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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 08 February 2019 17:20 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 E842712867A for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:20:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 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] 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 u34WpM4so8iG for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:20:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (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 5861A1200ED for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:20:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id p6so3127492lfc.1 for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 09:20:42 -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=frv2KHj6Zb8to5WuhtIW6by85J/0+EjpN3qP8avnCD8=; b=Sjgno/C3DAnDpo/otXg0jJGH0yF/ljm8tyZrA7RG3vG7ltGS5MW/BNnBizlFjSTdAR NjaBGy97VbqIbvOD02SZGgB1QzNp610gOItdVJJab3rIOUTsucmaqGZb41kUF1XcrILa iDJ04DUenJEg8XFPh9IBsiqwb/cLoKygtGuuCR9rMVS2hOGZmSbBAm2JpH8YLcYRRPUt LNJ9SqwHDdGxiXXT0iQmCvsGo0YqhA3XZqF885Gbcfo3aDWHVw3pQLI48lNNOyWph60i leqQyDbfh2nOnVkiiI9I8cLNYgCazBYdLxFG2XAJpFB/GCYxY+BD84l7/uWe31MUbk2o 3alw==
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=frv2KHj6Zb8to5WuhtIW6by85J/0+EjpN3qP8avnCD8=; b=lx2Vmro424Z9/EnyHXKjv+kfz+I4seqEUqt6ViTDQrpFeLBhMQJq48pGDpYTORunih q8j0uvCTf0zCEShUPWdCe0r23V2TSzGA6odJBQDKkkDdOmcJVpSszd5HZc9fcoP8ABVZ gziVuWI44Z16rwxLbFpcXgEt3424bfozy9wUdf0qbDO0qACN7NDtN1BqM5hi4b8YyfeH 3q3kKYz/37w+T+aXv/JWANdhgQbBULF5J2t09O0FxN5/q6SdJmq29KV9WYtgbvGWbGz8 Tfrm04coN/QAmWP8E0bHkvvq+VVKk87NaR4uUD7OI8KPjxQJWWZpMAPlAiFtW3ikEFA2 SaKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYzJAL21JTvfSo3EqVyj5k8qzopK/0Le9tS8xd3WhBEGZPc/W/Y CESnV9sa/pu2PX37wW9DOYvjiwD5nfP1xTgaWesYeA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYfmMXCza2p6zz9JAMwT40A38xBfoCOlo084emG8ZMlPXJxx2dYmotQ23DxS3ctdD/rHP3o9m46bZoO6+8bbv0=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:6a05:: with SMTP id u5mr15224896lfu.123.1549646439858; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 09:20:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6f07a810-b829-9f8c-32be-edc0db92a016@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <6f07a810-b829-9f8c-32be-edc0db92a016@nostrum.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:20:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBN15BBYv9vhN4cJp1QyLVV6DNRf74718k592ucCTwfd-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Cc: IETF Tools Development <tools-development@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009361900581652d85"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-development/CkeXuZGOaPIoPtgPnZjISIAmbLI>
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 17:20:46 -0000

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?



> # 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)

-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
>