didn't write it and I don't care about MS Windows programs] Conversely, nroff source can be generated directly from a keyboard; no need to embark on wild mouse chases. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 10:05:44 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14235; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJBIV-0008UB-Pm; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:14:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJB88-0005tR-8h; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:03:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJB86-0005tJ-70; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:03:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13799; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:03:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJBGR-0008Ou-HM; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:12:17 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j36E3QX19445; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:03:26 +0300 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:03:26 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC In-Reply-To: <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> Message-ID: References: <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Alex Rousskov , IETF TOOLS discussion X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote: > A text editor -- any text editor -- suffices for nroff source. That > includes vi, emacs, textpad (MS Windows), SiED (PalmOS), etc. In > theory, there exist commercial XML editors for PalmOS, but I suspect > thay they are less productive than the ones on other platforms. [...] > The biggest problem with XML editors is that they are unproductive. > Editing XML in all of the ones I've seen goes something like: > > 1. hunt for mouse > 2. move cursor to nondescript icon and click > 3. try to figure out what it is > 4. type a few characters of text > 5. go to step 1 I can't understand why you basically say that nroff can be typed manually, but XML requires an editor. I've never used an XML editor and have.. what, a couple of dozen drafts, many of them RFCs already. I've used solely xml2rfc for about 1.5 years now. Nor do I have plans to use an XML editor. Prior to XML I used custom nroff macros which I also edited manually. A good text editor is your friend. That applies equally to nroff and xml2rfc. For those who want fancy (but maybe not user-friendly) WYSIWYG editors, those exist but are definitely not required. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 10:07:58 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14677; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJBKg-000085-7m; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:16:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJB92-00062D-JR; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:04:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJB90-00061V-Vk for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:04:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13957 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJBHM-0008QD-Ll for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:13:13 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Apr 2005 14:04:22 -0000 Received: from p508F881E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.40]) [80.143.136.30] by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 06 Apr 2005 16:04:22 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <4253EC63.5020106@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:04:19 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC References: <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Alex Rousskov , IETF TOOLS discussion X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > ... > > The number of text editors is very large and probably growing. > > The biggest problem with XML editors is that they are unproductive. > Editing XML in all of the ones I've seen goes something like: > > 1. hunt for mouse > 2. move cursor to nondescript icon and click > 3. try to figure out what it is > 4. type a few characters of text > 5. go to step 1 > > (or see http://www.ivritype.com/xml/) [no, I didn't write it and I > don't care about MS Windows programs] > > Conversely, nroff source can be generated directly from a keyboard; no > need to embark on wild mouse chases. I am producing XML with a text editor as well. Plugins allow one-keystroke syntax checks (== run it through an XML parser) or preview of HTML (== display it in a browser with XSLT). Best regards, Julian _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 10:33:53 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17684; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJBjl-00018x-Nm; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:42:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJBZv-0006TY-Eu; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:32:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJBZs-0006RG-9G; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:32:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17556; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:32:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns5a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.140] helo=ns5.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJBiB-000160-Qy; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:40:59 -0400 Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns5.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1CBD2990A; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:32:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j36EWEEB008715(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.23 2005/03/23 20:35:49) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:32:14 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j36EWDfg008711(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.2 2005/03/17 23:41:52) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:32:13 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:32:11 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <200504060752.19847.blilly@erols.com> <4253CFF4.1010307@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4253CFF4.1010307@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504061032.11543.blilly@erols.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion , Eliot Lear Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed April 6 2005 08:03, Eliot Lear wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > > > Such as line breaks in the middle of words, followed by loss of > > indentation? > > > > N.B. no smiley. > > So what? So if the primary purpose of a piece of software is to produce properly-formatted text documents, and it fails at that task, all bets are off (i.e. if it fails to produce *correct* results, being fast, cheap, small, flashy, self-contained, portable, etc, usually don't matter; and in this case being slow, requiring multiple external programs etc. are simply additional baggage). > The nice thing about an XML format is that if you don't like > the representation you can change it without changing the source. Isn't > that nice?! Not if the primary output is unusable. But maybe I missed your point... _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:19:22 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24108; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:19:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCRn-0003Bc-01; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:28:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCC8-0006bB-19; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:11:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCC6-0006ar-DO; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:11:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21998; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:11:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCKT-0002Tj-4K; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:20:29 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j36FBi3a073080; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:11:44 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:10:44 -0600 To: "Bill Fenner" , ietf@ietf.org References: <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), wrote: > I have to admit that I use nroff about 75% of the time and XML about > 25%, I'm much happier about the postscript/PDF output options from > nroff than from XML, To be fair, poor output quality is not XML's fault, it is tool's fault. Popular tools improve with time (and IETF can influence/speedup such improvement if needed). > and I can't imagine having written the 120-page PIM spec in XML. My largest XML-based RFC is only 60 pages, but I do not see why 120 pages would be "too long" for XML. Can you clarify? Just curious... Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:21:54 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24908; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCUF-0003RG-Jf; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:30:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJC4F-0004lK-1G; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:03:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJC4E-0004kW-3n; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:03:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20807; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:03:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCCa-00025W-65; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:12:21 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j36F3M3a072846; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:03:23 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:02:22 -0600 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), wrote: >> IMO neither nroff source nor XML source qualify as "easily produced". > > A text editor -- any text editor -- suffices for nroff source. > That includes vi, emacs, textpad (MS Windows), SiED (PalmOS), etc. Same for editing XML sources, of course. One does not have to use fancy XML-aware editors to edit XML, especially draft sources that do not use much markup. FWIW, I do not use such an editor when writing my drafts. Can we stop this debate? It is clear to me that there are people who love nroff and people who prefer XML. There is no point in discussing the advantages of one imperfect format over the other imperfect format, especially in such a biased way. What we should debate instead is whether ID Submission tool requirements should be modified to include nroff sources submission. So far, I heard of a single argument why that change should be done: "because the RFC Editor is using submitted nroff sources". Others have said it is not true. We can ask the Editor to tell us the truth. Meanwhile, are there any more arguments for nroff sources to be processed by the ID Submission tool? Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:22:59 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25207; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:22:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCVI-0003XD-5U; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:31:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCMn-0003CW-RS; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJBwE-0006Ln-VL; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:55:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19640; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJC4b-0001m7-1e; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:04:06 -0400 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Apr 2005 07:55:17 -0700 Received: from imail.cisco.com (imail.cisco.com [128.107.200.91]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j36EtAgE014467; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [212.254.247.4] (ams-clip-vpn-dhcp4532.cisco.com [10.61.81.179]) by imail.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j36El5g8011106; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:47:06 -0700 Message-ID: <4253F84F.3000501@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:55:11 +0200 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <200504060752.19847.blilly@erols.com> <4253CFF4.1010307@cisco.com> <200504061032.11543.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <200504061032.11543.blilly@erols.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit IIM-SIG: v:"1.1"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; d:"cisco.com"; z:"home"; m:"krs"; t:"1112798826.777890"; x:"432200"; a:"rsa-sha1"; b:"nofws:121"; e:"Iw=="; n:"sQYarK2E51MdcTiUqeif3F7cWdxIfoCiXhdfb9vD5ee/j0jXL15gbFxF2p" "XIweAblu0N6XAgK7k+wrbr7bQDJaCDqOmzqpRUBjIRQAXQ7NzadpmR3pUL6wxaRUtW+c43sl9jC" "50Qg1sXHpPjt8Y+Y16ioyQAQAdSunM4YhevURc="; s:"HmeEeuhXpKK4Iw5pzSzR8MInq76cUbPJo+Rcu6RZwIRG5ADsuWVj6gLxezE8KcMvOxsGHQuG" "GL99tBqoWHrZkWA8cJMjgs7u8xBqc8nXXkYlOLIAyCziWdnAKQtWDhLjW2dCGpQPdyqA2KXXxe9" "lKflkWN6ju9MYi8SL/FoLgR0="; c:"Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:55:11 +0200"; c:"From: Eliot Lear "; c:"Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Tool" "set' to=0A Informational RFC" IIM-VERIFY: s:"y"; v:"y"; r:"60"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; c:"message from imail.cisco.com verified; " X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:51 -0400 Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > Not if the primary output is unusable. But maybe I missed your point... Yes. Don't like the software? Write your own... Eliot _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:23:08 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25237; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:23:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCVQ-0003XV-T3; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:31:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCMn-0003CL-Lh; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJBqv-000572-Bn for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:49:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19081 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.205]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJBzG-0001ac-G8 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:58:36 -0400 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so185924rng for ; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:49:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=c/JXHIBuJzMWril+Vw+SQ6K+dGrxEGZoKwUMbQF/aP7poeOJaPIuerHn5g3tpFuoWhQqbwb2Hxg7umzFGw9Wh5T+jXvngP3SrqaZzesOBhyW+95sGrOLvHVygYn4KGGmkXr4uyKJe4iHC4mJQoxoKEJ0k9pbzA1IKOMEVf9F8zg= Received: by 10.38.68.14 with SMTP id q14mr136406rna; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.10.77 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 06:49:53 -0800 From: Bill Fenner To: ietf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:51 -0400 Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Alex Rousskov , IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Bill Fenner List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Apr 6, 2005 5:38 AM, Bruce Lilly wrote: > The biggest problem with XML editors is that they are unproductive. > Editing XML in all of the ones I've seen goes something like: > [mouse,icon,click,type a bit,mouse,...] I've found that I can mostly avoid the mouse using XMLmind's XML editor and my xml2rfc plugin (http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/xml2rfc-xxe/). xxe has been designed to have keyboard shortcuts for most common operations and I've tried to continue that (e.g., "enter" to insert a new paragraph or split the current one at the cursor). I have to admit that I use nroff about 75% of the time and XML about 25%, I'm much happier about the postscript/PDF output options from nroff than from XML, and I can't imagine having written the 120-page PIM spec in XML. Bill _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:23:24 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25303; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:23:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCVg-0003Yj-Rm; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:32:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCMn-0003Bw-EW; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJALD-0006H7-Mn; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:13:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09439; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:13:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate3.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.152]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJATY-00077b-Jo; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:21:46 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate3.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j36DCuFa123134; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:12:56 GMT Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j36DCuGV147280; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:12:56 +0200 Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j36DCuqw008272; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:12:56 +0200 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j36DCtiG008260; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:12:55 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-254-221.de.ibm.com [9.145.254.221]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA71634; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:12:54 +0200 Message-ID: <4253E055.4080706@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:12:53 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:51 -0400 Cc: Jeroen Massar , IETF TOOLS discussion , ietf@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF DraftSubmission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And I didn't say "voting"; that was Jeroen. The free site I found says "voting"; of course, what the IETF can use such things for is only straw polls. But in a case like the present one, I think that is a reasonable way of finding out what the centre of gravity of opinion is. In ASCII art: /\ Consensus: ____/ \___ /\ Rough Consensus ____/ \___/\___ Badly phrased question: ___/\____/\____/\____/\___ (I'm reasonably serious about that) Brian Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org]On >>Behalf Of Jeroen Massar >> >>On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 11:52 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>>Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people >>>arguing about xml versus nroff (again). If you write Internet >>>Drafts, try this toy (and only vote once, please...). >>>If the toy doesn't work, don't blame me... I just found the >>>site with Google. >>> >>>http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=22-143 >> >>As this is the tools discussion after all, might it maybe be >>a good tool >>to have a voting tool for the IETF? >> > > > When the IETF Chair says 'voting' you should take it as a metaphor, I believe. > > Dan > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:23:34 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25362; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCVr-0003ZD-4Y; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:32:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCMn-0003BT-1Q; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJ9Fd-0005Qr-5m; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:03:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA03154; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:03:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJ9Nx-0004cf-Oj; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:11:55 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Apr 2005 05:03:07 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.92,78,1112598000"; d="scan'208"; a="246316408:sNHT29326828" Received: from imail.cisco.com (imail.cisco.com [128.107.200.91]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j36C33Dr005347; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 05:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [212.254.247.4] (ams-clip-vpn-dhcp4532.cisco.com [10.61.81.179]) by imail.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j36Bsslp009939; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 04:54:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4253CFF4.1010307@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 14:03:00 +0200 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Lilly References: <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <200504060752.19847.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <200504060752.19847.blilly@erols.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit IIM-SIG: v:"1.1"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; d:"cisco.com"; z:"home"; m:"krs"; t:"1112788496.866587"; x:"432200"; a:"rsa-sha1"; b:"nofws:228"; e:"Iw=="; n:"sQYarK2E51MdcTiUqeif3F7cWdxIfoCiXhdfb9vD5ee/j0jXL15gbFxF2p" "XIweAblu0N6XAgK7k+wrbr7bQDJaCDqOmzqpRUBjIRQAXQ7NzadpmR3pUL6wxaRUtW+c43sl9jC" "50Qg1sXHpPjt8Y+Y16ioyQAQAdSunM4YhevURc="; s:"hI/fdl5MsWIzkd5vJD2EnsePXMhIEl8uKYpIrNhZLms4VJz4GeMlb+itmNyswpz+KZzJVtSq" "RMeFY6vh57EZBJ4ZcGQ1nvnnRw5HctkOhQi57CLiMv8iplDURfsg3K1rcOHfuvjqlUP53eDOXdv" "D0MSuI984Mcn/9BNwOF9sUys="; c:"Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 14:03:00 +0200"; c:"From: Eliot Lear "; c:"Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Tool" "set' to=0A Informational RFC" IIM-VERIFY: s:"y"; v:"y"; r:"60"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; c:"message from imail.cisco.com verified; " X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:51 -0400 Cc: Alex Rousskov , ned.freed@mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > > Such as line breaks in the middle of words, followed by loss of > indentation? > > N.B. no smiley. So what? The nice thing about an XML format is that if you don't like the representation you can change it without changing the source. Isn't that nice?! Eliot _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:24:26 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25491; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCWh-0003bZ-C2; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:33:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCMm-00039e-Pk; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJ7gu-0003SR-JH; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 06:23:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23442; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 06:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 213-136-24-43.adsl.bit.nl ([213.136.24.43] helo=purgatory.unfix.org ident=postfix) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJ7pD-00005C-4g; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 06:31:56 -0400 Received: from firenze.zurich.ibm.com (pat.zurich.ibm.com [195.176.20.45]) (using SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by purgatory.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57AD38880; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:23:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Jeroen Massar To: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion In-Reply-To: <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> Organization: Unfix Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:23:03 +0200 Message-Id: <1112782983.8946.19.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:51 -0400 Subject: [Tools-discuss] Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0620717275==" Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a --===============0620717275== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-SUUMAHmMUD0KwDFoImh8" --=-SUUMAHmMUD0KwDFoImh8 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 11:52 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people > arguing about xml versus nroff (again). If you write Internet > Drafts, try this toy (and only vote once, please...). > If the toy doesn't work, don't blame me... I just found the > site with Google. >=20 > http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=3D22-143 As this is the tools discussion after all, might it maybe be a good tool to have a voting tool for the IETF? Just like the above, except that the chairs can see the email addresses that people gave when they voted. They could then check this list against the list that has actually been signed up on the wg's mailinglist and filter out discrepancies, might these exist. Thus a following process could be made: - WG Chair adds a vote (topic,description,options,enddate) - Tool posts this new vote to the WG's list. - WG members (*1) read this message and go to the URL that is given in the message - WG member votes - Tool sends a confirmation, to verify that this user is really that user that just voted. - WG member confirms his/her/it's/* vote. - Tool closes the vote - Tool sends results to the list The pro of this procedure is that votes can always be reviewed, checked, they are easily accounted for etc. And best of all, it doesn't require one to be present at eg a meeting, so if for instance there would be a vote during a meeting, even remote participants can be in the vote. Only requirement then would be that people are able to read their email where-ever they are, but that should not be a problem for technical folks would it ? :) Single side-effect I quickly can come up with though would be that people who are reading the WG maillist using an exploder address will come out in the votes as 'bogus' as they are not signed up. These folks could of course be asked under which address they are signed up or some other procedure. There are not likely many, though one never knows for sure of course. This "you are not on the mailinglist" can of course be handled by the tool. Other side-effects, raise your voice. *1) If you are not on the list, how else will you know what they are talking about, thus why should you vote? ;) Greets, Jeroen --=-SUUMAHmMUD0KwDFoImh8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iD8DBQBCU7iHKaooUjM+fCMRAhWOAKCsBcexWDull8WbLH4EuRMT9czIPgCgu/N5 6kg7yjjiH0ylCBQMdnjirvo= =WwS+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-SUUMAHmMUD0KwDFoImh8-- --===============0620717275== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss --===============0620717275==-- From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:24:37 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25536; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:24:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCWs-0003c5-AQ; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:33:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCMm-00037z-Hn; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJ7Di-0003fX-VZ; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 05:53:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21070; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 05:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate3.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.136]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJ7M1-0007Py-MG; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 06:01:47 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.233]) by mtagate3.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j369qxFU328690; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:52:59 GMT Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.213]) by d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j369qxRJ051466; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:52:59 +0100 Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j369qwLW007305; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:52:59 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j369qwWv007288; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:52:58 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-254-221.de.ibm.com [9.145.254.221]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA83684; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:52:56 +0200 Message-ID: <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:52:56 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ned.freed@mrochek.com References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:51 -0400 Cc: Bruce Lilly , Alex Rousskov , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people arguing about xml versus nroff (again). If you write Internet Drafts, try this toy (and only vote once, please...). If the toy doesn't work, don't blame me... I just found the site with Google. http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=22-143 Brian _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:25:10 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25640; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:25:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCXQ-0003ec-Jv; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:33:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCKa-0001lc-L1; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:20:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCKS-0001j9-I5; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:20:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24411; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:20:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns2a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.134] helo=ns2.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCSp-0003Gl-L2; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:29:08 -0400 Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns2.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830E42990F; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:20:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j36FKP0L017584(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.23 2005/03/23 20:35:49) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:20:25 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j36FKOWC017580(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.2 2005/03/17 23:41:52) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:20:25 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf@ietf.org Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:20:21 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504061120.22047.blilly@erols.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Date: 2005-04-06 10:03 > From: Pekka Savola > I can't understand why you basically say that nroff can be typed=20 > manually, but XML requires an editor. >=20 > I've never used an XML editor and have.. what, a couple of dozen=20 > drafts, many of them RFCs already. =A0 I've used solely xml2rfc for=20 > about 1.5 years now. =A0Nor do I have plans to use an XML editor. It's partly a matter of directive/markup mechanism (while there are certainly exceptions, most troff formatting macro directives do not require balanced start/end markup, and while nesting can occur (e.g. in lists), the bulk of formatting (paragraphs and section headings) directives are not nested, whereas XML, like other SGML-based formats, requires balanced markup tags, many of which have particular nesting requirements, and the balancing/nesting can quickly become unmanageable for the human editor w/o format-specific software editor support). It's also partly a matter of keeping the directives largely in the background (mostly not balanced/nested, with simple syntax, and terse) vs. overwhelming the text (by baroque syntax and verbose, balanced, nested markup). One thing that typical *ML editors seem to do is to try to hide that otherwise overwhelming markup by representing it more tersely or by moving it to a different part of the display. Personally I find it simpler to use a format that is terse and relatively unobtrusive in the first place. As an example, consider writing a paragraph using troff macros vs. using XML with an XML editor and with a text editor. With troff macros, one types a directive, which is terse (typically 3 characters including the dot) and proceeds to type the paragraph text. At the end of the paragraph, nothing special, just move on to another paragraph, a section heading, a diagram; whatever. Using XML with a text editor, there's a (relatively) verbose markup tag, which itself requires balanced, matching delimiters, then paragraph text (all the while mentally keeping track of the fact that an opening tag has been entered and must be closed). At the end of the paragraph, before considering what content is next, a matching closing tag (again somewhat verbose and requiring balanced, matching delimiters) must be typed. Using an XML-specific editor basically substitutes manually typing tags by a search for a pointing device, selection from a menu, etc. (avoiding typos while entering long tags, but interrupting the mental flow of writing content to search for menu items, etc.). =20 > Date: 2005-04-06 10:04 > From: Julian Reschke > I am producing XML with a text editor as well. Plugins allow=20 > one-keystroke syntax checks (=3D=3D run it through an XML parser) or prev= iew=20 > of HTML (=3D=3D display it in a browser with XSLT). The need for external programs (because the format has strict balancing and nesting requirements) is a show-stopper on some platforms (e.g. PDAs). The bottom line is that the goal is to produce properly formatted documents. So long as that goal is met (N.B.!), any tool that does the job and is suitable for the author(s) is fine. For those that wish to use XML, fine -- enjoy! But my concern, particularly regarding a document with the formidable word "Requirements" in its title, is that there should also be provision for those who prefer to use troff/nroff. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:25:53 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25800; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:25:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCY3-0003h5-8l; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:34:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCMn-0003Bo-7c; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJ9MU-0006sw-Jm; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:10:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA04047; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:10:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tiere.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJ9Up-0004wj-AD; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:19:00 -0400 Received: from tiere.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tiere.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j36C8370012387; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by tiere.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j36C8170012369; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:08:02 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:10:17 +0300 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF DraftSubmission Toolset' to Informational RFC) Thread-Index: AcU6kwLuiXa3nFpBQL64GH/iosqdQwADme1w From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: "Jeroen Massar" , , "IETF TOOLS discussion" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:22:51 -0400 Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF DraftSubmission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org]On=20 > Behalf Of Jeroen Massar >=20 > On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 11:52 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people > > arguing about xml versus nroff (again). If you write Internet > > Drafts, try this toy (and only vote once, please...). > > If the toy doesn't work, don't blame me... I just found the > > site with Google. > >=20 > > http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=3D22-143 >=20 > As this is the tools discussion after all, might it maybe be=20 > a good tool > to have a voting tool for the IETF? >=20 When the IETF Chair says 'voting' you should take it as a metaphor, I = believe.=20 Dan >=20 _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:53:42 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28793; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCz2-0004Y8-Qv; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:02:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCqW-0003BQ-VI; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:53:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCqU-00039B-B6 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:53:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28787 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:53:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJCyp-0004Xt-B7 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:02:14 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j36FrFM22084 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 18:53:15 +0300 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 18:53:15 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: IETF TOOLS discussion In-Reply-To: <200504061120.22047.blilly@erols.com> Message-ID: References: <200504061120.22047.blilly@erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 I removed ietf@ietf.org. On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote: [...] > The bottom line is that the goal is to produce properly formatted > documents. So long as that goal is met (N.B.!), any tool that does > the job and is suitable for the author(s) is fine. For those that > wish to use XML, fine -- enjoy! But my concern, particularly regarding > a document with the formidable word "Requirements" in its title, is > that there should also be provision for those who prefer to use > troff/nroff. Exactly. The point of the tool is to provide more features to those who use a particular, widely used and well-working tool, xml2rfc. You and everyone else still free to use whatever you use, including nroff scripts. You just have to submit the drafts as text, that's all. Hopefully you agree that it makes no sense for the upcoming "draft submission tool" to support every single tool users might use to submit their drafts. Are you arguing that your tool is special? Those that don't use the particular tool just can't get the benefits, but have to literally "send text". The text submission will always continue to be possible. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 12:35:06 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02067; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJDd7-0005XD-Kn; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:43:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJDPl-00077E-4u; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJDPh-00076y-FC; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:29:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01811; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:29:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu ([128.2.185.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJDY4-0005Rf-7r; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:38:37 -0400 Received: from SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU ([128.2.209.170]) by minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu id aa30320; 6 Apr 2005 12:29 EDT Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:29:40 -0400 From: Jeffrey Hutzelman To: Jeroen Massar , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Message-ID: <7BB5FE937B881EEEC201E91B@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <1112782983.8946.19.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <1112782983.8946.19.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01JLl80o4h8UZwBPRTVzesQbsrs/2r7fWRLqo3Wjk=; token_authority=postmaster@andrew.cmu.edu X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:23:03 PM +0200 Jeroen Massar wrote: > On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 11:52 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people >> arguing about xml versus nroff (again). If you write Internet >> Drafts, try this toy (and only vote once, please...). >> If the toy doesn't work, don't blame me... I just found the >> site with Google. >> >> http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=22-143 > > As this is the tools discussion after all, might it maybe be a good tool > to have a voting tool for the IETF? "We reject kings, presidents, and voting..." This isn't 100% true, of course; there are a very few specific cases where "voting" is used to make a decision. They tend to be somewhat specialized (for example, the system the IESG uses to decide whether to approve documents) and have specially-designed tools. I don't think a general-purpose voting tool is needed or appropriate. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 12:39:32 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02815; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJDhP-0005ga-Ba; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:48:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJDQR-00079m-Ca; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:30:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJDQQ-00079h-2u for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:30:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01815 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJDYn-0005S2-TB for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:39:22 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j36GUd3a074963; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:30:40 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:29:39 -0600 To: "Jeroen Massar" , "IETF TOOLS discussion" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC) References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <1112782983.8946.19.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1112782983.8946.19.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 25620135586de10c627e3628c432b04a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Henrik, Could you please add this detailed suggestion to our "tool wishes" wiki page/database? I would just replace "voting" with "polling" or some other word that might be less offensive in IETF context. I think it would be a useful tool. It may be a good idea to have an option to disable confirmations. An email receipt is sufficient for many polls and simplifies the procedure by an order of magnitude. Thank you, Alex. On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), wrote: > On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 11:52 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people >> arguing about xml versus nroff (again). If you write Internet >> Drafts, try this toy (and only vote once, please...). >> If the toy doesn't work, don't blame me... I just found the >> site with Google. >> >> http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=22-143 > > As this is the tools discussion after all, might it maybe be a good tool > to have a voting tool for the IETF? > > Just like the above, except that the chairs can see the email addresses > that people gave when they voted. They could then check this list > against the list that has actually been signed up on the wg's > mailinglist and filter out discrepancies, might these exist. > > Thus a following process could be made: > > - WG Chair adds a vote (topic,description,options,enddate) > - Tool posts this new vote to the WG's list. > - WG members (*1) read this message and go to the URL > that is given in the message > - WG member votes > - Tool sends a confirmation, to verify that this user > is really that user that just voted. > - WG member confirms his/her/it's/* vote. > - Tool closes the vote > - Tool sends results to the list > > The pro of this procedure is that votes can always be reviewed, checked, > they are easily accounted for etc. And best of all, it doesn't require > one to be present at eg a meeting, so if for instance there would be a > vote during a meeting, even remote participants can be in the vote. Only > requirement then would be that people are able to read their email > where-ever they are, but that should not be a problem for technical > folks would it ? :) > > Single side-effect I quickly can come up with though would be that > people who are reading the WG maillist using an exploder address will > come out in the votes as 'bogus' as they are not signed up. > These folks could of course be asked under which address they are signed > up or some other procedure. There are not likely many, though one never > knows for sure of course. This "you are not on the mailinglist" can of > course be handled by the tool. Other side-effects, raise your voice. > > *1) If you are not on the list, how else will you know what they are > talking about, thus why should you vote? ;) > > Greets, > Jeroen > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 12:46:51 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03838; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:46:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJDoU-0005yS-B2; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:55:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJDfv-0006ET-8M; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:46:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJDft-0006CH-3v; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:46:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03820; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJDoH-0005y8-3W; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:55:21 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j36Gkd3a075418; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:46:39 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:45:39 -0600 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC References: <200504061120.22047.blilly@erols.com> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200504061120.22047.blilly@erols.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), wrote: > [...] my concern, particularly regarding > a document with the formidable word "Requirements" in its title, is > that there should also be provision for those who prefer to use > troff/nroff. I am going to add the following to the ID Submission draft: The set of requirements in this document is not meant to be comprehensive or final. Other IETF documents or procedures may require additional functionality from the Toolset. For example, it is possible that the Toolset will be required to handle draft source formats other than plain text and XML. I think the above represents current Tools team consensus on this issue. As others have pointed out, nroff (or MS Word, etc.) fans can still submit their drafts using the Toolset (as currently defined); they just will not submit their sources. Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 12:48:57 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03940; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:48:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJDqV-00061L-Kk; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:57:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJDht-0007XP-1x; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:48:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJDNk-00072P-FV for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:27:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01739 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:27:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.207]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJDW7-0005Q1-0l for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:36:36 -0400 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so213891rng for ; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:27:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=sZ3tgJD7Jwf6kb0Rw/ACCGJ4f9COuc1jLfg/ABkEnKMwgttM7A+Mcpph8fFc+s9epXm34VHPEKSo+CgSZIZUbKMoPrIlUwgFl8+g59+kStIvPzZeRfh8/xSQXT7G/BrHQP/SqwV8UppwPI7+QwxN9FRKgVsuBKY0AqgdorTuvMk= Received: by 10.38.218.39 with SMTP id q39mr933643rng; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.10.77 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:27:50 -0800 From: Bill Fenner To: Alex Rousskov In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:48:43 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Bill Fenner List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Apr 6, 2005 7:10 AM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), wrote: > > I have to admit that I use nroff about 75% of the time and XML about > > 25%, I'm much happier about the postscript/PDF output options from > > nroff than from XML, > > To be fair, poor output quality is not XML's fault, it is tool's fault. > Popular tools improve with time (and IETF can influence/speedup such > improvement if needed). Very true - I'm just talking abot the current state of affairs. > > and I can't imagine having written the 120-page PIM spec in XML. > > My largest XML-based RFC is only 60 pages, but I do not see why 120 pages > would be "too long" for XML. Can you clarify? Just curious... Well, I think the main reason is that any time we needed custom handling for a topic it was easy to write a macro to handle it; the same thing in XML would probably mean adding preprocessors (perhaps an xsl transform). We also ended up with some tables that required some pretty fine tuning to get to fit in 7x characters; my gut tells me that would be harder to do in XML. Finally, the optional figures in the postscript version would not have been supported by the currently available tools. Bill _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 12:49:18 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03969; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:49:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJDqr-00061x-CU; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:58:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJDhs-0007XK-SF; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:48:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJCwE-0004Ji-CP; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:59:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29153; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:59:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJD4a-0004fo-Ue; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:08:10 -0400 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Apr 2005 08:59:20 -0700 Received: from gwzw2k01 (sjc-vpn7-250.cisco.com [10.21.144.250]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j36FxGgS001293; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:59:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200504061559.j36FxGgS001293@sj-core-3.cisco.com> From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" To: "'Jeffrey Hutzelman'" , "'Baker Fred'" , "'Henrik Levkowetz'" Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:59:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcU6v9zyoRPBgL1wQbuoBoYySi4WcgAAS1gg In-Reply-To: <118A637ED3B5F6E05FB08233@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:48:43 -0400 Cc: "'WG Chairs'" , xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, "'Tools Team Discussion'" Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: [xml2rfc] Re: idnits v1.63 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: gwz@cisco.com List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeffrey Hutzelman <> supposedly scribbled: > On Monday, April 04, 2005 04:08:36 PM -0700 Baker Fred > > wrote: > >> On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:32 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >>> In idnits v1.63 a warning has been added for drafts which use 3667 >>> boilerplate instead of 3978 boilerplate, where those differ. The >>> 3978 boilerplate is now also required to be verbatim, with none of >>> the slight variations which was accepted earlier (e.g., "he" instead >>> of "he or she", or "the author" instead of "each author"). >> >> Boy, that's brilliant. I wasn't aware that all IETF contributors are >> male and each draft has exactly one author. What other appropriate >> simplifying assumptions have I overlooked all these years? > > All Internet users speak, read, and write English and only English? > :-) I _wish_ that all Internet-Draft authors could write in English... > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc mailing > list > xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org > http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc Hope this helps, ~gwz Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 13:14:56 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06892; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:14:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJEFg-0006pQ-1e; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:23:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJE75-0000eE-Dy; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:14:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJE73-0000e2-89; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:14:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06855; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:14:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJEFR-0006oi-F6; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:23:25 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j36HEf3a076047; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:14:42 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:13:41 -0600 To: "Bill Fenner" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC References: <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <200504060938.44239.blilly@erols.com> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), wrote: > Well, I think the main reason is that any time we needed custom > handling for a topic it was easy to write a macro to handle it; the > same thing in XML would probably mean adding preprocessors (perhaps an > xsl transform). Yes, I use preprocessors (though not XSLT). I think that writing a preprocessor is equivalent to writing marcos. Some people can write XML preprocessors faster than nroff macros and vice versa, naturally. > We also ended up with some tables that required some > pretty fine tuning to get to fit in 7x characters; my gut tells me > that would be harder to do in XML. That depends, I think. If you typeset your table manually, then you can use artwork to include that into XML sources. You would have to call it a Figure then, I guess :-(. If you use nroff to format most of the table except a few special places, then current XML DTD is not that flexible. > Finally, the optional figures in > the postscript version would not have been supported by the currently > available tools. Very true. Note that the last two arguments (and even the first one, to an extent) seem to be unrelated to document length. Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 20:17:28 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24958; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:17:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJKqa-0003Ar-Sv; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:26:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJKhR-000374-7c; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:16:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJGjZ-0003VU-OC; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:02:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27216; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gate5-sandiego.nmci.navy.mil ([138.163.0.37]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJGry-0004cJ-4P; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:11:23 -0400 Received: from nawesdnims04.nmci.navy.mil by Gate5-sandiego.nmci.navy.mil via smtpd (for ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) with ESMTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:02:39 +0000 Received: (private information removed) Received: (private information removed) Received: (private information removed) Received: from mail pickup service by NAWESDNIEG03.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:01:55 -0700 Received: from nawesdnifw01.nmci.navy.mil ([10.0.0.41]) by NAWESDNIEG03.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:29:48 -0700 Received: from Nawesdnims02.nmci.navy.mil by nawesdnifw01.nmci.navy.mil via smtpd (for Insidesmtp.navy.mil [10.0.10.60]) with ESMTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:29:48 +0000 Received: from nawesdnifw02c.nmci.navy.mil (nawesdnifw02c.nmci.navy.mil [10.0.0.162]) by nawesdnims02.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id j36JFL619034 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:15:21 GMT Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by nawesdnifw02c.nmci.navy.mil via smtpd (for [10.0.0.166]) with ESMTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:29:47 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJGBh-0007aV-2S; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:27:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJGBe-0007ZU-Oh; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:27:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19732; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJGK4-00023C-1J; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:36:20 -0400 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Apr 2005 12:27:29 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ssh-sjc-1.cisco.com [171.68.225.134]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j36JRQ3S011729; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4254381C.9020701@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:27:24 -0400 From: Scott W Brim User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <200504061120.22047.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <200504061120.22047.blilly@erols.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.1 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2005 19:29:48.0825 (UTC) FILETIME=[FF2D8090:01C53ADE] X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:16:43 -0400 Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/6/2005 11:20, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote: > Using an XML-specific editor basically substitutes manually > typing tags by a search for a pointing device, selection from a menu, > etc. (avoiding typos while entering long tags, but interrupting the > mental flow of writing content to search for menu items, etc.). I agree that balanced tags make editing more awkward but the above is a caricature. As an example I rarely hunt for the mouse when doing xml2rfc XML. You need a better editor. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 20:18:06 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24987; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:18:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJKrE-0003BS-2V; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:26:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJKhR-00036z-0E; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:16:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJGBe-0007ZU-Oh; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:27:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19732; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJGK4-00023C-1J; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:36:20 -0400 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Apr 2005 12:27:29 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ssh-sjc-1.cisco.com [171.68.225.134]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j36JRQ3S011729; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4254381C.9020701@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:27:24 -0400 From: Scott W Brim User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <200504061120.22047.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <200504061120.22047.blilly@erols.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:16:43 -0400 Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/6/2005 11:20, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote: > Using an XML-specific editor basically substitutes manually > typing tags by a search for a pointing device, selection from a menu, > etc. (avoiding typos while entering long tags, but interrupting the > mental flow of writing content to search for menu items, etc.). I agree that balanced tags make editing more awkward but the above is a caricature. As an example I rarely hunt for the mouse when doing xml2rfc XML. You need a better editor. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 05:12:25 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA00046; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 05:12:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJTCN-0001XM-RZ; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 05:21:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJT3c-00006s-D4; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 05:12:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJSBl-0001hA-OI; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:16:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26081; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 04:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate2.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.135]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJSKH-00088s-IM; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:25:22 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1307.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1307.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.129]) by mtagate2.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j378GNpW195604; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:16:23 GMT Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.213]) by d06nrmr1307.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j378GNZl080578; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:16:23 +0100 Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j378GND8013278; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:16:23 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j378GMkf013263; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:16:23 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-221-7.de.ibm.com [9.146.221.7]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA71502; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:16:21 +0200 Message-ID: <4254EC55.9020807@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:16:21 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeffrey Hutzelman References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <1112782983.8946.19.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <7BB5FE937B881EEEC201E91B@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <7BB5FE937B881EEEC201E91B@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 05:08:28 -0400 Cc: Jeroen Massar , IETF TOOLS discussion , ietf@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:23:03 PM +0200 Jeroen Massar > wrote: > >> On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 11:52 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people >>> arguing about xml versus nroff (again). If you write Internet >>> Drafts, try this toy (and only vote once, please...). >>> If the toy doesn't work, don't blame me... I just found the >>> site with Google. >>> >>> http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=22-143 >> >> >> As this is the tools discussion after all, might it maybe be a good tool >> to have a voting tool for the IETF? > > > "We reject kings, presidents, and voting..." > > This isn't 100% true, of course; there are a very few specific cases > where "voting" is used to make a decision. They tend to be somewhat > specialized (for example, the system the IESG uses to decide whether to > approve documents) and have specially-designed tools. > > I don't think a general-purpose voting tool is needed or appropriate. But we *often* take straw polls in f2f meetings, and that's very hard to do by email. Brian _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 07:19:32 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA09266; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:19:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJVBR-0005cg-OE; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:28:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJV2L-0007jn-IJ; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJV2K-0007j6-9w; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:19:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA09257; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJVAp-0005cF-Oy; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:27:50 -0400 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j37BIlCh008575; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:18:47 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j37BIlck069266; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:18:47 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j37BIlCa011031; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:18:47 -0500 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-200-153.mts.ibm.com [9.65.200.153]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j37BIkkv011015; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:18:46 -0500 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j37BIFb6016283; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:18:16 -0400 Message-Id: <200504071118.j37BIFb6016283@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Jeroen Massar In-Reply-To: Message from Jeroen Massar of "Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:23:03 +0200." <1112782983.8946.19.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:18:15 -0400 From: Thomas Narten X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Jeroen Massar writes: > Just like the above, except that the chairs can see the email addresses > that people gave when they voted. They could then check this list > against the list that has actually been signed up on the wg's > mailinglist and filter out discrepancies, might these exist. Maybe this is pointing out the obvious, but discounting input because it comes from someone not subscribed to the list is Poor Practice. Often, the most critical (but also the best) reviews come from folk outside of the WG, who are not following the work closely, and are reading a draft entirely on its own merits, and from a broader perspective than the WG might have. > The pro of this procedure is that votes can always be reviewed, checked, > they are easily accounted for etc. And best of all, it doesn't require > one to be present at eg a meeting, so if for instance there would be a > vote during a meeting, even remote participants can be in the vote. Only > requirement then would be that people are able to read their email > where-ever they are, but that should not be a problem for technical > folks would it ? :) > *1) If you are not on the list, how else will you know what they are > talking about, thus why should you vote? ;) Because an AD, chair or other concerned individual actively solicits input from someone who is not actively following a WG (or is currently focusing their priorities elsewhere)? One of the realities of the IETF today (and for some time) is that it is simply not possible for one person to closely follow all the activities they might want to (or are expert in). Thomas _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 07:44:36 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA12039; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:44:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJVZg-0006ay-0O; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:53:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJVBO-0001Xn-Qx; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:28:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJVBL-0001XZ-QL; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:28:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10078; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJVJs-0005vd-8Z; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:37:10 -0400 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j37BS85j559954; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:28:08 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j37BS7bh244552; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 05:28:07 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j37BS75u008948; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 05:28:07 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-200-153.mts.ibm.com [9.65.200.153]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j37BS6L3008939; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 05:28:07 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j37BRZCJ016851; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:27:36 -0400 Message-Id: <200504071127.j37BRZCJ016851@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Brian E Carpenter In-Reply-To: Message from Brian E Carpenter of "Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:12:53 +0200." <4253E055.4080706@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:27:35 -0400 From: Thomas Narten X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Cc: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF DraftSubmission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 > /\ > Consensus: ____/ \___ > /\ > Rough Consensus ____/ \___/\___ > Badly phrased question: ___/\____/\____/\____/\___ Right. Like most techniques, "voting" is a tool. And like any tool, it can be misused, or ineffective. Voting breaks down when it is used avoid finding true consensus, and is instead used to just make a decision and move on -- regardless of whether the decision made is actually a well-considered one. It is this area the IETF needs to avoid falling into. Personally, I'm more in favor of "votes" than just hums, the reason being that a count of hands is unambiguous data. In contrast, the results of a hum are more subject to interpretation, where one's perspective of the results of a hum may well depend on which side of the room one happens to be sitting. And if one reads from the WG minutes that "the hum said x", one really can't challenge what that means, becuase there is no agreed-upon data on which to draw conclusions from. In contrast, with a count of hands, it's much harder to argue that 100 to 20 "vote" is not strong support for a particular direction. Likewise, a "vote" of 5 to 2 says something pretty significant too, i.e., serious lack of participation. Thomas _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 08:23:23 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15782; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:23:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJWBC-0008Ab-VP; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:32:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJVsP-0005aJ-Sb; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:12:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJVsO-0005aB-TT; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:12:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14875; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJW0v-0007mj-Lm; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:21:39 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j37CCBZ10780; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:12:11 +0300 Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:12:11 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Thomas Narten In-Reply-To: <200504071127.j37BRZCJ016851@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <200504071127.j37BRZCJ016851@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , Brian E Carpenter , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF DraftSubmission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Thomas Narten wrote: > Personally, I'm more in favor of "votes" than just hums, the reason > being that a count of hands is unambiguous data. In contrast, the > results of a hum are more subject to interpretation, where one's > perspective of the results of a hum may well depend on which side of > the room one happens to be sitting. FWIW, I personally prefer humming because my belief is that unless the rough consensus is sufficiently strong (so that it's clear no matter which part of the room you stand), the WG should probably be better off seeking better consensus than deciding that (for example) 1/3 of people voted X, and 2/3 voted for Y. > And if one reads from the WG > minutes that "the hum said x", one really can't challenge what that > means, becuase there is no agreed-upon data on which to draw > conclusions from. This is true, of course. > In contrast, with a count of hands, it's much harder > to argue that 100 to 20 "vote" is not strong support for a particular > direction. Likewise, a "vote" of 5 to 2 says something pretty > significant too, i.e., serious lack of participation. Very weak humming could also be minuted as such, of course. Maybe a part of the issue is that when the minute-taker is not a chair, it may be more difficult to document the result of the consensus call. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 08:59:35 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18115; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJWkE-0000uw-Pt; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:08:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJWaW-0006hJ-MI; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:58:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJWaO-0006cZ-HK; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:58:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17991; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:58:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu ([140.247.60.212] helo=newdev.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJWiv-0000sN-UA; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:07:07 -0400 Received: by newdev.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id CF2F6295817; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:58:03 -0400 (EDT) To: brc@zurich.ibm.com, jhutz@cmu.edu In-Reply-To: <4254EC55.9020807@zurich.ibm.com> Message-Id: <20050407125803.CF2F6295817@newdev.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:58:03 -0400 (EDT) From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Cc: ietf@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 > But we *often* take straw polls in f2f meetings, but we do not count hands - we look to see if there is a clear difference between hands one way and or the other Scott _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 09:43:06 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23162; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJXQN-0002v7-NT; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:51:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJXFY-0006lK-Jj; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:40:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJXFW-0006lA-WA; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:40:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22946; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJXO4-0002oI-NY; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:49:38 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j37DeZCj014975; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:40:35 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j37DeZgv193776; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:40:35 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j37DeYqB012888; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:40:34 -0400 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (rotala.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.211.15]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j37DeYUH012867; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:40:34 -0400 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (rotala.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j37DdRo2001540; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:39:27 -0400 Message-Id: <200504071339.j37DdRo2001540@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> To: sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC) In-Reply-To: Message from sob@harvard.edu of "Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:58:03 EDT." <20050407125803.CF2F6295817@newdev.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:39:27 -0400 From: Thomas Narten X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Cc: brc@zurich.ibm.com, ietf@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org, jhutz@cmu.edu X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) writes: > > But we *often* take straw polls in f2f meetings, > but we do not count hands - we look to see if there is a clear > difference between hands one way and or the other I agree that this is exactly how we should be using hums/polls. But I'm sure many of us have also seen cases where a consensus call is made and it is not immediately/obviously clear (to all) just how clear the difference between the two sides really is. Or to someone outside the room who wasn't there. Having hand counts makes it possible to have a more honest discussion (both during and after the fact) about just how close the call really is, how much participation there was, etc. If folk are unhappy about a particular call, but they are not really able to challenge it, it can reinforce the perception (rightly or wrongly) that the IETF processes are unfair. But as others also note, there are also downsides with "voting". And there have been cases where "packing the vote" have taken place. The most obvious example I recall was in the case of IDN WG. It is exactly in these cases that we need to have good/strong chairs that recognize when this is happening and factor it into the consensus call. Thomas _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 10:50:31 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00155; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJYTd-0005Tt-NC; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:59:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJY7w-0005KY-G4; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:37:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJY7u-0005KI-R9; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:36:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28990; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJYGS-00050T-Hb; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:45:50 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate2.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j37Eai96135408; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:36:45 GMT Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j37Eai1F164358; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:36:44 +0200 Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j37Eai7S000952; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:36:44 +0200 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j37EahXE000944; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:36:43 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-221-7.de.ibm.com [9.146.221.7]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA62300; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:36:42 +0200 Message-ID: <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:36:39 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Rousskov , Bruce Lilly , ned.freed@mrochek.com, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', what the toy shows after about a day is: prefer nroff: 8 prefer xml: 37 neither: 9 which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. Brian Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people > arguing about xml versus nroff (again). If you write Internet > Drafts, try this toy (and only vote once, please...). > If the toy doesn't work, don't blame me... I just found the > site with Google. > > http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=22-143 > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 11:27:44 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04716; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:27:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJZ3d-0007F0-Vz; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:36:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJYrn-0005Mi-7t; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:24:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJYrj-0005Ks-Bp; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:24:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04358; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns3a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.136] helo=ns3.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJZ0I-000731-A7; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:33:11 -0400 Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns3.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73CC29910; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:24:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j37FOEbt004159(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.23 2005/03/23 20:35:49) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) ; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:24:14 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j37FODqm004157(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.2 2005/03/17 23:41:52) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:24:13 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf@ietf.org, "Alex Rousskov" Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:24:07 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504071124.08668.blilly@erols.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Date: 2005-04-06 12:45 > From: "Alex Rousskov" > As others have pointed out, nroff (or MS Word, etc.) fans can still submit > their drafts using the Toolset (as currently defined); they just will not > submit their sources. Which implies, for the case of documents where figures (etc.) differ in PostScript/PDF and plain text versions, that there will still be a substantial amount of manual effort required. See draft sections 1 & 8. Generation of text, PostScript, and PDF from single troff source is not only feasible, it is de rigeur. It seems silly to specify a toolset purportedly to provide benefits of automation, but not to specify automated processing of a widely-used source format which is quite amenable to automated processing. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 11:51:41 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07153; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJZQp-0008Av-DO; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:00:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJZGo-0007Bs-RK; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:50:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJVmj-0003xV-6o; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:06:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14130; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:06:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [204.9.221.21] (helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJVvG-0007WA-5j; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:15:47 -0400 Received: from [24.61.30.237] (account margaret HELO [192.168.2.2]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 325499; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:03:29 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200504071127.j37BRZCJ016851@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <200504071127.j37BRZCJ016851@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:05:25 -0400 To: Thomas Narten , Brian E Carpenter From: Margaret Wasserman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:50:13 -0400 Cc: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF DraftSubmission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe Hi All, I agree with what Thomas is saying below, with on clarification... At 7:27 AM -0400 4/7/05, Thomas Narten wrote: >Personally, I'm more in favor of "votes" than just hums, the reason >being that a count of hands is unambiguous data. In contrast, the >results of a hum are more subject to interpretation, where one's >perspective of the results of a hum may well depend on which side of >the room one happens to be sitting. And if one reads from the WG >minutes that "the hum said x", one really can't challenge what that >means, becuase there is no agreed-upon data on which to draw >conclusions from. In contrast, with a count of hands, it's much harder >to argue that 100 to 20 "vote" is not strong support for a particular >direction. Likewise, a "vote" of 5 to 2 says something pretty >significant too, i.e., serious lack of participation. I think that hand-raising or mailing list straw polling is a better technique to get data about the response to a particular question, because it is less ambiguous and less prone to vagaries of interpretation. Getting a somewhat accurate count of the opinions expressed in the room also makes it possible to follow RFC 2418 which says: In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face- to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who were in the meeting and expressed agreement must be taken into account. If there were 100 people in a meeting and only a few people on the mailing list disagree with the consensus of the meeting then the consensus should be seen as being verified. I, personally, lack the ability to quantify a "hum" and compare it to the number of people who respond to a mailing list poll. I do not think that the difference between a "straw poll" and "voting" lies in how you count the respondents, I think that the difference lies in what you do with the results. Voting is used to _make_ the decision. In voting, there is a defined majority (more than half, more than two-thirds, etc.) that is needed to make a specific decision, and difficult decisions may be made by one vote. To be done fairly, voting also requires quorum and eligibility rules. In the IETF, we use straw polls to get a sense of how many people in the room have an opinion on a particular topic, and whether there is a consensus of opinion among those people. IETF decisions are seldom black-and-white, sometimes there are a spectrum of choices available. After a poll, the chair may ask those who voted in the minority to state their reasons for doing so, in an attempt to find a compromise and/or place on the spectrum that will gain consensus. This is quite different than making a decision by voting, regardless of how the straw poll is conducted (hand-raising, humming, web "voting" tools). Margaret _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 11:52:08 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07224; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJZRH-0008Cq-1m; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:01:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJZGe-00078F-G4; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:50:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJWSQ-0005Ti-T8; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:50:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17486; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com ident=root) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJWaz-0000Zn-B5; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:58:53 -0400 Received: from [70.179.108.58] (account ) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.4.8) with HTTP id 2751451; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:50:00 -0400 From: "Marshall Eubanks" To: Margaret Wasserman , Thomas Narten , Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.4.8 Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:50:00 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:50:02 -0400 Cc: IETF, "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , ietf@ietf.org, TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF DraftSubmission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 32b73d73e8047ed17386f9799119ce43 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello; The trouble with voting (as opposed to straw polls) in a setting such as this is that it opens the door for vote packing, which I have seen happen in other organizations, with very bad results. If anyone who comes can vote, what's to stop Company XYZ from sending enough people to the WG meeting to make sure that the vote goes its way ? Nothing, as things stand now. Preventing that would require a lot more formality, such as registered members, company memberships, one vote per company, etc., obviously a profound change for the IETF. Moving to voting without doing that will eventually lead to disaster. So, I would vote not to move to voting. Regards Marshall Eubanks On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:05:25 -0400 Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > Hi All, > > I agree with what Thomas is saying below, with on clarification... > > At 7:27 AM -0400 4/7/05, Thomas Narten wrote: > >Personally, I'm more in favor of "votes" than just hums, the reason > >being that a count of hands is unambiguous data. In contrast, the > >results of a hum are more subject to interpretation, where one's > >perspective of the results of a hum may well depend on which side of > >the room one happens to be sitting. And if one reads from the WG > >minutes that "the hum said x", one really can't challenge what that > >means, becuase there is no agreed-upon data on which to draw > >conclusions from. In contrast, with a count of hands, it's much harder > >to argue that 100 to 20 "vote" is not strong support for a particular > >direction. Likewise, a "vote" of 5 to 2 says something pretty > >significant too, i.e., serious lack of participation. > > I think that hand-raising or mailing list straw polling is a better > technique to get data about the response to a particular question, > because it is less ambiguous and less prone to vagaries of > interpretation. Getting a somewhat accurate count of the opinions > expressed in the room also makes it possible to follow RFC 2418 which > says: > > In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face- > to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who > were in the meeting and expressed agreement must be taken into > account. If there were 100 people in a meeting and only a few people > on the mailing list disagree with the consensus of the meeting then > the consensus should be seen as being verified. > > I, personally, lack the ability to quantify a "hum" and compare it to > the number of people who respond to a mailing list poll. > > I do not think that the difference between a "straw poll" and > "voting" lies in how you count the respondents, I think that the > difference lies in what you do with the results. > > Voting is used to _make_ the decision. In voting, there is a defined > majority (more than half, more than two-thirds, etc.) that is needed > to make a specific decision, and difficult decisions may be made by > one vote. To be done fairly, voting also requires quorum and > eligibility rules. > > In the IETF, we use straw polls to get a sense of how many people in > the room have an opinion on a particular topic, and whether there is > a consensus of opinion among those people. IETF decisions are seldom > black-and-white, sometimes there are a spectrum of choices available. > After a poll, the chair may ask those who voted in the minority to > state their reasons for doing so, in an attempt to find a compromise > and/or place on the spectrum that will gain consensus. > > This is quite different than making a decision by voting, regardless > of how the straw poll is conducted (hand-raising, humming, web > "voting" tools). > > Margaret > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 11:52:15 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07255; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:52:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJZRO-0008DD-1J; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:01:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJZGe-000781-7y; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:50:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJWQx-0005Rj-0d; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:48:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17352; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 213-136-24-43.adsl.bit.nl ([213.136.24.43] helo=purgatory.unfix.org ident=postfix) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJWZT-0000VR-UM; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:57:21 -0400 Received: from firenze.zurich.ibm.com (pat.zurich.ibm.com [195.176.20.45]) (using SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by purgatory.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D818881; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:48:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Jeroen Massar To: Margaret Wasserman In-Reply-To: References: <200504071127.j37BRZCJ016851@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Organization: Unfix Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:48:06 +0200 Message-Id: <1112878086.23849.20.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:50:02 -0400 Cc: Thomas Narten , "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , Brian E Carpenter , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF DraftSubmission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0173128277==" Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 --===============0173128277== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-feu5T3O3+oE/nON1m/Zf" --=-feu5T3O3+oE/nON1m/Zf Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 08:05 -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > In the IETF, we use straw polls to get a sense of how many people in=20 > the room have an opinion on a particular topic, This room factor is also one of the reasons why I mentioned e-mail in my message. Each WG has a set of active participants and a number of people who don't visibly work, might lurk or do a lot of work behind the scenes on the topic of the WG, at least these people are reading, hopefully, the messages on this list. What if one of the hard working persons has a lot to do, or due to sickness or whatever reason, maybe business somewhere, raising his/her kids, or what about the very normal reason: no time and money, to not attend an IETF meeting. Then this person will not be in the room and thus can't participate in a vote, for which he/she worked very hard to get around. This thus basically means that if he/she can't be there all his work could be just hummed away by some proponent sending in a lot of people, who never did anything at all, and might not even know anything on the subject and let them hum their tone. In short..... if you don't have a lot of financial backing one is not getting anywhere in an organization that is supposed to based on individuals, whom are supposed to be doing work on free open internet standards, but are unable to do so over that internet they are making those standards for... Just my two cents ;) Greets, Jeroen --=-feu5T3O3+oE/nON1m/Zf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iD8DBQBCVSwGKaooUjM+fCMRAiKqAJ9LUYSEqQLGUwEU1KV8+0lBrTot8gCfQhHk 1MbmWnGSfsRIdkC2wlgW40s= =nNUn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-feu5T3O3+oE/nON1m/Zf-- --===============0173128277== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss --===============0173128277==-- From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 11:52:24 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07288; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:52:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJZRW-0008DW-EI; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:01:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJZGe-00078M-LA; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:50:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJYQh-0007DO-Sw; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:56:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00866; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c-24-61-4-89.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([24.61.4.89] helo=carter-zimmerman.mit.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJYZG-0005ko-Ob; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:05:15 -0400 Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 6B9CAE0063; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:56:13 -0400 (EDT) To: Pekka Savola References: <200504071127.j37BRZCJ016851@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> From: Sam Hartman Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:56:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Pekka Savola's message of "Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:12:11 +0300 (EEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:50:02 -0400 Cc: Thomas Narten , "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 >>>>> "Pekka" == Pekka Savola writes: Pekka> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Thomas Narten wrote: >> Personally, I'm more in favor of "votes" than just hums, the >> reason being that a count of hands is unambiguous data. In >> contrast, the results of a hum are more subject to >> interpretation, where one's perspective of the results of a hum >> may well depend on which side of the room one happens to be >> sitting. Pekka> FWIW, I personally prefer humming because my belief is that Pekka> unless the rough consensus is sufficiently strong (so that Pekka> it's clear no matter which part of the room you stand), the Pekka> WG should probably be better off seeking better consensus Pekka> than deciding that (for example) 1/3 of people voted X, and Pekka> 2/3 voted for Y. Strongly agree. I dislike it when minutes have careful counts of straw polls. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 12:27:37 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11119; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJZzc-0001Dc-Nm; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:36:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJZlj-0007Hs-Ar; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:22:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJZli-0007Gw-9G; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:22:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10401; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:22:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJZuH-0000xA-NG; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:31:03 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j37GM03a011678; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:22:00 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:21:00 -0600 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <200504071124.08668.blilly@erols.com> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200504071124.08668.blilly@erols.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote: >> Date: 2005-04-06 12:45 >> From: "Alex Rousskov" > >> As others have pointed out, nroff (or MS Word, etc.) fans can still >> submit their drafts using the Toolset (as currently defined); they just >> will not submit their sources. > > Which implies, for the case of documents where figures (etc.) differ > in PostScript/PDF and plain text versions, that there will still be a > substantial amount of manual effort required. See draft sections 1 & 8. Can you clarify what requires what effort? I have a feeling you are not talking about the Toolset here (as it does not require extra effort) but IETF requirements to supply plain text format if there is a PDF/PS format. I do not see where nroff comes in here. > Generation of text, PostScript, and PDF from single troff source is not > only feasible, it is de rigeur. Great (and I think the same can be said about XML sources). > It seems silly to specify a toolset > purportedly to provide benefits of automation, but not to specify > automated processing of a widely-used source format which is quite > amenable to automated processing. From [my interpretation of] the Tools team point of view, the nroff source format is not or will not be used widely enough to include it in the initial Toolset specs, especially since nroff-using authors can still use the Toolset as specified and benefit from automation the Toolset provides. If you disagree, you have at least three options: (a) Raise the issue with IESG. Demand that the Submission draft is not published until nroff support is explicitly included by the Tools team. (b) Raise the issue with IESG. Send specific Submission draft changes to support nroff. Demand their inclusion. (c) Publish "Requirements for nroff support in the Draft Submission Toolset" RFC. My biased recommendation is to use a non-confrontational option (c). Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 12:34:17 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12108; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:34:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJa65-0001Zu-0m; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:43:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJZtB-0000pS-Ot; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:29:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJZt7-0000kD-Up; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:29:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11500; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:29:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 213-136-24-43.adsl.bit.nl ([213.136.24.43] helo=purgatory.unfix.org ident=postfix) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJa1i-0001IY-IA; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:38:42 -0400 Received: from firenze.zurich.ibm.com (pat.zurich.ibm.com [195.176.20.45]) (using SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by purgatory.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6BB8880; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:29:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Jeroen Massar To: Thomas Narten In-Reply-To: <200504071118.j37BIFb6016283@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <200504071118.j37BIFb6016283@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Organization: Unfix Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:29:38 +0200 Message-Id: <1112891378.24205.41.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0598137915==" Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 --===============0598137915== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-JG6qBV+3qyXdURtNtOLy" --=-JG6qBV+3qyXdURtNtOLy Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 07:18 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > Jeroen Massar writes: >=20 >=20 > > Just like the above, except that the chairs can see the email addresses > > that people gave when they voted. They could then check this list > > against the list that has actually been signed up on the wg's > > mailinglist and filter out discrepancies, might these exist. >=20 > Maybe this is pointing out the obvious, but discounting input because > it comes from someone not subscribed to the list is Poor > Practice. Often, the most critical (but also the best) reviews come > from folk outside of the WG, who are not following the work closely, > and are reading a draft entirely on its own merits, and from a broader > perspective than the WG might have. This was not obvious, at least did not directly jump into my mind to me when I wrote the above part, but indeed is very logical. On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 10:26 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote: > In short, quality of argument trumps (if the chair is chairing) > quantity. Voting (incl. as "straw polls") only measures quantity, not > quality. And I fully agree with that statement too. Greets, Jeroen --=-JG6qBV+3qyXdURtNtOLy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iD8DBQBCVV/yKaooUjM+fCMRArEDAJ9Khaw8bk9P+Ta09v6u2+5icz1+EACgl9ac vMp4EUDjjgJs+dwTc/fMcE8= =JRpp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-JG6qBV+3qyXdURtNtOLy-- --===============0598137915== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss --===============0598137915==-- From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 13:44:41 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18351; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:44:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJbCE-00045Y-Oe; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:53:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJb3H-0000vW-1l; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:44:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJb3D-0000pP-Ge; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:44:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18295; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns2a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.134] helo=ns2.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJbBn-00044r-Ob; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:53:13 -0400 Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns2.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E9F29920; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:44:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j37HiEnv029996(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.23 2005/03/23 20:35:49) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) ; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:44:14 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j37HiDqn029992(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.2 2005/03/17 23:41:52) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:44:14 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf@ietf.org Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:44:08 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <200504071124.08668.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504071344.08944.blilly@erols.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Rousskov , IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu April 7 2005 12:21, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote: > > Which implies, for the case of documents where figures (etc.) differ > > in PostScript/PDF and plain text versions, that there will still be a > > substantial amount of manual effort required. See draft sections 1 & 8. > > Can you clarify what requires what effort? Draft section 8 states: Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their content matches plain text format (R143/a). That would seem to be unnecessary if PostScript/PDF are generated automatically (by the Toolset) from the same source used to generate text. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 17:04:59 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07833; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJeK5-0002d2-Ja; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:13:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJe8l-0003Lv-B6; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:02:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJe8j-0003LY-GP; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:02:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07656; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJeHK-0002XN-Qo; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:11:08 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j37L223a020043; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:02:02 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:01:01 -0600 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <200504071124.08668.blilly@erols.com> <200504071344.08944.blilly@erols.com> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200504071344.08944.blilly@erols.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote: > Draft section 8 states: > > Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format > must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their > content matches plain text format (R143/a). > > That would seem to be unnecessary if PostScript/PDF are generated > automatically (by the Toolset) from the same source used to generate > text. The requirement is, of course, necessary (it does not depend on what the Toolset does or does not; it is driven by IETF needs). If text and PDF/PS formats are generated automatically (and correctly) by the Toolset from the same source, then the Toolset effectively validates that PDF/PS content matches plain text format. In theory, there are probably other ways to validate, such as converting submitted PDF/PS to plain text. Please note that I am not saying that those theoretical ways are practical! It is quite possible that submitted PS/PDF drafts will never be auto-validated and, hence, will never be auto-posted. Is that a problem? I doubt (given the low number of PS/PDF drafts). I do not want to optimize for a few corner cases. However, if folks disagree, they can add more requirements to the Nth version of the Toolset... Please note that currently PS/PDF draft formats are not compared to plain text format when posted by the Secretariat, and there is no requirement in the Submission Toolset draft that the Secretariat must compare in the future. This may change once folks start posting porn in PS/PDF format. Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 17:16:27 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09185; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJeVB-00037q-M2; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:25:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJeL7-0005Y8-M1; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJeL4-0005XY-Dy; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:14:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08911; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.50]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJeTg-00030m-Lf; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:23:53 -0400 Received: from localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) by klutz.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76499400F4; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:14:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13797-02; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:14:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by klutz.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830CA4005B; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:14:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:14:53 -0400 From: Keith Moore To: "Alex Rousskov" Message-Id: <20050407171453.303709f8.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <200504071124.08668.blilly@erols.com> <200504071344.08944.blilly@erols.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.3 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cs.utk.edu by ClamAV and McAfee X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, ietf@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote: > > > Draft section 8 states: > > > > Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format > > must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their > > content matches plain text format (R143/a). > > > > That would seem to be unnecessary if PostScript/PDF are generated > > automatically (by the Toolset) from the same source used to generate > > text. > > The requirement is, of course, necessary (it does not depend on what the > Toolset does or does not; it is driven by IETF needs). > > If text and PDF/PS formats are generated automatically (and correctly) by > the Toolset from the same source, then the Toolset effectively validates > that PDF/PS content matches plain text format. not necessarily - for instance if the source can conditionally generate content depending on the output format. which, if you think about it, is about the only reason we should bother trying to generate multiple formats from a common source. Keith _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 17:50:59 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11681; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJf2a-0004EQ-IZ; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:59:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJee4-0004n3-Og; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:34:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJee4-0004mj-1x; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:34:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10758; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:34:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJemg-0003lN-8j; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:43:31 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j37LYV3a020859; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:34:31 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:33:30 -0600 To: "Keith Moore" References: <200504071124.08668.blilly@erols.com> <200504071344.08944.blilly@erols.com> <20050407171453.303709f8.moore@cs.utk.edu> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20050407171453.303709f8.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ietf@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote: >> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote: >> >> > Draft section 8 states: >> > >> > Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format >> > must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their >> > content matches plain text format (R143/a). >> > >> > That would seem to be unnecessary if PostScript/PDF are generated >> > automatically (by the Toolset) from the same source used to generate >> > text. >> >> The requirement is, of course, necessary (it does not depend on what the >> Toolset does or does not; it is driven by IETF needs). >> >> If text and PDF/PS formats are generated automatically (and correctly) >> by >> the Toolset from the same source, then the Toolset effectively validates >> that PDF/PS content matches plain text format. > > not necessarily - for instance if the source can conditionally generate > content depending on the output format. Good and important point indeed! I will try to include a corresponding informal "hint" into the draft. > which, if you think about it, > is about the only reason we should bother trying to generate multiple > formats from a common source. Here I disagree because presentation quality matters to humans who read our drafts, but I do not think we should argue about this. It will probably boil down to the definition of "content". Not important... Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 07:42:39 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06922; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:42:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJs1W-0008DD-2E; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:51:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJrpS-0004p3-LI; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:39:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJrpR-0004ot-DI; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:39:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06478; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:39:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate1.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.134]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJryA-0007qg-Te; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:48:16 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.233]) by mtagate1.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j38BcqXJ278840; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:38:53 GMT Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.212]) by d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j38BcqjM052816; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:38:52 +0100 Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j38BcpHF015159; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:38:51 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j38BcpG1015154; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:38:51 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-253-5.de.ibm.com [9.145.253.5]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA101948; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:38:50 +0200 Message-ID: <42566D4A.2090607@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:38:50 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stewart Bryant References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> <4256531D.6080006@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4256531D.6080006@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Bruce Lilly , Alex Rousskov , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate I-Ds using a plain text editor, and intuitively OpenOffice doesn't seem likely either. It's easy to create your own poll at the same site. We're at 11/43/10 now, by the way. It looks as if XML suits about 2/3 of our authors, but we have a substantial nroff party. Brian Stewart Bryant wrote: > I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word > to produce drafts. > > Stewart > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', >> what the toy shows after about a day is: >> >> prefer nroff: 8 >> prefer xml: 37 >> neither: 9 >> >> which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. >> >> Brian >> > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 08:28:15 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11706; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJsjf-0002L2-IE; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:37:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJsZy-0007Ag-G4; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:27:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJsZw-0007AX-UK; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:27:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11608; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJsih-0002Dn-45; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:36:20 -0400 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2005 05:27:07 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ssh-sjc-1.cisco.com [171.68.225.134]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j38CR03S028532; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 05:27:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:27:01 -0400 From: Scott W Brim User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Bruce Lilly , Alex Rousskov , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > prefer nroff: 8 > prefer xml: 37 > neither: 9 I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 09:04:36 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15070; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:04:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJtIo-0004H5-PU; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:13:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJt8H-0005Jx-Tw; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:02:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJt8G-0005Jp-4S; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:02:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14942; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:02:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from penguin.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.47]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJtH0-00049F-8k; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:11:47 -0400 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.122]) by penguin.ericsson.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/WIREfire-1.8b) with ESMTP id j38D2MhF002329; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:02:23 +0200 (MEST) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.173]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:01:22 +0200 Received: from esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.2]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:01:22 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:01:21 +0200 Message-ID: <026F8EEDAD2C4342A993203088C1FC051C27A4@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' toInformational RFC Thread-Index: AcU8IJvGwRK1eIlLRDy2uqQXOH+dRAAAM13QAAYWGhA= From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" To: "Elwyn davies" , "Stewart Bryant" , "Brian E Carpenter" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2005 13:01:22.0652 (UTC) FILETIME=[107139C0:01C53C3B] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 67c1ea29f88502ef6a32ccec927970f0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Bruce Lilly , Alex Rousskov , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' toInformational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2086112c730e13d5955355df27e3074b Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Elwyn, As one of those who still use M$Word when writing drafts, I can also confirm the generic text driver problems. Actually, I have had to patch the draft parser for each new Windows version. However, after doing that, I am still fine with using Word for drafts, as I like WYSIWYG, and have no problems with making sure myself what I have actually put in the draft (when it comes to mandatory sections, etc). In most cases when you ask people what tools they prefer, they will answer that they prefer to use the one(s) they have been using before and are familiar with. So some people prefer to use nroff, others use XML, others MS Word, etc. Thanks to the IETF principle of having txt being the official format, people have the opportunity to use whatever tool they like when they write drafts. That is excellent, and I hope we can keep that principle. Cheers, /L-E > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Elwyn davies > Sent: den 8 april 2005 12:32 > To: 'Stewart Bryant'; 'Brian E Carpenter' > Cc: 'Alex Rousskov'; 'Bruce Lilly'; ned.freed@mrochek.com; > ietf@ietf.org; 'IETF TOOLS discussion' > Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft=20 > Submission Toolset' > toInformational RFC >=20 >=20 > FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc. >=20 > I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style=20 > and handle > revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The=20 > main problem I > found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not > worked properly for a number of versions of Word in my=20 > experience. Symptoms > include: > - unilaterally changing the paragraph width so that it=20 > outputs one character > on each line starting from some random point in the document > - unilaterally changing the fount height to a microscopic=20 > value so that text > is converted to a horizontal line in random paragraphs >=20 > Microsoft are in denial about these bugs. Presumably there=20 > is not much call > for the Generic Text Printer. (I must admit I haven't=20 > bothered to try it in > my most recent version of Word, but I wouldn't hold my breath). >=20 > I am aware of other possible ways to get the ASCII output but=20 > they are all > just as flaky and tedious. >=20 > I'll live with the need for balanced tags (I am pretty adept=20 > at detecting > what has gone wrong by now) and some other minor irritations=20 > for the sake of > knowing that I won't end up fighting the tools when trying to=20 > get a draft > out close to the deadlines (when of course the random bugs noted above > always strike!) >=20 > I know several other authors who have defected for similar reasons. >=20 > Regards, > Elwyn >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org]=20 > On Behalf Of > > Stewart Bryant > > Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47 > > To: Brian E Carpenter > > Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov;=20 > ietf@ietf.org; IETF > > TOOLS discussion > > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft=20 > Submission Toolset' > > to Informational RFC > >=20 > > I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word > > to produce drafts. > >=20 > > Stewart > >=20 > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >=20 > > > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > > > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > > > > > prefer nroff: 8 > > > prefer xml: 37 > > > neither: 9 > > > > > > which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. > > > > > > Brian > > > > >=20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >=20 _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 10:02:01 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21796; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJuCP-0007ak-TV; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:11:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJtrV-0000zA-95; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:49:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJtrR-0000yS-VT; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:49:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20696; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJu0C-0006xm-Ky; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:58:30 -0400 Received: from sfbaymail2sca.sfbay.sun.com ([129.145.155.42]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j38DnBXi015048; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:49:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from 192.9.61.12 (punchin-sommerfeld.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.12]) by sfbaymail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id j38DnAAH028433; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 06:49:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Sommerfeld To: Elwyn davies In-Reply-To: <200504081326.JAA17453@ietf.org> References: <200504081326.JAA17453@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1112968129.15190.3081.camel@unknown.hamachi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.309 Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:48:51 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org, "'IETF TOOLS discussion'" , "'Alex Rousskov'" , "'Bruce Lilly'" , "'Stewart Bryant'" Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:27, Elwyn davies wrote: > Xml2rfc has a mechanism for adding comments which is a little bit more > trouble than M$Word's but works in very similar ways. > > You are right that revision marking is not so easy but the various diff > tools help. Maybe we ought to ask for some way to do this before the > xml2rfc improvement window closes! that's something I prefer to see outside the document rather than inside it. my biggest gripe is the fact that (as of the last time I looked) the draft version is taken from the input filename rather than text internal to the file, which makes putting this stuff under source control in a meaningful way really annoying as most of the lightweight SCM tools like CVS, RCS, and SCCS don't cope well with renames. - Bill _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 10:15:27 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23506; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:15:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJuPQ-0008Jc-TU; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:24:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJuEW-0006Dq-8E; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJqmL-00039c-Ae; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 06:31:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA01041; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 06:31:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200504081031.GAA01041@ietf.org> Received: from a.painless.aaisp.net.uk ([81.187.81.51] helo=smtp.aaisp.net.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJqv3-0004d9-Ik; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 06:40:59 -0400 Received: from [81.187.254.247] (helo=elwynslaptop) by smtp.aaisp.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1DJqm5-0004au-2R; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:31:41 +0100 From: "Elwyn davies" To: "'Stewart Bryant'" , "'Brian E Carpenter'" Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:32:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-reply-to: <4256531D.6080006@cisco.com> thread-index: AcU8IJvGwRK1eIlLRDy2uqQXOH+dRAAAM13Q X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:14 -0400 Cc: "'Alex Rousskov'" , "'Bruce Lilly'" , ned.freed@mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org, "'IETF TOOLS discussion'" Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc. I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style and handle revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The main problem I found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not worked properly for a number of versions of Word in my experience. Symptoms include: - unilaterally changing the paragraph width so that it outputs one character on each line starting from some random point in the document - unilaterally changing the fount height to a microscopic value so that text is converted to a horizontal line in random paragraphs Microsoft are in denial about these bugs. Presumably there is not much call for the Generic Text Printer. (I must admit I haven't bothered to try it in my most recent version of Word, but I wouldn't hold my breath). I am aware of other possible ways to get the ASCII output but they are all just as flaky and tedious. I'll live with the need for balanced tags (I am pretty adept at detecting what has gone wrong by now) and some other minor irritations for the sake of knowing that I won't end up fighting the tools when trying to get a draft out close to the deadlines (when of course the random bugs noted above always strike!) I know several other authors who have defected for similar reasons. Regards, Elwyn > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart Bryant > Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47 > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; ietf@ietf.org; IETF > TOOLS discussion > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' > to Informational RFC > > I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word > to produce drafts. > > Stewart > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > > > prefer nroff: 8 > > prefer xml: 37 > > neither: 9 > > > > which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. > > > > Brian > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 10:15:33 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23545; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:15:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJuPW-0008K2-SD; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:24:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJuEW-0006E3-Tl; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJtVU-0002qy-V9; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:26:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17453; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:26:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200504081326.JAA17453@ietf.org> Received: from a.painless.aaisp.net.uk ([81.187.81.51] helo=smtp.aaisp.net.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJteG-0005Vb-7A; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:35:48 -0400 Received: from [81.187.254.247] (helo=elwynslaptop) by smtp.aaisp.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1DJtVF-0001jZ-SA; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:26:30 +0100 From: "Elwyn davies" To: "'Stewart Bryant'" Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:27:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-reply-to: <425682DD.4050906@cisco.com> thread-index: AcU8PHlCFTa9g+Q1S0iiXnreHEZz+AAAWPYw X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1676547e4f33b5e63227e9c02bd359e3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:14 -0400 Cc: "'Alex Rousskov'" , ietf@ietf.org, "'IETF TOOLS discussion'" , ned.freed@mrochek.com, "'Bruce Lilly'" , "'Brian E Carpenter'" Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Xml2rfc has a mechanism for adding comments which is a little bit more trouble than M$Word's but works in very similar ways. You are right that revision marking is not so easy but the various diff tools help. Maybe we ought to ask for some way to do this before the xml2rfc improvement window closes! Regards, Elwyn > -----Original Message----- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com] > Sent: 08 April 2005 14:11 > To: Elwyn davies > Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'; ned.freed@mrochek.com; 'Bruce Lilly'; 'Alex > Rousskov'; ietf@ietf.org; 'IETF TOOLS discussion' > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' > to Informational RFC > > > > Elwyn davies wrote: > > > FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc. > > > > I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style and handle > > revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The main problem > I > > found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not > > worked properly for a number of versions of Word in my experience. > Symptoms > > include: > > - unilaterally changing the paragraph width so that it outputs one > character > > on each line starting from some random point in the document > > - unilaterally changing the fount height to a microscopic value so that > text > > is converted to a horizontal line in random paragraphs > > > > Microsoft are in denial about these bugs. Presumably there is not much > call > > for the Generic Text Printer. (I must admit I haven't bothered to try it > in > > my most recent version of Word, but I wouldn't hold my breath). > > > > I am aware of other possible ways to get the ASCII output but they are > all > > just as flaky and tedious. > > > > I'll live with the need for balanced tags (I am pretty adept at > detecting > > what has gone wrong by now) and some other minor irritations for the > sake of > > knowing that I won't end up fighting the tools when trying to get a > draft > > out close to the deadlines (when of course the random bugs noted above > > always strike!) > > > > I know several other authors who have defected for similar reasons. > > I have never hit that bug. I might have a different view if I had. > > What is useful is the ability for authors to imbed comments to each other > and track changes inline etc as the version develops. I have never tried > the xml tool chain but I assume that it does not have that feature? > > That said, as a person that thinks in diagrams and not in text, I would > take any tool chain, regardless of cost or convenience, if the end > result was that normative IETF text had "proper" drawings just like > IEEE and ITU. > > Stewart > > > > > Regards, > > Elwyn > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > >>Stewart Bryant > >>Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47 > >>To: Brian E Carpenter > >>Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; ietf@ietf.org; > IETF > >>TOOLS discussion > >>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' > >>to Informational RFC > >> > >>I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word > >>to produce drafts. > >> > >>Stewart > >> > >>Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > >>>what the toy shows after about a day is: > >>> > >>>prefer nroff: 8 > >>>prefer xml: 37 > >>>neither: 9 > >>> > >>>which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. > >>> > >>> Brian > >>> > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Ietf mailing list > >>Ietf@ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 10:16:14 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23685; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:16:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJuQB-0008M5-RI; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:25:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJuEV-0006Dl-R3; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJq5O-0003ve-Vi; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:47:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA27707; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 05:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJqE7-0002NR-Nr; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:56:37 -0400 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (144.254.224.150) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2005 11:47:25 +0200 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j389lIt5009697; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:47:18 +0200 (MEST) Received: from cisco.com (ams-clip-vpn-dhcp4662.cisco.com [10.61.82.53]) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA15794; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:47:16 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4256531D.6080006@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:47:09 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:14 -0400 Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Bruce Lilly , Alex Rousskov , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word to produce drafts. Stewart Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > prefer nroff: 8 > prefer xml: 37 > neither: 9 > > which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 10:16:24 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23729; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJuQM-0008Ma-Bf; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:25:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJuEW-0006Dy-Jq; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJtGr-0007L0-LP; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:11:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15922; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJtPc-0004dH-TW; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:20:41 -0400 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (144.254.224.150) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2005 15:11:27 +0200 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j38DAut5003822; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:10:56 +0200 (MEST) Received: from cisco.com (ams-clip-vpn-dhcp4662.cisco.com [10.61.82.53]) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA02760; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:10:54 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <425682DD.4050906@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:10:53 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elwyn davies References: <3q2adc$1pger0@sj-inbound-d.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <3q2adc$1pger0@sj-inbound-d.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:14 -0400 Cc: "'Alex Rousskov'" , ietf@ietf.org, "'IETF TOOLS discussion'" , ned.freed@mrochek.com, "'Bruce Lilly'" , "'Brian E Carpenter'" Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Elwyn davies wrote: > FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc. > > I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style and handle > revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The main problem I > found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not > worked properly for a number of versions of Word in my experience. Symptoms > include: > - unilaterally changing the paragraph width so that it outputs one character > on each line starting from some random point in the document > - unilaterally changing the fount height to a microscopic value so that text > is converted to a horizontal line in random paragraphs > > Microsoft are in denial about these bugs. Presumably there is not much call > for the Generic Text Printer. (I must admit I haven't bothered to try it in > my most recent version of Word, but I wouldn't hold my breath). > > I am aware of other possible ways to get the ASCII output but they are all > just as flaky and tedious. > > I'll live with the need for balanced tags (I am pretty adept at detecting > what has gone wrong by now) and some other minor irritations for the sake of > knowing that I won't end up fighting the tools when trying to get a draft > out close to the deadlines (when of course the random bugs noted above > always strike!) > > I know several other authors who have defected for similar reasons. I have never hit that bug. I might have a different view if I had. What is useful is the ability for authors to imbed comments to each other and track changes inline etc as the version develops. I have never tried the xml tool chain but I assume that it does not have that feature? That said, as a person that thinks in diagrams and not in text, I would take any tool chain, regardless of cost or convenience, if the end result was that normative IETF text had "proper" drawings just like IEEE and ITU. Stewart > > Regards, > Elwyn > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>Stewart Bryant >>Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47 >>To: Brian E Carpenter >>Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; ietf@ietf.org; IETF >>TOOLS discussion >>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' >>to Informational RFC >> >>I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word >>to produce drafts. >> >>Stewart >> >>Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >> >>>Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', >>>what the toy shows after about a day is: >>> >>>prefer nroff: 8 >>>prefer xml: 37 >>>neither: 9 >>> >>>which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. >>> >>> Brian >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Ietf mailing list >>Ietf@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 10:16:54 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23824; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:16:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJuQp-0008NT-UV; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:26:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJuEX-0006EE-C3; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJuCc-00067V-O1; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:11:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22958; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:11:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.222.163]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJuLN-00083Q-9j; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:20:22 -0400 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j38EB4iC023560; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:11:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <1Z0NHFD6>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:11:03 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15506D73449@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Scott W Brim Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:11:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:14 -0400 Cc: Alex Rousskov , Bruce Lilly , ned.freed@mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' t o Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott W Brim > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 14:27 > > On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > > > prefer nroff: 8 > > prefer xml: 37 > > neither: 9 > > I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? > I have! and I clearly prefer xml Bert _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 10:17:18 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23933; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJuRE-0008Oy-4C; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:26:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJuEX-0006E8-5K; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJtid-0007JY-Eq; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:40:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19583; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200504081340.JAA19583@ietf.org> Received: from a.painless.aaisp.net.uk ([81.187.81.51] helo=smtp.aaisp.net.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJtrP-0006Sx-08; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:49:23 -0400 Received: from [81.187.254.247] (helo=elwynslaptop) by smtp.aaisp.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1DJtib-0002C0-2d; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:40:17 +0100 From: "Elwyn davies" To: "'Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)'" , "'Stewart Bryant'" , "'Brian E Carpenter'" Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:40:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-reply-to: <026F8EEDAD2C4342A993203088C1FC051C27A4@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se> thread-index: AcU8IJvGwRK1eIlLRDy2uqQXOH+dRAAAM13QAAYWGhAAAVNa8A== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 42e3ed3f10a1d8bef690f09da16f507a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:14 -0400 Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, "'Bruce Lilly'" , "'Alex Rousskov'" , ietf@ietf.org, "'IETF TOOLS discussion'" Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' toInformational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d2b46e3b2dfbff2088e0b72a54104985 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One big win with the xml2rfc toolchain is draft and rfc references. Just musing... With an appropriate set of styles it ought to be possible to make a processor that turned .rtf files into xml2rfc source. I did think about and start work on a text draft to xml converter but it turned out to be very hard work (too many heuristics). That way you could get the best of both worlds... more or less WYSIWYG Construction for the bulk of the text and pictures, auto-insertion of boilerplate and some way to leverage the references stuff in xml2rfc. Regards, Elwyn > -----Original Message----- > From: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) [mailto:lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com] > Sent: 08 April 2005 14:01 > To: Elwyn davies; Stewart Bryant; Brian E Carpenter > Cc: Alex Rousskov; Bruce Lilly; ned.freed@mrochek.com; ietf@ietf.org; IETF > TOOLS discussion > Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' > toInformational RFC > > Elwyn, > > As one of those who still use M$Word when writing drafts, I can also > confirm the generic text driver problems. Actually, I have had to > patch the draft parser for each new Windows version. However, after > doing that, I am still fine with using Word for drafts, as I like > WYSIWYG, and have no problems with making sure myself what I have > actually put in the draft (when it comes to mandatory sections, etc). > > In most cases when you ask people what tools they prefer, they will > answer that they prefer to use the one(s) they have been using before > and are familiar with. So some people prefer to use nroff, others > use XML, others MS Word, etc. > > Thanks to the IETF principle of having txt being the official format, > people have the opportunity to use whatever tool they like when they > write drafts. That is excellent, and I hope we can keep that principle. > > Cheers, > /L-E > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > Elwyn davies > > Sent: den 8 april 2005 12:32 > > To: 'Stewart Bryant'; 'Brian E Carpenter' > > Cc: 'Alex Rousskov'; 'Bruce Lilly'; ned.freed@mrochek.com; > > ietf@ietf.org; 'IETF TOOLS discussion' > > Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft > > Submission Toolset' > > toInformational RFC > > > > > > FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc. > > > > I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style > > and handle > > revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The > > main problem I > > found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not > > worked properly for a number of versions of Word in my > > experience. Symptoms > > include: > > - unilaterally changing the paragraph width so that it > > outputs one character > > on each line starting from some random point in the document > > - unilaterally changing the fount height to a microscopic > > value so that text > > is converted to a horizontal line in random paragraphs > > > > Microsoft are in denial about these bugs. Presumably there > > is not much call > > for the Generic Text Printer. (I must admit I haven't > > bothered to try it in > > my most recent version of Word, but I wouldn't hold my breath). > > > > I am aware of other possible ways to get the ASCII output but > > they are all > > just as flaky and tedious. > > > > I'll live with the need for balanced tags (I am pretty adept > > at detecting > > what has gone wrong by now) and some other minor irritations > > for the sake of > > knowing that I won't end up fighting the tools when trying to > > get a draft > > out close to the deadlines (when of course the random bugs noted above > > always strike!) > > > > I know several other authors who have defected for similar reasons. > > > > Regards, > > Elwyn > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] > > On Behalf Of > > > Stewart Bryant > > > Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47 > > > To: Brian E Carpenter > > > Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; > > ietf@ietf.org; IETF > > > TOOLS discussion > > > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft > > Submission Toolset' > > > to Informational RFC > > > > > > I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word > > > to produce drafts. > > > > > > Stewart > > > > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > > > > > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > > > > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > > > > > > > prefer nroff: 8 > > > > prefer xml: 37 > > > > neither: 9 > > > > > > > > which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ietf mailing list > > > Ietf@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 10:17:49 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24136; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:17:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJuRi-0008QW-65; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:26:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJuEh-0006Fd-RB; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJtJi-00013C-90; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:14:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16336; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:14:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJtSS-0004r0-T0; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:23:38 -0400 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2005 06:14:24 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.92,87,1112598000"; d="scan'208"; a="247535070:sNHT30587152" Received: from imail.cisco.com (imail.cisco.com [128.107.200.91]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j38DEFgE007026; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 06:14:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [212.254.247.3] (ams-clip-vpn-dhcp4298.cisco.com [10.61.80.201]) by imail.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j38D63Xt030779; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 06:06:04 -0700 Message-ID: <425683A9.3040509@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:14:17 +0200 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott W Brim References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit IIM-SIG: v:"1.1"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; d:"cisco.com"; z:"home"; m:"krs"; t:"1112965566.311956"; x:"432200"; a:"rsa-sha1"; b:"nofws:137"; e:"Iw=="; n:"sQYarK2E51MdcTiUqeif3F7cWdxIfoCiXhdfb9vD5ee/j0jXL15gbFxF2p" "XIweAblu0N6XAgK7k+wrbr7bQDJaCDqOmzqpRUBjIRQAXQ7NzadpmR3pUL6wxaRUtW+c43sl9jC" "50Qg1sXHpPjt8Y+Y16ioyQAQAdSunM4YhevURc="; s:"IRR5IvFZrfGfBgywLhYXRchdft0j87a+gFt9XhjWGaTLjsBJjZu2+JtE/TbV5TUDkH4On5EW" "hVgyegk2sCJeFuJiTU833+RJcpDjO411Kb4Pjcaugl0eU2wiS5Xdovihr46XarOFvI3mmeB2RRb" "vJCzHN5FxlrlVihJDUdCG0ro="; c:"Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:14:17 +0200"; c:"From: Eliot Lear "; c:"Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Tool" "set' to=0A Informational RFC" IIM-VERIFY: s:"y"; v:"y"; r:"60"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; c:"message from imail.cisco.com verified; " X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:26 -0400 Cc: Alex Rousskov , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion , ned.freed@mrochek.com, Bruce Lilly , Brian E Carpenter Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scott W Brim wrote: > I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? Isn't it sufficient for one to have to have suffered *roff in other contexts? _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 12:22:11 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09251; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJwO6-0006i1-G8; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:31:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJwDX-0008ER-CD; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:20:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJwDV-0008EJ-R1; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:20:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08940; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:20:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJwMH-0006X8-Vg; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:29:27 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j38GKG3a049559; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:20:17 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:19:16 -0600 To: "Bill Sommerfeld" References: <200504081326.JAA17453@ietf.org> <1112968129.15190.3081.camel@unknown.hamachi.org> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1112968129.15190.3081.camel@unknown.hamachi.org> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ietf@ietf.org, "'IETF TOOLS discussion'" Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 2005/04/08 (MDT), wrote: > my biggest gripe is the fact that (as of the last time I looked) the > draft version is taken from the input filename rather than text internal > to the file, which makes putting this stuff under source control in a > meaningful way really annoying as most of the lightweight SCM tools like > CVS, RCS, and SCCS don't cope well with renames. Xml2rfc takes the draft version from XML sources, not draft filename. FWIW, I do not put the draft version into the file name. In fact, I do not even name the draft file following the IETF standard (so renaming the draft will not cause me any pain). Instead, I simply copy the file to a properly named file when I need to submit it for posting. That last step can be easily automated as well. Alex. P.S. The fact that CVS and friends cannot cope with file name changes is a [well known] huge bug in their design. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 15:04:07 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23472; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:04:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJyup-00068h-Ii; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:13:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJyeJ-0001gY-Nz; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:56:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJyeH-0001eW-2n; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:56:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22494; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns4a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.138] helo=ns4.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJyn3-0005eL-OF; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:05:16 -0400 Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns4.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D80F29938; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:56:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marty.blilly.com (marty.blilly.com [192.168.99.98] (may be forged)) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j38Iu1ms020334(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.23 2005/03/23 20:35:49) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:56:01 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j38Iu14u020330(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.3 2005/04/08 12:29:31) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:56:01 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf@ietf.org User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-UID: 648 X-Length: 2994 Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:55:59 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200504081455.59728.blilly@erols.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Date: 2005-04-07 17:33 > From: "Alex Rousskov" > On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote: >=20 > >> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote: > >> If text and PDF/PS formats are generated automatically (and correctly)= =A0 > >> by > >> the Toolset from the same source, then the Toolset effectively validat= es > >> that PDF/PS content matches plain text format. > > > > not necessarily - for instance if the source can conditionally generate > > content depending on the output format. >=20 > Good and important point indeed! I will try to include a corresponding =A0 > informal "hint" into the draft. With *roff source, nroff is generally used (with appropriate preprocessors and command-line arguments) for text, and troff (with possibly different preprocessors and/or arguments) for PostScript (which can subsequently be used to generate PDF). All of which can be easily automated with a Makefile and suitable suffix conventions. Raw *roff also has facilities for conditional processing, including separate processing depending on whether troff or nroff is being used for processing -- indeed, most macro packages internally use that capability. > > which, if you think about it, > > is about the only reason we should bother trying to generate multiple > > formats from a common source. >=20 > Here I disagree because presentation quality matters to humans who read = =A0 > our drafts, but I do not think we should argue about this. It will =A0 > probably boil down to the definition of "content". Not important... Generally I agree with Keith on this point; the only reason (in an ideal world) to generate PostScript/PDF in addition to text is when the specific draft/RFC has content (typically diagrams or mathematics) which can only be approximated in plain text. However, a certain vendor has created a non-ideal situation, and the RFC Editor accommodates victims of that situation by providing PDF versions of RFCs even where there are no diagrams etc. that warrant improved presentation quality. As far as I know, however, the IETF Secretariat doe not do the same for drafts. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 8 15:22:14 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25846; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:22:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJzCN-0006z8-2M; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:31:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJz2D-0007IY-Jd; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:20:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJz29-0007IE-Pp; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:20:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25674; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:20:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns3a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.136] helo=ns3.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJzAx-0006s2-HD; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:29:56 -0400 Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns3.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B36229939; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:20:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marty.blilly.com (marty.blilly.com [192.168.99.98] (may be forged)) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j38JKi3R025115(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.23 2005/03/23 20:35:49) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:20:46 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j38JKgsm025111(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.3 2005/04/08 12:29:31) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:20:44 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf@ietf.org Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:20:40 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <200504081755.j38HtMPg013143@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In-Reply-To: <200504081755.j38HtMPg013143@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504081520.40916.blilly@erols.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] I-D/RFC source formats X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri April 8 2005 13:55, Francis Dupont wrote: > and intuitively OpenOffice doesn't seem likely either. > > => to prefer emacs to OOo is a subtle way to like open source (:-). OOo is one of those that I mentioned doesn't seem to be able to generate formatted plain text with appropriate parameters (in addition to apparently not being able to generate RFC-specific XML). > => nroff is not so bad. The problem is the community which supported it > moved to Latex many years ago... Oh? One of the reasons that I haven't used TeX (and things like LaTeX which are layered on it) is the difficulty of getting suitable plain text output. > BTW IMHO the best tool should be so painful that > I-Ds would be very small (:-)? The size of the boilerplate alone precludes that, unfortunately. And it gets worse next month when the secretariat stops accepting "he" (or "she", as the case may be) as an alternative to "he or she" in that boilerplate. > PS: what we need is a rfc2xml. It seems there is a secret rfc2nroff... Going from formatted RFC or draft to troff source is fairly easy. As text will be re-flowed into paragraphs, it's mostly a matter of inserting the right directives between paragraphs, for section headings, etc. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 10 01:42:41 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03918; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:42:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKVMc-0002YP-DB; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:52:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKVBx-00036O-Ft; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:41:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKVBs-000364-Sp; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:41:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03662; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net ([193.234.218.130]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKVKw-0002Pv-Bz; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:50:23 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8631289863; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:40:46 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4258BC5F.5090302@piuha.net> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:40:47 +0300 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ned.freed@mrochek.com References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> <01LMW7T9YWTK00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01LMW7T9YWTK00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bruce Lilly , Alex Rousskov , ietf@ietf.org, Scott W Brim , IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: >>I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? >> >> > >Let's see. I've done lots of drafts with both, using (in the nroff case) >several different macro packages. I have also produced several very large >non-RFC documents (in the thousand page range) using XML, nroff, and a variety >of other tools. > >XML is the hands-down winner IMO. > > I agree. I have written a fair number of drafts (some of them lengthy) using word, nroff, latex, and XML. There's really no contest, XML is the way to go. Of course, I can imagine some toolset improvements but these improvements are minor compared to some of the major (imho) issues that the other alternatives have. And I can also imagine some special purpose support (mibs, state tables, you name it) that people may need. Personally, when I have that kind of issues I usually end up writing a script that does some pre- or postprocessing to achieve what is needed. Interestingly, I run into this on a regular basis when using nroff, latex, and word. But I have needed only minor things in the last couple of years when I have been using XML. >P.S. Anyone who uses an XML editor that requires mouse use which gets in the >way of simply entering text is using a crap tool. Plenty of alternatives exist >that work properly. > Just use emacs, that's what I do :-) --Jari _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 10 08:53:56 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16469; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKc62-0006bQ-Hg; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:03:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKbwE-0000zT-SD; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJxhj-0005Mk-LL; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:55:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17688; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr ([192.44.77.17]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJxqW-0002n5-Aa; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:04:45 -0400 Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [193.52.74.194]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.11.6p2/8.11.6/2003.04.01) with ESMTP id j38HtMg14156; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:55:22 +0200 Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j38HtMPg013143; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:55:22 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr) Message-Id: <200504081755.j38HtMPg013143@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Brian E Carpenter In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:38:50 +0200. <42566D4A.2090607@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:55:22 +0200 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) at enst-bretagne.fr X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:15 -0400 Cc: Alex Rousskov , ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion , ned.freed@mrochek.com, Bruce Lilly , Stewart Bryant Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 In your previous mail you wrote: I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate I-Ds using a plain text editor, => why? I used a plain text editor before moving to xml2rfc (xml edited with a plain text editor too) because of the new boiler stuff pressure... and intuitively OpenOffice doesn't seem likely either. => to prefer emacs to OOo is a subtle way to like open source (:-). It's easy to create your own poll at the same site. We're at 11/43/10 now, by the way. It looks as if XML suits about 2/3 of our authors, but we have a substantial nroff party. => nroff is not so bad. The problem is the community which supported it moved to Latex many years ago... And for short I-Ds direct writing is easier/faster/etc. BTW IMHO the best tool should be so painful that I-Ds would be very small (:-)? Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr PS: what we need is a rfc2xml. It seems there is a secret rfc2nroff... _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 10 08:54:57 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16510; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKc71-0006eq-5g; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:04:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKbwI-00010M-6u; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKP6s-0001Ab-Oi for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:11:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16437 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:11:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKPFZ-00028S-R3 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:20:27 -0400 Received: from esunmail ([129.147.156.34]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j39NB2K2008284 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 17:11:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from xpa-fe2 (esunmail [129.147.156.34]) by edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.02 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IEP00177CEDK8@edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM> for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:11:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.17] ([216.113.204.232]) by mail.sun.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.02 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0IEP00AWDCECOI@mail.sun.net> for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:11:01 -0600 (MDT) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:11:35 -0700 From: Tim Bray In-reply-to: <01LMW7T9YWTK00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> To: IETF TOOLS discussion Message-id: <985a312e85965eb25acdc1e2890ade97@textuality.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> <01LMW7T9YWTK00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:15 -0400 Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT xml2rfc also has the advantage that it simultaneously reduces the whining from 66-column-ASCII-and-stone-axes traditionalists and the whining from typography-and-i18n radicals; which has to be a good thing. -Tim _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 10 08:55:17 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16534; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:55:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKc7L-0006f8-Qx; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:04:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKbwE-0000yn-Fk; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJx2t-0002WS-U3 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:13:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14441 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.204]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJxBg-0000jv-KP for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:22:33 -0400 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so759253rng for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:25 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=XfXVugTwAIoMhnZvLKYkBsJn6kuhLNRfk/NjgMEYvpgMixCB5mZC2e84aldgNr7OOa/IZAPdA1XjKTDQgQJkOthhsanBho6O8ABsWxL14INcPtaq4jFiajphCNCXMv6qfJ28GfmrtYRATPmz/c4XinmeqonCftOJkvd2e7RyMR4= Received: by 10.38.71.62 with SMTP id t62mr725746rna; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:13:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.10.77 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:13:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:13:25 -0700 From: Bill Fenner To: Elwyn davies In-Reply-To: <200504081340.JAA19583@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <026F8EEDAD2C4342A993203088C1FC051C27A4@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se> <200504081340.JAA19583@ietf.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:14 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' toInformational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Bill Fenner List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Apr 8, 2005 6:40 AM, Elwyn davies wrote: > That way you could get the best of both worlds... more or less WYSIWYG > Construction for the bulk of the text and pictures, auto-insertion of > boilerplate and some way to leverage the references stuff in xml2rfc. I've written a plugin for the XMLMind XML Editor that gives almost WYSIWYG editing of xml2rfc documents. See http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/xml2rfc-xxe/ for a screenshot and download info. Bill _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 10 08:55:28 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16557; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:55:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKc7S-0006fK-QI; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:04:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKbwF-0000zm-1Z; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJyVO-0008Ng-96 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:46:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21822 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:46:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop-a065c32.pas.sa.earthlink.net ([207.217.121.247]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJyeB-0005D9-Ce for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:56:04 -0400 Received: from h-68-165-6-58.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.165.6.58] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-a065c32.pas.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DJyVK-0005Cd-00 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:46:54 -0700 Message-ID: <009e01c53c6b$86026bc0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "IETF TOOLS discussion" References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com><42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:48:15 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:12 -0400 Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hi - > From: "Scott W Brim" > To: "Brian E Carpenter" > Cc: ; "Bruce Lilly" ; "Alex Rousskov" ; ; "IETF TOOLS discussion" > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:27 AM > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC ... > I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? ... I have. For a short, simple, document xml2rfc is ok. For larger, more complex (e.g. diagrams, pseudocode, MIB modules, references to works-in-progress, multi-document sets) ones nroff shines. Randy _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 10 08:55:55 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16575; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKc7x-0006fr-RV; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:05:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKbwE-0000yC-02; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJvjf-0004o9-FE; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:49:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05276; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJvsR-0004d3-76; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:58:36 -0400 Received: from [128.9.168.55] (upn.isi.edu [128.9.168.55]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j38Fkg601281; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4256A7D5.7030005@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:48:37 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15506D73449@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15506D73449@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:15 -0400 Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion , Alex Rousskov , Bruce Lilly , Scott W Brim Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' t o Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Scott W Brim >>Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 14:27 >> >>On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: >> >>>Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', >>>what the toy shows after about a day is: >>> >>>prefer nroff: 8 >>>prefer xml: 37 >>>neither: 9 >> >>I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? Do you prefer poking your eye with a stick or a pencil? Just because these are output formats doesn't mean we should have to write a draft using them. Or do you also write code in executable object format? > I have! and I clearly prefer xml I have too, which is why I revised the Word template. I hope to figure out how to get it to generate XML soon, which I consider an otherwise irrelevant output format. I don't care about the output, so long as I can generate it easily from a reasonable editor. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCVqfVE5f5cImnZrsRAo89AJ9w2HMftbnavgRGZnFt+f9LogFKUQCfV6kw w34PH6nLSQNVJ0sGLF+dPHU= =0yaF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 10 08:56:08 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16596; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKc89-0006g0-Sj; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:05:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKbwH-000104-Th; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKOEO-0001Gv-Ha; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:15:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12626; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 18:15:06 -0400 (EDT) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Received: from mauve.mrochek.com ([209.55.107.55]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKONQ-00081g-IF; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:24:29 -0400 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01LMVSY94CM800005R@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:27:01 -0400" <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> Message-id: <01LMW7T9YWTK00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> To: Scott W Brim X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:15 -0400 Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion , Alex Rousskov , Bruce Lilly , Brian E Carpenter Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > > > prefer nroff: 8 > > prefer xml: 37 > > neither: 9 > I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? Let's see. I've done lots of drafts with both, using (in the nroff case) several different macro packages. I have also produced several very large non-RFC documents (in the thousand page range) using XML, nroff, and a variety of other tools. XML is the hands-down winner IMO. In fact I now use xml2rfc routinely for non-IETF-related documents of various sorts. Ned P.S. Anyone who uses an XML editor that requires mouse use which gets in the way of simply entering text is using a crap tool. Plenty of alternatives exist that work properly. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 10 08:56:13 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16614; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKc8F-0006g6-5Y; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:05:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKbwE-0000yX-8Z; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJwzQ-0001YZ-5M for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:09:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14040 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.199]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJx8C-0000Yi-U1 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:18:58 -0400 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so758283rng for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:09:42 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=jY8k+l64lU4SwFvGQNmZ2j2y2+rluGRuTYzQN5dxi5HKNEiWlHaXmWVYJOYun2e7fRxpYxD4sfy3EMrQkqv9OwOt8/GKoqioJUWnthhdbN6AyrzXL9suI0K2TKIa8weBao8APGaBT9fU6Zljgqi4d8s8F4ec3ln0wcuARa4LMBo= Received: by 10.39.1.60 with SMTP id d60mr313319rni; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.10.77 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:09:41 -0700 From: Bill Fenner To: Scott W Brim In-Reply-To: <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:14 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Bill Fenner List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Apr 8, 2005 5:27 AM, Scott W Brim wrote: > On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > > prefer nroff: 8 > > prefer xml: 37 > > neither: 9 > > I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? I picked "neither" since I use both and don't have a strong preference. nroff gives me much more control over the actual formatting, xml lets me leave the tool maintenance to someone else and I do see the advantage of well-formed metadata. (otoh I have nroff macros to help in writing MIBs, which e.g., create the SEQUENCE so it's never out of sync with the objects in a table... can't think of how I would do that in XML offhand) Bill _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 10 08:57:05 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16676; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKc95-0006k8-F1; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:06:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKbwE-0000z7-Lz; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJx6V-0003Em-6M for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:17:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14767 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.196]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJxFH-0000vN-Mq for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:26:16 -0400 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so760083rng for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:17:09 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=aO43HPtcYBmD2gvpkz+wwNOuW48pM961n8U+vfFRd9PUDGlMHPYewrkrXiIQJAJ1my24VkWXJVY4juNroouOX40cXwa+8et8hmGqL7NrLwlFcWPe/meFGrtlZG0qxWY+OMjxLEaDIN3TFUkz8KmQwap6CoSMgIVohQp1FrR+F7c= Received: by 10.38.72.70 with SMTP id u70mr1853280rna; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.10.77 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:17:08 -0700 From: Bill Fenner To: Bill Sommerfeld In-Reply-To: <1112968129.15190.3081.camel@unknown.hamachi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <200504081326.JAA17453@ietf.org> <1112968129.15190.3081.camel@unknown.hamachi.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:14 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Bill Fenner List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Apr 8, 2005 6:48 AM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > my biggest gripe is the fact that (as of the last time I looked) the > draft version is taken from the input filename rather than text internal > to the file If you use , and run the tool like "xml2rfc input.xml draft-fenner-xml-aint-so-bad-01.txt", then you can keep the input file named whatever you like. draft-fenner-literal-zoneid-01.txt was produced that way; its source filename is "literal-zoneid.xml". Bill _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 10 20:20:15 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06186; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:20:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKmoJ-0003Rj-92; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:29:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKmcg-0008Ew-50; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:17:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKmce-0008Eo-CV; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:17:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06024; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c-24-8-141-221.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.141.221] helo=volx.rousskov.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKmlu-0003L3-9f; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:27:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.rousskov.org (localhost.rousskov.org [127.0.0.1]) by volx.rousskov.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3B0GeTq002830; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:16:41 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) To: "Bill Fenner" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:16:39 -0600 From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 955) X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 2005/04/08 (MDT), wrote: > (otoh I have nroff macros to help in writing MIBs, which e.g., create > the SEQUENCE so it's never out of sync with the objects in a table... > can't think of how I would do that in XML offhand) You would use XML entities (recent xml2rfc versions have better support for those) and/or a preprocessor. I would not be surprised if xml2rfc eventually has native preprocessing capabilities (i.e., macros). Virtually any large document and many small ones need them. Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 11 07:20:26 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA02791; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:20:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKx7L-0004VP-0T; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:30:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKwtt-00026L-3O; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:16:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKwtr-00025z-An; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:16:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA02591; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:16:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate2.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.135]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKx34-0004PR-Ru; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:25:48 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate2.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3BBFupW133562; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:15:56 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j3BBFu8A126848; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:15:56 +0100 Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3BBFuYT026994; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:15:56 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3BBFthj026986; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:15:55 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-220-91.de.ibm.com [9.146.220.91]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA66480; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:15:54 +0200 Message-ID: <425A5C6A.4000802@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:15:54 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "James M. Polk" References: <200504081755.j38HtMPg013143@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> <200504081755.j38HtMPg013143@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20050410154303.0343ff00@localhost> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20050410154303.0343ff00@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D/RFC source formats X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James M. Polk wrote: > At 03:20 PM 4/8/2005 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote: > >> On Fri April 8 2005 13:55, Francis Dupont wrote: >> >> > BTW IMHO the best tool should be so painful that >> > I-Ds would be very small (:-)? >> >> The size of the boilerplate alone precludes that, unfortunately. And >> it gets worse next month when the secretariat stops accepting "he" (or >> "she", as the case may be) as an alternative to "he or she" in that >> boilerplate. > > > I don't understand this point, can you expound on it for those of us > that don't know about it? See http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01093.html Brian _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 11 09:07:21 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11913; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKymm-0007bf-63; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:17:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKyck-0003Hz-2X; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:06:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DKjHz-0008Cc-CC; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:44:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17861; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DKjRD-0004Tj-D4; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:53:48 -0400 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Apr 2005 13:44:04 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.92,92,1112598000"; d="scan'208"; a="627338873:sNHT27976604" Received: from wells.cisco.com (wells.cisco.com [171.71.177.223]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j3AKhxgE029032; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jmpolk-w2k01.diablo.cisco.com (ssh-sjc-1.cisco.com [171.68.225.134]) by wells.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id NAA28227; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20050410154303.0343ff00@localhost> X-Sender: jmpolk@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:44:03 -0600 To: ietf@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org From: "James M. Polk" In-Reply-To: <200504081520.40916.blilly@erols.com> References: <200504081755.j38HtMPg013143@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> <200504081755.j38HtMPg013143@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:06:40 -0400 Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D/RFC source formats X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 At 03:20 PM 4/8/2005 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote: >On Fri April 8 2005 13:55, Francis Dupont wrote: > > > BTW IMHO the best tool should be so painful that > > I-Ds would be very small (:-)? > >The size of the boilerplate alone precludes that, unfortunately. And >it gets worse next month when the secretariat stops accepting "he" (or >"she", as the case may be) as an alternative to "he or she" in that >boilerplate. I don't understand this point, can you expound on it for those of us that don't know about it? cheers, James ******************* Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 11 13:49:44 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04178; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DL3C8-00081x-11; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:59:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DL31B-0004wU-D0; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:48:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DL319-0004vy-2n; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:48:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03771; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gallo.ekabal.com ([131.161.248.72]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DL3AW-0007tq-V6; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:57:54 -0400 Received: from [192.168.2.104] (S0106000f6629a7aa.cg.shawcable.net [68.144.73.98]) by gallo.ekabal.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0831EC05B; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2A5E4540D4D5934D9A1E7E0B0FDB2D69010322A4@MAANDMBX2.ets.enterasys.com> References: <2A5E4540D4D5934D9A1E7E0B0FDB2D69010322A4@MAANDMBX2.ets.enterasys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <2f9a40567cc5ce6e5d4e6edaf491cb02@ekabal.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Rohan Mahy Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:43:56 -0600 To: "Nelson, David" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rohan Mahy , xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, fred@cisco.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org, wgchairs@ietf.org, Bill Fenner Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: idnits v1.63 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, The BCP language is the most broad. It covers all possible combinations of authors and prevents potential problems if a single author then adds an additional author and forgets to update the (modified) boilerplate. Remember that we are not creating one document that legal needs to review, we are creating a ONE boilerplate to put in EVERY document, and to prevent screw ups, it needs to be used consistently everywhere. Multiple choices where you don't need them is just asking for trouble. thanks, -rohan On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:48, Nelson, David wrote: > Bill Fenner writes... > >> The simplification that Henrik mentions is that the boilerplate must >> now exactly match that in RFC 3978 / 1id-guidelines, since that's what >> the lawyers and the IPR WG OK'd; previously it was considered OK for > an >> author to change, e.g., the "he or she" in the template to "he" on a >> document with only male authors, or the "each author" to "the author" >> on a document with only one author. > > I can't imagine that an attorney who was asked to review the IPR > boilerplate would not approve each of the versions to accommodate the > gender and number of authors, assuming that someone were to ask the > question in that fashion. In my experience, "flexibility" problems > laid > at the feet of legal counsel are often, in fact, a failure to ask the > right questions of counsel in the first instance. :-) > > -- Dave > > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 13 05:48:03 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10147; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DLedO-0001Uk-Sz; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:58:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DLeNS-0004qY-3K; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:41:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DLeNQ-0004or-Op; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:41:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09658; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:41:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DLeXA-0001IN-Nu; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:51:46 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.81]) by mtagate4.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3D9fUWM164850; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:41:30 GMT Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.212]) by d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j3D9fT50076792; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:41:29 +0200 Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3D9fTVE023035; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:41:29 +0200 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3D9fTY2023022; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:41:29 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-218-179.de.ibm.com [9.146.218.179]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA69800; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:41:28 +0200 Message-ID: <425CE942.6090802@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:41:22 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think I'm going to declare the toy poll closed. What it shows is: prefer nroff: 11 prefer xml: 52 neither: 11 We can't claim statistical significance, but I think we can see that, without discriminating against traditional plain text, we help a majority of authors by making XML submission straightforward. Brian > >> Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people >> arguing about xml versus nroff (again). If you write Internet >> Drafts, try this toy (and only vote once, please...). >> If the toy doesn't work, don't blame me... I just found the >> site with Google. >> >> http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=22-143 >> >> Brian >> >> > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 15 00:58:58 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01985; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:58:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DMJ56-0004C0-Sx; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:09:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DMIqQ-0005pC-3a; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:54:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DLRWZ-0004tU-0P; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:58:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01090; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from natint3.juniper.net ([66.129.224.36] helo=kummer.juniper.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DLRg7-00042G-0P; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:08:08 -0400 Received: from kummer.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id j3CJuq1l019055; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net) Received: from localhost (kireeti@localhost) by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id j3CJuqPM019052; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: kummer.juniper.net: kireeti owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Kireeti Kompella To: Scott W Brim In-Reply-To: <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> Message-ID: <20050412125342.P19036@kummer.juniper.net> References: <200503021140.46063.blilly@erols.com> <200504051807.21027.blilly@erols.com> <01LMQQEYZTUE00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <4253B178.90304@zurich.ibm.com> <42554577.8060906@zurich.ibm.com> <42567895.5090202@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:54:16 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Scott W Brim wrote: > On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > > > prefer nroff: 8 > > prefer xml: 37 > > neither: 9 > > I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? I have. I'm a recent convert to xml, and hugely prefer xml, to the extent that I have converted most resubmissions of mine from nroff to xml. Kireeti. ------- _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 26 10:47:22 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DQRLO-0006pS-6V; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:47:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DQRLM-0006pN-HY for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:47:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14100 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate2.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.135]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DQRXp-00067S-4C for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:00:14 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate2.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3QEl8pW290140 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:47:08 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j3QEl7Kj193882 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:47:07 +0100 Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3QEl7wm021093 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:47:07 +0100 Received: from mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.131.252]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3QEl7Kc021090; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:47:07 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com) by mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1DQRL9-0002EQ-00; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:47:07 +0100 Received: from [9.20.136.27] (helo=sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com) by mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1DQRL8-0002EL-00; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:47:06 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-248-144.de.ibm.com [9.145.248.144]) by sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (AIX5.1/8.11.6p2/8.11.0) with SMTP id j3QEl7a158410; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:47:07 +0100 Message-ID: <426E5460.1080709@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:46:56 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz References: <4267E4A9.9060904@levkowetz.com> <4268A948.70508@zurich.ibm.com> <4268DEB9.9000307@levkowetz.com> <4268EEA3.5050807@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4268EEA3.5050807@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2beba50d0fcdeee5f091c59f204d4365 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I'm sorry to come late in the process with a bunch of comments. I apologise if some of them have been debated and rejected already; just let me know. And let me know in general what you think of my points, so that I can decide whether to put the -08 version in front of the IESG, or ask for -09. First, a couple of general points that I scribbled on the front page: XML submission is in stage "b". I'm concerned about that because I really think that we have a large majority of authors who are using XML already. A related point is that I would always give metadata extraction from XML priority, because it is unambiguous and non-heuristic. I don't think I saw any mention of 1id-guidelines. The intent is to be consistent with that, I think. Now some specifics: > 8.4 Extraction ... > version: A non-negative integer number representing draft version > number (also known as draft revision number). For example, the > number seven in draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-07. To be picky, you need to specify that it's two digits including a possible leading zero, and you need to specify whether values >99 are allowed. (On DOS grounds, I'd say not.) > 8.5.1 Absolute requirements ... > 5. The creation of the draft version could have happened 48 hours or > less before submission time. I don't understand that sentence. Do you mean that creation MUST NOT be older than 48 hours before submission, and if so why do you care? I can well imagine preparing a draft several days before submission. Technically, as an IBM employee, I am obliged to get external publication clearance for the text, which could take a week or two. > 6. The draft version expiration date obeys IETF draft expiration > rules. 1id-guidelines isn't precise about date formats. Posting with only the month names for both publication date and expiration date has long been tolerated. (The draft is physically expired 185 days after the date of posting, but we have never required precision in the text.) > 8.5.2 Desirable features > > Violating any of the following requirements does not prevent the > submitter from auto-posting the draft (R24/a). Does that mean the user gets a warning via the Check page prior to deciding to auto-post? > 3. If both XML and plain text formats are submitted, the submitted > plain text matches what can be generated based on submitted XML > (R146/b). I couldn't find it stated anywhere whether submitting *only* XML is allowed. (Opinion: I think it should be.) > 8.5.3 DoS thresholds ... > > +----------------------------------------+--------------+-----------+ > | category | versions/day | MB/day | > +----------------------------------------+--------------+-----------+ > | drafts with the same draft name | 3 | 5 | ...............................................seems high > | drafts with the same submitter | 5 | 10 | > | WGN drafts with the same WG ID | 10 | 15 | ...............................................these seem low > | all drafts | 300 | 150 | > +----------------------------------------+--------------+-----------+ As noted above, you might consider version # >99 as a DOS threshold too. > 8.5.4 WG approval ... > If (a) no approval exists, (b) the Toolset supports the "waiting for > WG approval" feature, and (c) the draft can be posted if WG approval > is received, then the Toolset explains the situation to the submitter > and asks whether the submitter wishes to solicit an explicit approval > from the WG (R126/b). If the submitter decides to go ahead with > solicitation, the Toolset puts the submission into a "waiting for WG > approval" state until the approval is available (R127/b). Otherwise, > the Toolset records a "no WG approval is expected" error (R138/b). Doesn't the tool automatically generate email to the WG chairs asking for approval? That would be much more error-proof than waiting for the user to compose email. And surely the final error message should be "user declined to request WG approval"? > 9.1 External meta-data ... > For any draft, an IESG member (R122/c). This raised a red flag. In 1id-guidelines there is a third class of draft names: >> Other >> A string identifying an IETF-related body, such as "iab", "iesg", "rfc-editor". (and one "other" case that is missed here is draft-irtf-). Firstly, it isn't just any IESG member that needs the privilege - at least the IAB Exec Director and the RFC Editor will need it, for those special strings. Secondly, the current practice of IRTF drafts being treated as individual submissions is quite likely to change. In the extreme case, *everything* that applies to draft-ietf-WGN would apply by analogy to draft-irtf-RGN. I'm not saying that *will* happen, but it *might* happen. So flexibility in the tool design is needed there. > 16. Email interface > > The Toolset should have an email interface for automated posting of > valid drafts (R55/b). Personal opinion: this should be R55/c. It's *way* behind XML submission, in any case. Brian _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 26 12:53:53 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DQTJp-00010M-Du; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:53:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DQTJn-00010H-US for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:53:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25740 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:53:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DQTWH-0001UB-Mt for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:06:46 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3QGri3a036308; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:53:45 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:52:31 -0600 To: "Brian E Carpenter" , "Henrik Levkowetz" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <4267E4A9.9060904@levkowetz.com> <4268A948.70508@zurich.ibm.com> <4268DEB9.9000307@levkowetz.com> <4268EEA3.5050807@zurich.ibm.com> <426E5460.1080709@zurich.ibm.com> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <426E5460.1080709@zurich.ibm.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.0 (FreeBSD, build 1095) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7698d1420ecbbce1995432e99bb6d1a1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, 2005/04/26 (MDT), wrote: > XML submission is in stage "b". I'm concerned about that because I really > think that we have a large majority of authors who are using XML already. And yet, XML has no official status in IETF. It seems prudent to start with plain text, a format that is (and will be) officially required and then expand into modern formats. Note that XML users can still submit their generated plain text formats; we are not excluding them in the first stage. The intent was to produce the simplest version that automates at least 80% of submissions before moving into improvements. I suspect first stage feedback will demand new features that may be more important than XML support. As an alternative, we could support only XML-based submissions in stage A, but I doubt it is a good idea because it will upset more people and will delay first stage implementation. > A related point is that I would always give metadata extraction from XML > priority, because it is unambiguous and non-heuristic. There is no "priority" concept because if the metadata from varios formats does not match, the draft cannot be autoposted. In that case, the implementors may choose to use XML-extracted metadata for manual posting. Should we add that as a hint or requirement? > I don't think I saw any mention of 1id-guidelines. The intent is to > be consistent with that, I think. I agree. Specific requirements match some of the suggestions in 1id-guidelines. Did we miss any important ones? Adding an informative reference to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt is a good idea. > Now some specifics: > >> 8.4 Extraction > ... >> version: A non-negative integer number representing draft version >> number (also known as draft revision number). For example, the >> number seven in draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-07. > > To be picky, you need to specify that it's two digits including a > possible leading zero, Leading zeros is a rendering aspect, not a part of the version number definition (one does not do math with leading zeros). We have a vague rule R22 that requires draft IDs to be "correct". We can add an explicit version rendering requirement there. > and you need to specify whether values >99 > are allowed. (On DOS grounds, I'd say not.) We can add that rule if draft file name format (two digits for version) is more important than supporting large number of draft revisions. There are already so many things dependent on draft filenames that enforcing a broken design may be better than slightly improving it :-(. >> 8.5.1 Absolute requirements > ... >> 5. The creation of the draft version could have happened 48 hours or >> less before submission time. > > I don't understand that sentence. Do you mean that creation MUST NOT > be older than 48 hours before submission, and if so why do you care? > I can well imagine preparing a draft several days before submission. > Technically, as an IBM employee, I am obliged to get external publication > clearance for the text, which could take a week or two. This requirement needs to be reworded and it probably needs a formal Rnnn marker. You guessed the intent correctly. The Toolset should care because the Toolset cannot alter draft text, extracts draft creation date from the text, and all extracted dates must match reality and IETF rules. If you use XML source and do not specify the exact date there, then in many cases, a two week clearance delay will not matter. In other cases, you will need to edit the XML source or regenerate the plain text format before submitting a draft that was created two weeks ago. We can relax this requirement by stating that draft creation date can be anything in the past. This is likely to upset Secretariat (because their tools do not work that way) and will require an additional rule saying that already-expired drafts cannot be autoposted. Also, it would make claims "My draft has been posted for 2 months already!" impossible to verify by reading the posted draft text. The latter makes me think that it would be wrong to allow such flexibility. >> 6. The draft version expiration date obeys IETF draft expiration >> rules. > > 1id-guidelines isn't precise about date formats. Posting with only > the month names for both publication date and expiration date has long > been tolerated. (The draft is physically expired 185 days after the > date of posting, but we have never required precision in the > text.) I do not see a contradiction or problem here. The Toolset can/should accept dates "with only the month names" if those are valid from IETF point of view. >> 8.5.2 Desirable features >> Violating any of the following requirements does not prevent the >> submitter from auto-posting the draft (R24/a). > > Does that mean the user gets a warning via the Check page prior > to deciding to auto-post? Yes. We should add a sentence to clarify this. >> 3. If both XML and plain text formats are submitted, the submitted >> plain text matches what can be generated based on submitted XML >> (R146/b). > > I couldn't find it stated anywhere whether submitting *only* > XML is allowed. (Opinion: I think it should be.) It is allowed by R69/b: It is an error to submit a draft which has neither plain text nor XML sources format (R68/a). XML source is acceptable without accompanying plain text only if the Toolset successfully generates a draft in plain text format from the XML source, as a part of the processing step documented below (R69/b). > >> 8.5.3 DoS thresholds > ... > >> >> +----------------------------------------+--------------+-----------+ >> | category | versions/day | MB/day | >> +----------------------------------------+--------------+-----------+ >> | drafts with the same draft name | 3 | 5 | > ...............................................seems high Two would be an absolute minimum to allow for quick bug fixes. Since we are talking about detecting DoS attacks, 3 versions/day does not sound like a DoS to me. >> | drafts with the same submitter | 5 | 10 | >> | WGN drafts with the same WG ID | 10 | 15 | > ...............................................these seem low I would be happy to raise these. 10 and 30? >> | all drafts | 300 | 150 | >> +----------------------------------------+--------------+-----------+ > > As noted above, you might consider version # >99 as a DOS threshold too. Submitting a single version (#100) is not a DoS (by definition), IMO. Please see above for >99 rule comments. >> 8.5.4 WG approval > ... >> If (a) no approval exists, (b) the Toolset supports the "waiting for >> WG approval" feature, and (c) the draft can be posted if WG approval >> is received, then the Toolset explains the situation to the submitter >> and asks whether the submitter wishes to solicit an explicit approval >> from the WG (R126/b). If the submitter decides to go ahead with >> solicitation, the Toolset puts the submission into a "waiting for WG >> approval" state until the approval is available (R127/b). Otherwise, >> the Toolset records a "no WG approval is expected" error (R138/b). > > Doesn't the tool automatically generate email to the WG chairs asking for > approval? That would be much more error-proof than waiting for the > user to compose email. We decided to leave that feature outside of this draft. I do agree that automating this process would be desirable, but there are many requirements related to approval handling, and we agreed (after a long debate) that documenting all those requirements in this draft would be a mistake. I still think that was the right decision. There should be a separate comprehensive draft documenting how approvals can be automated instead of including one or two isolated requirements in the submission draft. > And surely the final error message should be > "user declined to request WG approval"? Unless the user has actually requested WG approval and it was denied. The curret wording is more precise (less assuming), I think, but I am happy to change that to whatever. The exact error message content is not meant to be normative anyway (I just did not want to introduce "error identifiers" of some sort and used quoted text for that). >> 9.1 External meta-data > ... >> For any draft, an IESG member (R122/c). > > This raised a red flag. In 1id-guidelines there is a third class of > draft names: > > >> Other > >> A string identifying an IETF-related body, such as "iab", > "iesg", "rfc-editor". > > (and one "other" case that is missed here is draft-irtf-). > > Firstly, it isn't just any IESG member that needs the privilege - > at least the IAB Exec Director and the RFC Editor will need it, for > those special strings. > > Secondly, the current practice of IRTF drafts being treated as individual > submissions is quite likely to change. In the extreme case, *everything* > that applies to draft-ietf-WGN would apply by analogy to draft-irtf-RGN. > I'm not saying that *will* happen, but it *might* happen. So flexibility > in the tool design is needed there. I think there are two separate issues here. The first issue is increasing the list of special people that Toolset recognizes. Because of the "for those special strings" complexity, I would suggest that we leave the current list "as is" for now. The second issue is treating "draft-X", where X is "iab", "iesg", "rfc-editor" (with a dash, yuck!), or "irtf" in a special way. It seems to me that, for now, those drafts should not be allowed for autoposting. Would that be acceptable? >> 16. Email interface >> The Toolset should have an email interface for automated posting of >> valid drafts (R55/b). > > Personal opinion: this should be R55/c. It's *way* behind XML submission, > in any case. Personally, I agreee. Unfortunately for us, too many folks wanted to email drafts so much that we included this in stage b. Personally, I would be happy to change that to /c if that is what IESG wants us to do. I will wait for yours and other Tools members feedback before changing anything. Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 27 03:23:28 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DQgtL-0001YO-9b; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 03:23:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DQgCs-0004cN-Q4 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 02:39:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06340 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 02:39:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pne-smtpout1-sn2.hy.skanova.net ([81.228.8.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DQgPQ-0002wv-Vz for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 02:52:36 -0400 Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (213.64.173.70) by pne-smtpout1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (7.1.026.7) id 41E3216700FA182A; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:39:09 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DQgCS-0007DF-2s; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:39:08 +0200 Message-ID: <426F338B.3040102@levkowetz.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:39:07 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <4267E4A9.9060904@levkowetz.com> <4268A948.70508@zurich.ibm.com> <4268DEB9.9000307@levkowetz.com> <4268EEA3.5050807@zurich.ibm.com> <426E5460.1080709@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a87a9cdae4ac5d3fbeee75cd0026d632 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 03:23:25 -0400 Cc: Brian E Carpenter , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org on 2005-04-26 6:52 pm Alex Rousskov said the following: > On Tue, 2005/04/26 (MDT), wrote: [snip a lot of stuff which seems to be sorted out] >>> 8.5.4 WG approval >> ... >>> If (a) no approval exists, (b) the Toolset supports the "waiting for >>> WG approval" feature, and (c) the draft can be posted if WG approval >>> is received, then the Toolset explains the situation to the submitter >>> and asks whether the submitter wishes to solicit an explicit approval >>> from the WG (R126/b). If the submitter decides to go ahead with >>> solicitation, the Toolset puts the submission into a "waiting for WG >>> approval" state until the approval is available (R127/b). Otherwise, >>> the Toolset records a "no WG approval is expected" error (R138/b). >> >> Doesn't the tool automatically generate email to the WG chairs asking for >> approval? That would be much more error-proof than waiting for the >> user to compose email. > > We decided to leave that feature outside of this draft. I do agree that > automating this process would be desirable, but there are many > requirements related to approval handling, and we agreed (after a long > debate) that documenting all those requirements in this draft would be > a mistake. > > I still think that was the right decision. There should be a separate > comprehensive draft documenting how approvals can be automated instead > of including one or two isolated requirements in the submission draft. Here I think we need a wording change (which I thought we'd already made :-( ). As the text now reads, it is most easily understood as if the submitter is required to manually and personally solicit an approval from the WG Chair. Even if we don't cover the requirements on automation, of this, we should not state or assume that this should be a manual process left up to the individual; but rather make it clear that there will be an automatic solicitation if requested, but the requirements of that is outside the scope of this draft. [...] >>> 9.1 External meta-data >> ... >>> For any draft, an IESG member (R122/c). >> >> This raised a red flag. In 1id-guidelines there is a third class of >> draft names: >> >> >> Other >> >> A string identifying an IETF-related body, such as "iab", >> "iesg", "rfc-editor". >> >> (and one "other" case that is missed here is draft-irtf-). >> >> Firstly, it isn't just any IESG member that needs the privilege - >> at least the IAB Exec Director and the RFC Editor will need it, for >> those special strings. >> >> Secondly, the current practice of IRTF drafts being treated as individual >> submissions is quite likely to change. In the extreme case, *everything* >> that applies to draft-ietf-WGN would apply by analogy to draft-irtf-RGN. >> I'm not saying that *will* happen, but it *might* happen. So flexibility >> in the tool design is needed there. > > I think there are two separate issues here. The first issue is increasing > the list of special people that Toolset recognizes. Because of the "for > those special strings" complexity, I would suggest that we leave the > current list "as is" for now. > > The second issue is treating "draft-X", where X is "iab", "iesg", > "rfc-editor" (with a dash, yuck!), or "irtf" in a special way. It seems to > me that, for now, those drafts should not be allowed for autoposting. > Would that be acceptable? That is also a special treatment. If we want to have no special treatment for those, it implies that they are handled like personal submissions. If we want to have special treatment for them, why not handle them as WG drafts? Seems like a more fruitful special treatment than to specifically disallow them. Then you'd have a list of people who could approve posting of -00 versions of such drafts (the 'WG Chairs', from the tools viewpoint). >>> 16. Email interface >>> The Toolset should have an email interface for automated posting of >>> valid drafts (R55/b). >> >> Personal opinion: this should be R55/c. It's *way* behind XML submission, >> in any case. > > Personally, I agreee. Unfortunately for us, too many folks wanted to email > drafts so much that we included this in stage b. Personally, I would be > happy to change that to /c if that is what IESG wants us to do. I'd support moving this to /c, or alternatively (maybe a better alternative) creating a new stage between the current /a and /b, in which we'd place the XML submission requirements. > I will wait for yours and other Tools members feedback before changing > anything. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 27 11:48:47 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DQomN-0005l4-5h; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:48:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DQomL-0005kz-K9 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:48:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25808 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:48:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DQoyy-0007fa-SO for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:01:52 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3RFmZ3a072409; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:48:35 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:47:20 -0600 To: "Henrik Levkowetz" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <4267E4A9.9060904@levkowetz.com> <4268A948.70508@zurich.ibm.com> <4268DEB9.9000307@levkowetz.com> <4268EEA3.5050807@zurich.ibm.com> <426E5460.1080709@zurich.ibm.com> <426F338B.3040102@levkowetz.com> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <426F338B.3040102@levkowetz.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.0 (FreeBSD, build 1095) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Brian E Carpenter , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Wed, 2005/04/27 (MDT), wrote: > As the text now reads, it is most easily understood as if > the submitter is required to manually and personally solicit an approval > from the WG Chair. Even if we don't cover the requirements on > automation, > of this, we should not state or assume that this should be a manual > process left up to the individual; but rather make it clear that there > will be an automatic solicitation if requested, but the requirements of > that is outside the scope of this draft. I would be happy to specify that we expect this process to be automated. Sorry if I was supposed to do that change earlier. >> I think there are two separate issues here. The first issue is >> increasing >> the list of special people that Toolset recognizes. Because of the "for >> those special strings" complexity, I would suggest that we leave the >> current list "as is" for now. >> >> The second issue is treating "draft-X", where X is "iab", "iesg", >> "rfc-editor" (with a dash, yuck!), or "irtf" in a special way. It seems >> to me that, for now, those drafts should not be allowed for autoposting. >> Would that be acceptable? > > That is also a special treatment. If we want to have no special > treatment for those, it implies that they are handled like personal > submissions. Yes, it is special treatment which seems to be required to prevent random folks from posting IAB, IESG, etc. drafts. > If we want to have special treatment for them, why not handle them as WG > drafts? Seems like a more fruitful special treatment than to > specifically disallow them. Then you'd have a list of people who could > approve posting of -00 versions of such drafts (the 'WG Chairs', from > the tools viewpoint). I was simply not sure IETF has enough backend metadata to identify all IAB people, all IESG people, all IRTF people, etc., that can approve 00 drafts. However, since we are not documenting how to automate this step, I do agree with you. The Toolset should just treat all those 4 special strings as WG names. I will adjust the draft text accordingly (most likely by extending the WGN definition). If the list is not "iab", "iesg", "rfc-editor", "irtf" then please let me know the correct values. > I'd support moving this to /c, or alternatively (maybe a better > alternative) > creating a new stage between the current /a and /b, in which we'd place > the XML submission requirements. I think having four stages would be doing too much micromanagement when some of us are sure that (b) and (c) requirements are going to change with (a) experience. The current stage semantics is: a) A minimum set of features for the first public version of the Toolset that can handle most "common" drafts submitted today. b) A comprehensive set of features that we think needs to be implemented soon. c) A vague long-term Toolset roadmap. If IESG thinks that the email interface is not needed any time soon, let's place it in (c). If IESG thinks that email interface is needed soon, let's instruct the implementors that XML has priority over email interface but leave both in stage b. (A good implementation team will make multiple releases per stage. A team of more than one person should work on more than one feature at the same time.) Can we ask IESG to make this choice? Thank you, Alex. P.S. I do not think that IESG should make all design choices because the Tools team is supposed to represent IETF needs, not just IESG needs. However, when the Toolset team is not sure what the right thing to do is, and when the Toolset team preferences meet significant and broad resistance, IESG should step in. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 27 12:39:45 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DQpZh-0001lq-45; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DQpTH-0008Gw-Ck for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:33:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00682 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pne-smtpout2-sn2.hy.skanova.net ([81.228.8.164]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DQpfw-0000SO-RR for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:46:14 -0400 Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (213.64.173.70) by pne-smtpout2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (7.1.026.7) id 42662CF1001F4CDB; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:49 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DQpSz-0006lJ-8I; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:49 +0200 Message-ID: <426FBEB1.8040009@levkowetz.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:32:49 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <4267E4A9.9060904@levkowetz.com> <4268A948.70508@zurich.ibm.com> <4268DEB9.9000307@levkowetz.com> <4268EEA3.5050807@zurich.ibm.com> <426E5460.1080709@zurich.ibm.com> <426F338B.3040102@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1676547e4f33b5e63227e9c02bd359e3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:39:44 -0400 Cc: Brian E Carpenter , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org on 2005-04-27 5:47 pm Alex Rousskov said the following: > On Wed, 2005/04/27 (MDT), wrote: > >> As the text now reads, it is most easily understood as if >> the submitter is required to manually and personally solicit an approval >> from the WG Chair. Even if we don't cover the requirements on >> automation, >> of this, we should not state or assume that this should be a manual >> process left up to the individual; but rather make it clear that there >> will be an automatic solicitation if requested, but the requirements of >> that is outside the scope of this draft. > > I would be happy to specify that we expect this process to be > automated. Sorry if I was supposed to do that change earlier. I thought we touched on this, but it could have been just something that passed my mind. Anyway, what about: 'If (a) no approval exists, (b) the Toolset supports the "waiting for WG approval" feature, and (c) the draft can be posted if WG approval is received, then the Toolset explains the situation to the submitter and asks whether an explicit approval from the WG (R126/b) should be solicited. If the submitter requests solicitation for approval, the Toolset puts the submission into a "waiting for WG approval" state until the approval is received (R127/b). Otherwise, the Toolset records a "no WG approval is expected" error (R138/b). The details and mechanics of solicitation for WG approval is outside the scope of this document.' ? >>> I think there are two separate issues here. The first issue is >>> increasing >>> the list of special people that Toolset recognizes. Because of the "for >>> those special strings" complexity, I would suggest that we leave the >>> current list "as is" for now. >>> >>> The second issue is treating "draft-X", where X is "iab", "iesg", >>> "rfc-editor" (with a dash, yuck!), or "irtf" in a special way. It seems >>> to me that, for now, those drafts should not be allowed for autoposting. >>> Would that be acceptable? >> >> That is also a special treatment. If we want to have no special >> treatment for those, it implies that they are handled like personal >> submissions. > > Yes, it is special treatment which seems to be required to prevent > random folks from posting IAB, IESG, etc. drafts. > >> If we want to have special treatment for them, why not handle them as WG >> drafts? Seems like a more fruitful special treatment than to >> specifically disallow them. Then you'd have a list of people who could >> approve posting of -00 versions of such drafts (the 'WG Chairs', from >> the tools viewpoint). > > I was simply not sure IETF has enough backend metadata to identify > all IAB people, all IESG people, all IRTF people, etc., that can > approve 00 drafts. However, since we are not documenting how to > automate this step, I do agree with you. The Toolset should just > treat all those 4 special strings as WG names. I will adjust the > draft text accordingly (most likely by extending the WGN definition). Sounds good to me. Brian? > If the list is not > > "iab", "iesg", "rfc-editor", "irtf" > > then please let me know the correct values. Looks good to me. Brian? >> I'd support moving this to /c, or alternatively (maybe a better >> alternative) >> creating a new stage between the current /a and /b, in which we'd place >> the XML submission requirements. > > I think having four stages would be doing too much micromanagement > when some of us are sure that (b) and (c) requirements are going to > change with (a) experience. The current stage semantics is: > > a) A minimum set of features for the first public version of > the Toolset that can handle most "common" drafts submitted > today. > > b) A comprehensive set of features that we think needs to be > implemented soon. > > c) A vague long-term Toolset roadmap. > > If IESG thinks that the email interface is not needed any time soon, > let's place it in (c). If IESG thinks that email interface is > needed soon, let's instruct the implementors that XML has priority > over email interface but leave both in stage b. (A good implementation > team will make multiple releases per stage. A team of more than one > person should work on more than one feature at the same time.) Ok. Then I suggest we add a hint about multiple releases and preferred order of implementation of XML support relative to mail support. > Can we ask IESG to make this choice? I guess we should have a proposal on the table - could be as simple as my suggestion above. Henrik > Thank you, > > Alex. > P.S. I do not think that IESG should make all design choices because > the Tools team is supposed to represent IETF needs, not just IESG > needs. However, when the Toolset team is not sure what the right > thing to do is, and when the Toolset team preferences meet significant > and broad resistance, IESG should step in. Yes, I guess - but if we can reach a consensus based on the new input that is also good. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 28 01:38:14 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DR1j4-0007TO-4C; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:38:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DR1j1-0007ST-Ui for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:38:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA17386 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:38:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DR1vm-0000CN-5W for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:51:25 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.1]) by mtagate4.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3S5bsWM125624 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:37:54 GMT Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.212]) by d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j3S5brri192208 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:37:53 +0200 Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3S5brCO010379 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:37:53 +0200 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3S5br9x010376; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:37:53 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-135-80.de.ibm.com [9.145.135.80]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA79948; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:37:47 +0200 Message-ID: <427076AB.8060508@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:37:47 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <4267E4A9.9060904@levkowetz.com> <4268A948.70508@zurich.ibm.com> <4268DEB9.9000307@levkowetz.com> <4268EEA3.5050807@zurich.ibm.com> <426E5460.1080709@zurich.ibm.com> <426F338B.3040102@levkowetz.com> <426FBEB1.8040009@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <426FBEB1.8040009@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org I am in the IESG Retreat meeting and then the IETF/ITU Workshop for the next few days... will respond next week. Brian _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss