From nobody Wed May 23 05:36:11 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFF312DA70 for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 05:36:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bn9kHGGgGLtm for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 05:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52446126CE8 for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 05:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339DC300A2C for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 08:36:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id DtGD9NG7UxQc for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 08:35:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.5.245.234] (wsip-98-172-24-238.dc.dc.cox.net [98.172.24.238]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93949300537; Wed, 23 May 2018 08:35:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ Housley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_08CE78AC-215D-46A3-9CA1-A8B5557EFC4C" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 08:35:59 -0400 References: <885ec895-6a29-0589-5349-193da4bd7e54@ericsson.com> Cc: Mohit Sethi To: tools-discuss Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fwd: Incorrect auto linking in html versions of drafts and RFCs X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:36:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_08CE78AC-215D-46A3-9CA1-A8B5557EFC4C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 This topic probably belongs on this list. =20 > From: Mohit Sethi > Subject: Incorrect auto linking in html versions of drafts and RFCs > Date: May 23, 2018 at 2:35:52 AM EDT > To: , >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > I have lately been implementing some drafts and RFCs related EAP and = JSON Web formats (JWS/JWK/JWA etc.). While reading, I noticed an unusual = problem with some of the hyper links in the HTML version of drafts/RFCs.=20= > Sometimes, there is text in a draft/RFC saying "look at section x.y.z = of some external document", the HTML version of the draft/RFC = automatically generates a hyper link for the text "section x.y.z". This = hyper link however points to the section x.y.z in the current document. = In many cases, section x.y.z does not even exist in the current = document.=20 > Here is a couple of examples from RFC 7517 = (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7517 = ): >=20 > 1. The text in section 4 reads " >=20 > returns only the lexically last duplicate member name, as specified > in Section 15.12 = (The JSON Object) of = ECMAScript 5.1 [ECMAScript = ]. > " > The hyper link for "Section 15.12" tries to find section 15.12 in RFC = 7517 which clearly does not have such a section. >=20 > 2. =46rom the same text in section 4 " >=20 > Section 6 of the JSON = Web Algorithms (JWA) [JWA ] = specification > defines multiple kinds of cryptographic keys and their associated > members. > " > The hyper link for "Section 6" links to Section 6 of the JWK document = instead of linking it to the Section 6 of the JWA document as it should! >=20 > 3. Here is another example from a randomly chosen RFC. This text is = taken from RFC 8321 section 7 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8321 = ): " >=20 > Performance Metric Definition > template defined in Section=C2=A05.4 of [RFC6390] = and the Dependencies > laid out in Section 5.5 = of that document. > " >=20 > Here the first link correctly points to Section 5.4 of RFC6390 but the = second link points to "Section 5.5" of RFC 8321 instead of RFC6390.=20 > Please note that I have encountered this problem several other drafts = and RFCs. What's worse, there is no way for draft authors to control = this behavior with xml2rfc. The txt and html outputs from xml2rfc do not = show these automatic hyper links. I was hoping that this is something = the RFC editor could resolve at least for all future RFCs and drafts if = not retrospectively fix existing documents.=20 > --Mohit >=20 > PS: I wasn't sure which was the right list. Please feel free to = forward it to the right list. --Apple-Mail=_08CE78AC-215D-46A3-9CA1-A8B5557EFC4C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii This topic probably belongs on this list.  


From: = Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>
Subject: = Incorrect auto = linking in html versions of drafts and RFCs
Date: = May 23, 2018 at 2:35:52 AM = EDT
To: = <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, <ietf@ietf.org>

=20 =20

Hi = all,

I have lately been implementing some drafts and = RFCs related EAP and JSON Web formats (JWS/JWK/JWA etc.). While reading, I noticed an unusual problem with some of the hyper links in the HTML version of drafts/RFCs.

Sometimes, there is text in a draft/RFC saying = "look at section x.y.z of some external document", the HTML version of the draft/RFC automatically generates a hyper link for the text "section x.y.z". This hyper link however points to the section x.y.z in the current document. In many cases, section x.y.z does not even exist in the current document.

Here is a couple of examples from RFC 7517 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7517):

1. = The text in section 4 reads "

returns only the lexically last =
duplicate member name, as specified
   in Section 15.12 (The JSON Object) of ECMAScript 5.1 [ECMAScript].

"

The hyper link for "Section 15.12" tries to find = section 15.12 in RFC 7517 which clearly does not have such a section.

2. =46rom the same text in section 4 "

 Section =
6 of the JSON Web Algorithms (JWA) [JWA] specification
   defines multiple kinds of cryptographic keys and their associated
   members.
"

The hyper link for "Section 6"  links to = Section 6 of the JWK document instead of linking it to the Section 6 of the JWA document as it should!

3. Here is another example = from a randomly chosen RFC. This text is taken from RFC 8321 section 7 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/r= fc8321): "

Performance Metric Definition
   template defined in Section 5.4 of [RFC6390] and the Dependencies
   laid out in Section 5.5 of that document.

"

Here the first link correctly = points to Section 5.4 of RFC6390 but the second link points to "Section 5.5" of RFC 8321 instead of RFC6390.

Please note that I have encountered this problem = several other drafts and RFCs. What's worse, there is no way for draft authors to control this behavior with xml2rfc. The txt and html outputs from xml2rfc do not show these automatic hyper links. I was hoping that this is something the RFC editor could resolve at least for all future RFCs and drafts if not retrospectively fix existing documents.

--Mohit

PS: I wasn't sure which = was the right list. Please feel free to forward it to the right list.


= --Apple-Mail=_08CE78AC-215D-46A3-9CA1-A8B5557EFC4C-- From nobody Wed May 23 06:09:03 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDF612DFE0 for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 06:08:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dAfqI0vTtu5o for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 06:08:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D75812DA70 for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 06:08:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([93.217.127.143]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MGBdv-1fXpB50yU3-00FFMV; Wed, 23 May 2018 15:08:36 +0200 To: Russ Housley , tools-discuss Cc: Mohit Sethi References: <885ec895-6a29-0589-5349-193da4bd7e54@ericsson.com> From: Julian Reschke Message-ID: <1d18bedd-d98a-b059-bd42-61d43955b19b@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 15:08:33 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:K1qD5WUbYh+9MaI3++s7C6KNhl/3XPOJTxcg1l5kyHsb3Pl2rio c6PGN4pdxuftkdgLfQZWT1X2ExrNIv/GQvvJqZQw3eZCSydw7w4YDEYtBRvWLWuDWNQGg2i fO+Unw8Ty1tYdtQf5FJXKW77tmP/a71xdlPaGDQOdNSeJ5K/CiuvWJ4qn4/gg1y3dVf8ZUP UMx8ASYHCQBQl6KVON73w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:F407a9FL70c=:Qxor7LjESx94TK2FZC95Pr WrIdiVL5W1x0Iy8XY51hfbNDYuI167w2aZ4g6AE2+bXiwThk3LxOn1+HcJxz9sj94FxdoNjF+ 0h7DbPs2P7ayMVWDhiHIm2DZ88r9trw/lKkjEnlA3aOAYgYwJm2gvS3544lwJPUnYN9qHUx5T AMi5T5U5biXctT8SvY+87soa3hlqG4/H4RLzyKltmDUZOKAcJEun7jvyzVx6S9KVqe19flSB6 sp936I4lKs9pvjANevDji/evwFEvthgU3ZpgVuDiyiua4kXzCPnxxGhkKMnQadEYkY/r5URsl euwX2Qef/G9MITCF5GoQNZNSfa5QRtq5vYpOQ0emmCpHSox+zCniA/wpUsp3JGJlJtLNIHGd+ G7azrR9/qRNgF8Hs3yD8yj45ooykoiNvvEL4SEN9rDw/rnIyPavKu7UG6z1gd+c/B17V7865b EwbDxXy/jTC5U3OSLIPD/rWqu2YAzJ1Ndd7zxIp4BMdABFCOpKxB//Kvk6fsJOIntorz4BhvW i0BNCXr33h4Rev4JZ/Xu9iLF9VVqMThaS00Vskauzr0XeSFSg2bUUITplnfN2DZ5yC/0zpxZU VHrBsJWpz4RVNePVywhkZ7C0wKMebfgA3VvAbsDTRWOZckJRPvFItXUI2BpVSMp9AWbpTWx94 w4WcTQy1nKABjexVTC+O8bjpG3rBttdUie02tMiYnY0FAlHMIXToFRqhuuLonIuMne4hGLdsX USkoHRrlhk9XFj8ltJSDR8nUanN1R2LKct+l4KpLGvLCL80shf9bdH6nlAhg6HqcM+7FGNUhr 8KWz3qw Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Fwd: Incorrect auto linking in html versions of drafts and RFCs X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:09:02 -0000 On 2018-05-23 14:35, Russ Housley wrote: > This topic probably belongs on this list. > ... We probably should have an FAQ for this... From nobody Thu May 31 07:04:46 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A96412E89D for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 07:04:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.608 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0MXiOYu2udez for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 07:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF02912E8C7 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 07:04:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 11-v6so19576552ois.8 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 07:04:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=uwFNwPOBRqMSdcG7qApI35/GeOCpGgWVkMNGbUWORCA=; b=COWbn0e3snnbeoiVMJ2Jw6iGmC1Y3vaJvb8zFUzUDkVytDfb3rFkVZGeXKRbGkG595 hcZezwXHCOSwiB9bPeNIWQSeVkZt2RgmKrV+/whg6RnJV+rWPLiYoirQQ/30p1+5yuEZ ZmBshP7WEUHuHgkpNnnTjGk8XVAvWB0TkKPICpP/+31YBcAfwrzyGP3g5lUmTjUyPhn1 nEF70eFivB7w5stmcQe7b0sq8LBtOAbpgmG2BCiA9qiCvd18e9amtrZqc7eo6rR2qgn3 iK5mhI0I1gJ1nkicaVvw+NzwIeUpC/pwj081Nuynghg+t/hHm45mIRwhkMKmrVwus4+d /tyg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=uwFNwPOBRqMSdcG7qApI35/GeOCpGgWVkMNGbUWORCA=; b=rd3d6cMSsL3BWCygpmyNcT/QnyD6PuJWRatLEdwYG1dugDyG2L1Fn9q8FJQyz6uHLR 7yF+UbTGMFJQBKBy/j0WYoqnAfnm0+QZe4/a5sfRGwDKpog/EcbafkXRBWvlRtNmcjhG OiH8Apw3BA4bMoAqKvzQNpttg6pr28v7+YtrOxJGwl9APNMT7UfwXG1fNGTXx8yJbwa0 LXKyLE2a/uRjrQVwhOlArPy/Js+/k0GNdj0Cv3glXLfOWpsUd6x5ToSszDH05vLNggTr XjOWBCgudnubwk6+7dOrzABXH5X+Cq8prdnfFpTjPR8ht5l4zzFM1uwFZ5TT5vQJ6QgO GKKw== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3lVhSy2Sgx2psToBkCGP5yoH5M3wox7AfwIuLTMoT5DPRYnCFq bsyW5lAwHiu9CNWNMkdPREnicaDMuBK7nCmgO3UgAEGsp2c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKFzS9c3hRwv6dVNieKdSUs6kxF57Xzt/WzOahq8crsTbtEmLXRNGbYEYfJfNcifmRkV0p0qfKfeeqIYCd7zY0= X-Received: by 2002:aca:4f0d:: with SMTP id d13-v6mr3816242oib.138.1527775480932; Thu, 31 May 2018 07:04:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ac9:66:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2018 07:04:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Rescorla Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 07:04:00 -0700 Message-ID: To: tools-discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d68edb056d80f28d" Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] Reviewing with Phabricator (and Datatracker integration) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 14:04:45 -0000 --000000000000d68edb056d80f28d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I wanted to let the tools team know about the way I'm using Phabricator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phabricator) and the new Datatracker APIs to do my AD and IESG. Phabricator's "Differential" tool is a code review system that allows for: - Line-by-line reviews - Status and comment tracking - Reviewer assignment - Differences between any two versions of a document, complete with in-context display of comments The basic model I have is that I treat each draft as it if were a submitted patch to the repository of all drafts, and then review it. I find this lets me go through a draft relatively quickly, note issues, then create a review, and then when a new version comes out, see how the authors resolved them. In some cases, the authors make their own Phabricator accounts and respond in comments (this is a better experience for everyone) but even without that, it's been a pretty big improvement in experience for me. Here's an example of what this looks like on Phabricator: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5132 And the corresponding (auto-generated) ballot: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-stunbis/ballot/ Sorry, you'll need to search, no anchors on this page. I've developed a suite of tools to automate most of the work here: https://github.com/ekr/iphab Roughly speaking, here's what they do: - Watch the draft repository and keep the list of revisions (Phabricator's term for change lists). - Parse the telechat agenda and assign revisions to be reviewed based on the documents on the agenda (Protocol Actions get marked as "Blocking" and Document Actions as non-blocking). - When a review is finished, post it as a ballot in the datatracker (using whether the revision was "accepted" or not to determine how to ballot). It also automatically sorts comments in to DISCUSS and COMMENT based on whether they are marked "IMPORTANT". - Alternatively, download reviews into a text file so you can edit them, email, etc. Right now, this is still a bit manual (I run the tools on my machine before each telechat and you have to individually tell them to submit the ballot) and only sort of works for > 1 person but if other people were interested in trying Phabricator out, it would be pretty easy to make it work for more than one person, and at least automate the updating piece of it (you'd probably still have to manually tell it to ballot for each draft for a little while). I've avoided doing that because it *is* work, but would be happy to if there was interest. Big thanks to Henrik and the tools team for making the Datatracker APIs (and the API key facility) that makes this possible. -Ekr --000000000000d68edb056d80f28d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=C2=A0I wanted to let the tools team know about the way I&= #39;m using
Phabricator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phabricator) and the new Datatrack= er APIs to do my
AD and IESG. Phabricator's "Differential"= tool is a code review
system that allows for:

- Line-by-line rev= iews
- Status and comment tracking
- Reviewer assignment
- Differe= nces between any two versions of a document, complete
=C2=A0 with in-con= text display of comments

The basic model I have is that I treat each= draft as it if were a
submitted patch to the repository of all drafts, = and then review it. I
find this lets me go through a draft relatively qu= ickly, note issues,
then create a review, and then when a new version co= mes out, see how
the authors resolved them. In some cases, the authors m= ake their own
Phabricator accounts and respond in comments (this is a be= tter
experience for everyone) but even without that, it's been a pre= tty big
improvement in experience for me.


Here's an examp= le of what this looks like on Phabricator:

=C2=A0=C2=A0 https://mozphab-ietf.devsvc= dev.mozaws.net/D5132

And the corresponding (auto-generated) ball= ot:

=C2=A0=C2=A0 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-= stunbis/ballot/

Sorry, you'll need to search, no anchors on = this page.


I've developed a suite of tools to automate most = of the work here:

=C2=A0=C2=A0 https://github.com/ekr/iphab


Roughly speaking, here'= s what they do:

- Watch the draft repository and keep the list of re= visions
=C2=A0 (Phabricator's term for change lists).

- Parse= the telechat agenda and assign revisions to be reviewed
=C2=A0 based on= the documents on the agenda (Protocol Actions get
=C2=A0 marked as &quo= t;Blocking" and Document Actions as non-blocking).

- When a rev= iew is finished, post it as a ballot in the datatracker
=C2=A0 (using wh= ether the revision was "accepted" or not to determine
=C2=A0 h= ow to ballot). It also automatically sorts comments in to
=C2=A0 DISCUSS= and COMMENT based on whether they are marked "IMPORTANT".
- Alternatively, download reviews into a text file so you can
=C2=A0 ed= it them, email, etc.


Right now, this is still a bit manual (I ru= n the tools on my machine
before each telechat and you have to individua= lly tell them to submit
the ballot) and only sort of works for > 1 pe= rson but if other people
were interested in trying Phabricator out, it w= ould be pretty easy to
make it work for more than one person, and at lea= st automate the
updating piece of it (you'd probably still have to m= anually tell it to
ballot for each draft for a little while). I've a= voided doing that
because it *is* work, but would be happy to if there w= as interest.

Big thanks to Henrik and the tools team for making the = Datatracker
APIs (and the API key facility) that makes this possible.
-Ekr


--000000000000d68edb056d80f28d-- From nobody Thu May 31 09:49:09 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BAC5124F57 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 09:48:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id so30_HmrdaxB for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 09:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.kvm02.ops-netman.net (relay.kvm02.ops-netman.net [IPv6:2606:700:e:550:5c82:28ff:fe25:4960]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BF751272E1 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 09:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ops-netman.net (mailserver.ops-netman.net [199.168.90.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay.kvm02.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A3B93FF4B; Thu, 31 May 2018 16:48:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from morrowc-glaptop2.ops-netman.net (unknown [IPv6:2620:15c:3:11:66fe:3d8e:40ab:209f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C989123ACBD8; Thu, 31 May 2018 16:48:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.ops-netman.net; dkim=none reason="no signature"; dkim-adsp=fail (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 12:48:37 -0400 Message-ID: From: Chris Morrow To: Eric Rescorla Cc: tools-discuss In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.1 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Organization: Operations Network Management, Ltd. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Reviewing with Phabricator (and Datatracker integration) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 16:48:44 -0000 On Thu, 31 May 2018 10:04:00 -0400, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > [1 ] > [1.1 ] > I wanted to let the tools team know about the way I'm using > Phabricator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phabricator) and the new > Datatracker APIs to do my > AD and IESG. Phabricator's "Differential" tool is a code review > system that allows for: > > - Line-by-line reviews > - Status and comment tracking > - Reviewer assignment > - Differences between any two versions of a document, complete > with in-context display of comments oh neat, this looks a lot like: gerrit.codereview.com codereview.appspot.com (codereview was the originator of those two) we use this sort of flow at $WORK, it's super useful and makes making progress straightforward and simple. > The basic model I have is that I treat each draft as it if were a > submitted patch to the repository of all drafts, and then review it. I > find this lets me go through a draft relatively quickly, note issues, > then create a review, and then when a new version comes out, see how > the authors resolved them. In some cases, the authors make their own > Phabricator accounts and respond in comments (this is a better > experience for everyone) but even without that, it's been a pretty big > improvement in experience for me. > > > Here's an example of what this looks like on Phabricator: > > https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5132 > > And the corresponding (auto-generated) ballot: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-stunbis/ballot/ > > Sorry, you'll need to search, no anchors on this page. > > > I've developed a suite of tools to automate most of the work here: > > https://github.com/ekr/iphab > > > Roughly speaking, here's what they do: > > - Watch the draft repository and keep the list of revisions > (Phabricator's term for change lists). > > - Parse the telechat agenda and assign revisions to be reviewed > based on the documents on the agenda (Protocol Actions get > marked as "Blocking" and Document Actions as non-blocking). > > - When a review is finished, post it as a ballot in the datatracker > (using whether the revision was "accepted" or not to determine > how to ballot). It also automatically sorts comments in to > DISCUSS and COMMENT based on whether they are marked "IMPORTANT". > > - Alternatively, download reviews into a text file so you can > edit them, email, etc. > > > Right now, this is still a bit manual (I run the tools on my machine > before each telechat and you have to individually tell them to submit > the ballot) and only sort of works for > 1 person but if other people > were interested in trying Phabricator out, it would be pretty easy to > make it work for more than one person, and at least automate the > updating piece of it (you'd probably still have to manually tell it to > ballot for each draft for a little while). I've avoided doing that > because it *is* work, but would be happy to if there was interest. > > Big thanks to Henrik and the tools team for making the Datatracker > APIs (and the API key facility) that makes this possible. > > -Ekr > [1.2 ] > [2 ] > ___________________________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > > Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org > bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb > or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org > > Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues > or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org From nobody Thu May 31 10:31:04 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9DE12EC91 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 10:31:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QT1B-IYQ70it for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 10:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B26ED12EC70 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 10:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB07300A16 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:30:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id acBv1yJ-2D_J for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:30:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E978300261; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:30:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ Housley Message-Id: <3141C32A-E190-4DE8-9E6A-1462EFD0E47B@vigilsec.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FC4E3E07-9804-4105-9958-2CF98132719C" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 13:30:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: Cc: tools-discuss To: Eric Rescorla References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Reviewing with Phabricator (and Datatracker integration) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 17:31:01 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_FC4E3E07-9804-4105-9958-2CF98132719C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I would be interested in the experiences of other ADs. I would like to know how easy it would be for Directorates and Review = Teams to leverage your work. Russ > On May 31, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >=20 > I wanted to let the tools team know about the way I'm using > Phabricator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phabricator = ) and the new Datatracker = APIs to do my > AD and IESG. Phabricator's "Differential" tool is a code review > system that allows for: >=20 > - Line-by-line reviews > - Status and comment tracking > - Reviewer assignment > - Differences between any two versions of a document, complete > with in-context display of comments >=20 > The basic model I have is that I treat each draft as it if were a > submitted patch to the repository of all drafts, and then review it. I > find this lets me go through a draft relatively quickly, note issues, > then create a review, and then when a new version comes out, see how > the authors resolved them. In some cases, the authors make their own > Phabricator accounts and respond in comments (this is a better > experience for everyone) but even without that, it's been a pretty big > improvement in experience for me. >=20 >=20 > Here's an example of what this looks like on Phabricator: >=20 > https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5132 = >=20 > And the corresponding (auto-generated) ballot: >=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-stunbis/ballot/ = >=20 > Sorry, you'll need to search, no anchors on this page. >=20 >=20 > I've developed a suite of tools to automate most of the work here: >=20 > https://github.com/ekr/iphab >=20 >=20 > Roughly speaking, here's what they do: >=20 > - Watch the draft repository and keep the list of revisions > (Phabricator's term for change lists). >=20 > - Parse the telechat agenda and assign revisions to be reviewed > based on the documents on the agenda (Protocol Actions get > marked as "Blocking" and Document Actions as non-blocking). >=20 > - When a review is finished, post it as a ballot in the datatracker > (using whether the revision was "accepted" or not to determine > how to ballot). It also automatically sorts comments in to > DISCUSS and COMMENT based on whether they are marked "IMPORTANT". >=20 > - Alternatively, download reviews into a text file so you can > edit them, email, etc. >=20 >=20 > Right now, this is still a bit manual (I run the tools on my machine > before each telechat and you have to individually tell them to submit > the ballot) and only sort of works for > 1 person but if other people > were interested in trying Phabricator out, it would be pretty easy to > make it work for more than one person, and at least automate the > updating piece of it (you'd probably still have to manually tell it to > ballot for each draft for a little while). I've avoided doing that > because it *is* work, but would be happy to if there was interest. >=20 > Big thanks to Henrik and the tools team for making the Datatracker > APIs (and the API key facility) that makes this possible. >=20 > -Ekr >=20 >=20 > ___________________________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >=20 > Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org > bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb > or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org >=20 > Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues > or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org --Apple-Mail=_FC4E3E07-9804-4105-9958-2CF98132719C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii I would be interested in the experiences of other ADs.

I would like to know how = easy it would be for Directorates and Review Teams to leverage your = work.

Russ


On May 31, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> = wrote:

 I wanted to let the tools team know about = the way I'm using
Phabricator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phabricator) and the new = Datatracker APIs to do my
AD and IESG. Phabricator's = "Differential" tool is a code review
system that allows = for:

- Line-by-line reviews
- = Status and comment tracking
- Reviewer assignment
- Differences between any two versions of a document, = complete
  with in-context display of comments

The basic model I have is that I treat each = draft as it if were a
submitted patch to the repository of = all drafts, and then review it. I
find this lets me go = through a draft relatively quickly, note issues,
then = create a review, and then when a new version comes out, see how
the authors resolved them. In some cases, the authors make = their own
Phabricator accounts and respond in comments = (this is a better
experience for everyone) but even = without that, it's been a pretty big
improvement in = experience for me.


Here's an = example of what this looks like on Phabricator:

   https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5132

And the corresponding (auto-generated) = ballot:

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-stunbis/ballot= /

Sorry, you'll need to search, no = anchors on this page.


I've = developed a suite of tools to automate most of the work here:

   https://github.com/ekr/iphab


Roughly speaking, here's what they do:

- Watch the draft repository and keep the list = of revisions
  (Phabricator's term for change = lists).

- Parse the telechat agenda and = assign revisions to be reviewed
  based on the = documents on the agenda (Protocol Actions get
  = marked as "Blocking" and Document Actions as non-blocking).

- When a review is finished, post it as a = ballot in the datatracker
  (using whether the = revision was "accepted" or not to determine
  how to = ballot). It also automatically sorts comments in to
  = DISCUSS and COMMENT based on whether they are marked "IMPORTANT".

- Alternatively, download reviews into a text = file so you can
  edit them, email, etc.


Right now, this is still a bit = manual (I run the tools on my machine
before each telechat = and you have to individually tell them to submit
the = ballot) and only sort of works for > 1 person but if other people
were interested in trying Phabricator out, it would be pretty = easy to
make it work for more than one person, and at = least automate the
updating piece of it (you'd probably = still have to manually tell it to
ballot for each draft = for a little while). I've avoided doing that
because it = *is* work, but would be happy to if there was interest.

Big thanks to Henrik and the tools team for making the = Datatracker
APIs (and the API key facility) that makes = this possible.

-Ekr


___________________________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

Please report datatracker.ietf.org and = mailarchive.ietf.org
bugs at = http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
or send email to = datatracker-project@ietf.org

Please report = tools.ietf.org bugs at
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issuesor send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org

= --Apple-Mail=_FC4E3E07-9804-4105-9958-2CF98132719C-- From nobody Thu May 31 13:28:22 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDD712FB9C for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:28:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hREtIZzF5Zaw for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot0-x22d.google.com (mail-ot0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D776013184F for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id g7-v6so26758820otj.11 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:28:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dlSDyRmKsKGI00Fao80DY0otvvV47Cn6+dj5kr/bxIE=; b=pu55OWuUo0032Tq9GUKohHaQJJ7opRNiSoX6dmWomaFlKIVtqUFr1xndPYtxFSltK0 r3XXAd+ZVmxDyCaN2VuX+iFTXxH5T/8/ymC5s8RlV7ST6/VEKIs0dwKOATzLwxobkhdz AP4z+7r4VcvYzsXghGVE91gLgYhG4UpW/zqy8yL4Rv8z+N+w9sKyH1MwPiT39Uw5xLbE qSOURG3DI/8RVQq7wOtk4nSv2muAtacGUlThg7nxztJFZVT/e+DaA6UeIZqs9Y8sVTHe eg5iWeYT8hDT8DUycrOKfVNRBzI57xV7NidGlxlzi2Nf3i+TI2BCr766IIBKYWiO3ito QHXw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dlSDyRmKsKGI00Fao80DY0otvvV47Cn6+dj5kr/bxIE=; b=ZipPfbZ3mEjA9V39Mbxwt6+lSmSjhurbS6W0QP1FIVb/wMzJVrCmZFFk8IEPJbUyh2 dogPWPDqyYQLCIXXdHhNDvQXzQf3M8YSL16gx6V9YQyttUM49ByayaYUp/9E+13pLcEK SaMMj+d7dRzDjcod0RxzlJTpwQUS80/dMoOPheeY9UMtPWB0+xY9fP3YsARNnjnKI92X iKHgidQLsA+KzaE5RoRjIMbnxmPw1shF/qBcq/jeR+kJpZeavQf8Nrogwwu1mJ5EJM7O oEAdIbM/x2MuF8LK/BRnhTDntkG2VzmR0LLLM/zi7XhV7zpOW7U798fS6wbf+tX0r93F FKkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwegeo4hVqBTnB0GkS7ITr9rYqZ7TKjZoQbM6VIVk4omYrK8uEfK i5gKK3Q4bAyhfBjlGvPX5QWTy5vshPw5fG5YgJmpJ5YO X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKL7GqnjARxgVTa1y4K5E7m7i8XJTRd/zSqMfjTjeWd7kajXHr4z8VP8zNzCa5wep9y9wxFwHqMv2GOxc5VOLew= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:42b0:: with SMTP id r45-v6mr5949004ote.44.1527798497128; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:28:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ac9:66:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:27:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3141C32A-E190-4DE8-9E6A-1462EFD0E47B@vigilsec.com> References: <3141C32A-E190-4DE8-9E6A-1462EFD0E47B@vigilsec.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 13:27:36 -0700 Message-ID: To: Russ Housley Cc: tools-discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b5c692056d864e58" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Reviewing with Phabricator (and Datatracker integration) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 20:28:21 -0000 --000000000000b5c692056d864e58 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > I would be interested in the experiences of other ADs. > I think Warren has spent a little time on it. I would like to know how easy it would be for Directorates and Review Teams > to leverage your work. > Understanding that would, I think, require understanding how those tools work. I don't have a real sense of how those tools work. I know Tero has some secdir stuff. Does everyone have their own thing? -Ekr Russ > > > On May 31, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I wanted to let the tools team know about the way I'm using > Phabricator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phabricator) and the new > Datatracker APIs to do my > AD and IESG. Phabricator's "Differential" tool is a code review > system that allows for: > > - Line-by-line reviews > - Status and comment tracking > - Reviewer assignment > - Differences between any two versions of a document, complete > with in-context display of comments > > The basic model I have is that I treat each draft as it if were a > submitted patch to the repository of all drafts, and then review it. I > find this lets me go through a draft relatively quickly, note issues, > then create a review, and then when a new version comes out, see how > the authors resolved them. In some cases, the authors make their own > Phabricator accounts and respond in comments (this is a better > experience for everyone) but even without that, it's been a pretty big > improvement in experience for me. > > > Here's an example of what this looks like on Phabricator: > > https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5132 > > And the corresponding (auto-generated) ballot: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-stunbis/ballot/ > > Sorry, you'll need to search, no anchors on this page. > > > I've developed a suite of tools to automate most of the work here: > > https://github.com/ekr/iphab > > > Roughly speaking, here's what they do: > > - Watch the draft repository and keep the list of revisions > (Phabricator's term for change lists). > > - Parse the telechat agenda and assign revisions to be reviewed > based on the documents on the agenda (Protocol Actions get > marked as "Blocking" and Document Actions as non-blocking). > > - When a review is finished, post it as a ballot in the datatracker > (using whether the revision was "accepted" or not to determine > how to ballot). It also automatically sorts comments in to > DISCUSS and COMMENT based on whether they are marked "IMPORTANT". > > - Alternatively, download reviews into a text file so you can > edit them, email, etc. > > > Right now, this is still a bit manual (I run the tools on my machine > before each telechat and you have to individually tell them to submit > the ballot) and only sort of works for > 1 person but if other people > were interested in trying Phabricator out, it would be pretty easy to > make it work for more than one person, and at least automate the > updating piece of it (you'd probably still have to manually tell it to > ballot for each draft for a little while). I've avoided doing that > because it *is* work, but would be happy to if there was interest. > > Big thanks to Henrik and the tools team for making the Datatracker > APIs (and the API key facility) that makes this possible. > > -Ekr > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > > Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org > bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb > or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org > > Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues > or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org > > > --000000000000b5c692056d864e58 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.co= m> wrote:
I would be interested in the experiences of other ADs.

I think Warren has spent a little time= on it.


<= div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
I would like to know how easy it wo= uld be for Directorates and Review Teams to leverage your work.
=

Understanding that would, I think, require= understanding how those tools work. I don't have a real sense of how t= hose tools work. I know Tero has some secdir stuff. Does everyone have thei= r own thing?

-Ekr

Russ

=

On May = 31, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

<= div dir=3D"ltr">=C2=A0I wanted to let the tools team know about the way I&#= 39;m using
Phabricator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phabricator)= and the new Datatracker APIs to do my
AD and IESG. Phabricator's &q= uot;Differential" tool is a code review
system that allows for:
=
- Line-by-line reviews
- Status and comment tracking
- Reviewer a= ssignment
- Differences between any two versions of a document, complete=
=C2=A0 with in-context display of comments

The basic model I hav= e is that I treat each draft as it if were a
submitted patch to the repo= sitory of all drafts, and then review it. I
find this lets me go through= a draft relatively quickly, note issues,
then create a review, and then= when a new version comes out, see how
the authors resolved them. In som= e cases, the authors make their own
Phabricator accounts and respond in = comments (this is a better
experience for everyone) but even without tha= t, it's been a pretty big
improvement in experience for me.

<= br>Here's an example of what this looks like on Phabricator:

=C2= =A0=C2=A0 https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5132
And the corresponding (auto-generated) ballot:

=C2=A0=C2=A0 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-stunbis= /ballot/

Sorry, you'll need to search, no anchors on th= is page.


I've developed a suite of tools to automate most of= the work here:

=C2=A0=C2=A0 https://github.com/ekr/iphab


Roughly spe= aking, here's what they do:

- Watch the draft repository and kee= p the list of revisions
=C2=A0 (Phabricator's term for change lists)= .

- Parse the telechat agenda and assign revisions to be reviewed=C2=A0 based on the documents on the agenda (Protocol Actions get
=C2= =A0 marked as "Blocking" and Document Actions as non-blocking).
- When a review is finished, post it as a ballot in the datatracker=C2=A0 (using whether the revision was "accepted" or not to det= ermine
=C2=A0 how to ballot). It also automatically sorts comments in to=
=C2=A0 DISCUSS and COMMENT based on whether they are marked "IMPOR= TANT".

- Alternatively, download reviews into a text file so yo= u can
=C2=A0 edit them, email, etc.


Right now, this is still = a bit manual (I run the tools on my machine
before each telechat and you= have to individually tell them to submit
the ballot) and only sort of w= orks for > 1 person but if other people
were interested in trying Pha= bricator out, it would be pretty easy to
make it work for more than one = person, and at least automate the
updating piece of it (you'd probab= ly still have to manually tell it to
ballot for each draft for a little = while). I've avoided doing that
because it *is* work, but would be h= appy to if there was interest.

Big thanks to Henrik and the tools te= am for making the Datatracker
APIs (and the API key facility) that makes= this possible.

-Ekr


___________________________________________________________
Tools-d= iscuss mailing list
Tools-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/<= wbr>listinfo/tools-discuss

Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
= bugs at ht= tp://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
or send email to datatracker-project@ie= tf.org

Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issuesor send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org


--000000000000b5c692056d864e58-- From nobody Thu May 31 13:43:09 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384E113170E for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:43:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zyvRZBm3QWkW for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C0E8132205 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A56300A16 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 16:42:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id oGPNRnzluW0r for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 16:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 130BF30057F; Thu, 31 May 2018 16:42:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ Housley Message-Id: <3EF35561-FCB9-449A-ABC4-8AC936267170@vigilsec.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8D4AE1D9-61C9-442C-A450-3EF714DE35C6" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 16:42:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: Cc: tools-discuss To: Eric Rescorla References: <3141C32A-E190-4DE8-9E6A-1462EFD0E47B@vigilsec.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Reviewing with Phabricator (and Datatracker integration) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 20:43:07 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8D4AE1D9-61C9-442C-A450-3EF714DE35C6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On May 31, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >=20 > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russ Housley > wrote: > I would be interested in the experiences of other ADs. >=20 > I think Warren has spent a little time on it. >=20 >=20 > I would like to know how easy it would be for Directorates and Review = Teams to leverage your work. >=20 > Understanding that would, I think, require understanding how those = tools work. I don't have a real sense of how those tools work. I know = Tero has some secdir stuff. Does everyone have their own thing? No. The datatracker supports all of the reviews in a manner similar to = ballots. The reviewer two options. First, the reviewer puts text into = a frame on a datatracker page, and then the datatracker turns it into = email. This is very similar to the way IESG ballots are handled. = Second, the reviewer sends his own email and give the datatracker the = URL into the mail archive. Your description makes me wonder if this tooling could work with an API = related to the first approach. Russ --Apple-Mail=_8D4AE1D9-61C9-442C-A450-3EF714DE35C6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On May 31, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> = wrote:

On Thu, = May 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
I would be interested in the = experiences of other ADs.

I think Warren has spent a little time = on it.


I would like = to know how easy it would be for Directorates and Review Teams to = leverage your work.

Understanding that would, I think, = require understanding how those tools work. I don't have a real sense of = how those tools work. I know Tero has some secdir stuff. Does everyone = have their own thing?

No.  The datatracker supports all of the reviews = in a manner similar to ballots.  The reviewer two options. =  First, the reviewer puts text into a frame on a datatracker page, = and then the datatracker turns it into email.  This is very similar = to the way IESG ballots are handled.  Second, the reviewer sends = his own email and give the datatracker the URL into the mail = archive.

Your description makes me = wonder if this tooling could work with an API related to the first = approach.

Russ

= --Apple-Mail=_8D4AE1D9-61C9-442C-A450-3EF714DE35C6-- From nobody Thu May 31 14:00:14 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A8412FC17 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 14:00:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lHSUT8tV_Utd for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 14:00:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E81313192B for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 14:00:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f79-v6so6768490oib.7 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 14:00:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QJOrcdhRdcR6pCZKS+zJMieB0wiQWZRzB5edHfLVYZE=; b=Zd+z5tCKWQ3QOgjC82fQjkGUyATdmkhSVs0dbujfp0R5SEIZMhTp2Ww+FX3ilr4Bni w6eBWN0lSUSHSUANCFCOOSjm5WZQ6jU7HvBijb3gbNCc3lM+6jT6f8ljgiPru+k1OhxR 0emCgQt218xA5WBJ6lHK/hQGIGSNjzy2oLLXfqPWdiLyMCwtpzSoqeBcY5j3nEDIsbNN hT6+dnSS1yPYXm5G4hbKINVE5PPc6cnNNXBVuy8bSjieaiuTcy2QaWLJv8Xlr2jZk+Ot 704mc1GqSNIfSFDODhLa6Z4pXIBXPTvZuV9U/ELuUm0w2RP5newrn5Z967UIlpr+JEYg uu5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QJOrcdhRdcR6pCZKS+zJMieB0wiQWZRzB5edHfLVYZE=; b=NZxaIGnsV5aOuezpO32x1cgIPkEjlVYs5G69ldP+Hu5/TCKIlkJnWMsXZwSoHRpnnU eotyQM3KV81KSlNt0eMX3GT7x2zJE/Lz61o4FBjyjMlZKg5sF5+yUGWNJK1OYc6JVqlb x+pKZv9PKI1YIuiUmFVAP4QtrDYmljwU+oMaA/aKT1pbwaaQQRlktXpoQQR+5wVRHoFx aXHImAE9Vg7SJISoOALVLOqbxBCF8ZqYNL+JCfcvjO+Ev/jLgzqC++AqNFJ/5IOtaJoN h8CaKLZosWqs+6BfoFJOc7W9K/foSflRDxooP4aa4QVlo/wjZ2ebJWtGPg+XIemGpuiK XuWA== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2uwLnl/1nSXyVDLqvqMOqKaB/TlGuUwD9HPCSkuOKyVdY1Eyib kHqBdDbGvtr56ryT8fgkLr2YyflE9VEvsfyHwNNv9g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJruAwZ34qW6hrKLYCe8QbAwU1Ind/5qn2XLLi0dvPMvr0WqotgC3U3uz3ZjBBvsni1B6AMz+XYcU3Q1ALB9X0= X-Received: by 2002:aca:4f0d:: with SMTP id d13-v6mr4566972oib.138.1527800407828; Thu, 31 May 2018 14:00:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ac9:66:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2018 13:59:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3EF35561-FCB9-449A-ABC4-8AC936267170@vigilsec.com> References: <3141C32A-E190-4DE8-9E6A-1462EFD0E47B@vigilsec.com> <3EF35561-FCB9-449A-ABC4-8AC936267170@vigilsec.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 13:59:27 -0700 Message-ID: To: Russ Housley Cc: tools-discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000098bfcc056d86c017" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Reviewing with Phabricator (and Datatracker integration) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 21:00:12 -0000 --00000000000098bfcc056d86c017 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > > On May 31, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russ Housley > wrote: > >> I would be interested in the experiences of other ADs. >> > > I think Warren has spent a little time on it. > > > I would like to know how easy it would be for Directorates and Review >> Teams to leverage your work. >> > > Understanding that would, I think, require understanding how those tools > work. I don't have a real sense of how those tools work. I know Tero has > some secdir stuff. Does everyone have their own thing? > > > No. The datatracker supports all of the reviews in a manner similar to > ballots. The reviewer two options. First, the reviewer puts text into a > frame on a datatracker page, and then the datatracker turns it into email. > This is very similar to the way IESG ballots are handled. Second, the > reviewer sends his own email and give the datatracker the URL into the mail > archive. > > Your description makes me wonder if this tooling could work with an API > related to the first approach. > I think it would, yes. -Ekr > Russ > > --00000000000098bfcc056d86c017 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com= > wrote:

= On May 31, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 31,= 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wr= ote:
= I would be interested in the experiences of other ADs.

I think Warren has spent a little time on it.
<= br>

I would like to know how easy it would be for Director= ates and Review Teams to leverage your work.
<= br>
Understanding that would, I think, require understanding how = those tools work. I don't have a real sense of how those tools work. I = know Tero has some secdir stuff. Does everyone have their own thing?

No.=C2=A0 The= datatracker supports all of the reviews in a manner similar to ballots.=C2= =A0 The reviewer two options.=C2=A0 First, the reviewer puts text into a fr= ame on a datatracker page, and then the datatracker turns it into email.=C2= =A0 This is very similar to the way IESG ballots are handled.=C2=A0 Second,= the reviewer sends his own email and give the datatracker the URL into the= mail archive.

Your description makes me wonder if= this tooling could work with an API related to the first approach.

I think it would, yes.
<= br>
-Ekr


Russ


--00000000000098bfcc056d86c017--