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

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Fri, 08 February 2019 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.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 96180128766 for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:29:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.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 gpInYDmywDxt for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 20C931200ED for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([47.186.39.7]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x18HTRSV004258 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:29:28 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1549646968; bh=wKn2LkADldM9G+k7sVrQba8xVTu6C7L4f0LjRodv1z0=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=azfMpiN40vQ0epq4Gz7JXqWC/8dzmeVh0aVwhadeus8QOF3USTpnI48+01mNRq5eK 4JPj375Vf7NngoDbMQL8+ybdxjGjHzKyilZLsyGj6nFamTvb4k4T9aSfTiAWWPTPKQ TkLeboMIOTRvyS58K5gG10VWyvsB58J+Mu1J9ogA=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.39.7] claimed to be unescapeable.local
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: IETF Tools Development <tools-development@ietf.org>
References: <6f07a810-b829-9f8c-32be-edc0db92a016@nostrum.com> <CABcZeBN15BBYv9vhN4cJp1QyLVV6DNRf74718k592ucCTwfd-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <5e4296d8-6e6d-d023-639e-c10baeac4fec@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:29:27 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBN15BBYv9vhN4cJp1QyLVV6DNRf74718k592ucCTwfd-A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------68974FA22AAA648C4AEE1AEC"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-development/8szv0PPzKiAuIv6-IC4rB6hE_uo>
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 17:29:31 -0000

On 2/8/19 11:20 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 8:51 AM Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com 
> <mailto: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.
>
>     # 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.
>
> -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>.
>
>     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 <mailto:TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development
>