Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Notes for 12Feb tools call

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 08 February 2019 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AF21294FA for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:41:35 -0800 (PST)
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, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 Zgc3DcTBTY5u for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:41:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (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 609FB129741 for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:41:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g11-v6so3734745ljk.3 for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 09:41:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fK3xZmin3ufeYuKtCRyDUpRooyavrauDpFFfMgnEavg=; b=YTCcZSC5qaaOKQoRYKFDQJ5Si5IvbdbSYJ8d22YntPugDzExm8ZTNdC8BUrHeI9jCd QSE2y82Xs6ONgiVcpdeCy6UrOn33eI2p08zfJ3Ku+GfOjJ5QKAtPWnUhkUPm5Y/K5dXl +6tT9gdA7EDzlJz5qW4pdBb6i8Y/gISwAqR+Y5sChyfXMcA3Qom5EUcPAKUtHhlt+m0p Fwa1fe4/9oYwfTk7+ePyQdZRiUbRVq9s3oghJy52BDFlt93R4Nxbh2vZCwp+BsYfdAoi SIqrIi0MHxnsIOLYu2q1IXWW8n1Lr5AnGgSahN3FBojpU77Dq260YAgTJDv6KC7c0/T7 pQZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fK3xZmin3ufeYuKtCRyDUpRooyavrauDpFFfMgnEavg=; b=tLvkYrvRRESIqU3Xd18TNESNo59UPB9njLNH0QmpPf5Ny4dT9B34tRlWpw8aDKb40x HtBBxm7xSWp5u/XBl4Y43gCykQE857nx31yBEus4rZIgMsuTqPGlZREd8sxNMM1yQEdP z1djjw3dqb7FkN1OuLRt3gm6qV0eCn1rmnbNyAz02alP7oiywmDD08/7FV9CDxKJcWWP MiVrLe2Yvdk1rJ9arIHq4Y+A63DAV+5CbkO0Ux+4iwpfI0qHchqm2ZmSbFI+4rRgoeJE HiEMNorpP189w/ny6OTepd8LU56nELOOMSahETCc1BN6gQqfLSiRC1b6axUtk3vOGd6t PitA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZPpPmStuwsmQeiOu8G2q+ShLQqRTFCwTuuVULFcW+e/a4b9gdh GTX0z3I2I24tWRqC8ONhw+6i06Lor0XKqJ4XGZHwCg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbWCrnlB3aNg6zNXhC+Xt+r6hUgxdz+Vp9TNe6eRjBzRLFuLA53twHlZpWPz/FLwsOAGX3n2Up8ibON/tlzDrI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a202:: with SMTP id h2-v6mr14074232ljm.72.1549647689998; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 09:41:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6f07a810-b829-9f8c-32be-edc0db92a016@nostrum.com> <CABcZeBN15BBYv9vhN4cJp1QyLVV6DNRf74718k592ucCTwfd-A@mail.gmail.com> <5e4296d8-6e6d-d023-639e-c10baeac4fec@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5e4296d8-6e6d-d023-639e-c10baeac4fec@nostrum.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:40:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBM9uAGNHqyWPa1Mz810oD83D1pRNMn_TA+ZAzFKZuadYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Cc: IETF Tools Development <tools-development@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000017002705816578c8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-development/61S2N4LdFMXW-2arFtK9cOajvo8>
Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Notes for 12Feb tools call
X-BeenThere: tools-development@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development list server <tools-development.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-development/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-development@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 17:41:36 -0000

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 9:29 AM Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:

>
> On 2/8/19 11:20 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 8:51 AM Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> # IETF Website #
>>
>> Torchbox has completed their last major deliverable (upgrading the
>> website to a more modern version of wagtail). There are a small number
>> of tickets related to documentation and requests for information we
>> should have before shifting the code into our own public code
>> repository. Note that the wagtail project continues to issue new
>> releases. The project with torchbox brought us to wagtail 2.2.2. The
>> current release now is 2.4.
>>
>> However, we are blocked on deploying this latest deliverable. The way we
>> are serving python applications via Apache right now (mod_wsgi) only
>> allows the use of one version of python. Many of our applications are on
>> Python 2.7 right now. This includes the datatracker and the mailarchive.
>> Wagtail, on the other hand, dropped support for python 2.7 at Wagtail
>> 2.0. Waiting until we have all exisiting deployed applications ported to
>> python 3 to deploy the deliverable from Torchbox is exceedingly
>> suboptimal. It will delay the current plan for the tools-team to take
>> over maintenance of the website code and start adding features the
>> secretariat has asked for. We've started conversations about what other
>> options we have besides waiting for everything to be ported to python 3.
>>
>
> Why does the version of datatracker impact the version of Wagtail we run?
> They seem to be on different hosts, so can't they run different versions of
> Python?
>
> They are currently served from the same machine, even if they have
> different hostnames.
>

This seems like a good opportunity to move one to a different machine, or
better yet, to some system (containers?) where hardware assignment doesn't
matter.



> # Yangcatalog #
>>
>> We've shifted the plan for short-term deployment and development to
>> occur using the existing externally hosted server.
>>
>
> Can you provide some more background for this? Why can't this be moved to
> an IETF server (or IETF-managed cloud)
>
> There were some difficulties trying to move this to an IETF server given
> the current level of access to internals (shell access to the machine)
> required by the application. Eric and the developers were experiencing
> connectivity problems that couldn't be reproduced from other locations, and
> it appears some trouble with outbound connections that Glen's team couldn't
> isolate. The goal is _definitely_ to be where we could deploy anywhere. The
> first task in the outstanding SoW includes the work needed to get the
> project to the point that shell access isn't required by the developers or
> application expert. It will also improve release packaging to make
> deploying wherever more feasible.''
>

Hmm.... So my instinct here would be to hold off on doing anything else
until that's happened. Alissa, WDYT?

-Ekr


> -Ekr
>
> The meeting application improvement SoW is essentially ready to issue.
>>
>> I have text from Ekr to work into the RPC security code review SoW. The
>> RPC has asked that we hold off issuing that RFP until some changes
>> related to the new format are better integrated into their repository so
>> that the review focuses more on the code that will actually be used.
>>
>> The Inline-Errata SoW is still under review and has several unresolved
>> comments. The lastest version is at
>> <
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T-6eBrNPC7aIxOTChdIZE7fecbxUJ7kq-F6RhyCNUGI/edit>gt;.
>>
>> One of the major observations in the comments is that this project is
>> focusing on the existing (old-format) publication format, and is not
>> targetting or taking advantage of the new format in any way. That's
>> intentional. We need to have some run-time experience with the new
>> format before we can sensibly ask a contractor to work on inlining
>> errata into it. We plan to learn from this project, and apply what we
>> learn into the new format with a future project.
>>
>> The next SoW to be developed is for IANA expert review tracking.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development
>>
>