Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Tools Call Agenda -- 4 December 2018 at 1:00 Eastern

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

Notes to help with efficiency on the call:

On 12/2/18 4:48 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Tools Call Agenda -- 4 December 2018 at 1:00 Eastern
>
>
> JOIN WEBEX MEETING
> https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m440dd848726339c03e605b9956e38bac
> Meeting number (access code): 640 103 570
> Meeting password: tools
>
> JOIN BY PHONE
> 1-877-668-4493 Call-in toll free number (US/Canada)
> 1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
> Meeting number (access code): 640 103 570
> Meeting password: tools
>
>
> 1. Datatracker Projects
>     - Expected Datatracker Releases -- Robert and Henrik
>       -- http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/wiki/MergePlan

There was an issue related to the gdpr deletions that required careful 
reconstruction of some data, and the most recent release adds two 
management commands to make that kind of reconstruction easier going 
forward.

Before the issue was addressed, Stewart Bryant asked why we had so many 
RFCs showing 0 authors on ietf general (at the time he saw 1929 such 
RFCs). That number is still large post repair at 1158. This is because 
the purpose of the datatracker's dataset was not initially to provide 
correct history to the beginning of time. The state of what the 
datatracker knows for authors is poor for RFCs before about RFC 3000. 
Curating that data into something we believe is correct will be 
manual-labor intensive, and there will be a large number of cases where 
there is not going to be a right answer for who to list as authors. See 
RFC2319 and RFC2134 for examples. We have known about this for some 
time, and working to improve it has not been prioritized. Perhaps the 
exposure of the data through the statistics should make it a higher 
priority, or perhaps not. Making sure the datatracker assists with the 
current workflows is, in my opinion, more important to focus on. But, as 
long as the data is imprecise, we should probably _say_ somewhere on the 
statistics pages that we know data is imprecise for older documents.

This same problem exists for old drafts, and addressing that will be 
_much_ more difficult.

>
> 2. Community & Other Projects
>     - Discontinue MonArch email archives -- Robert and Ryan

Since the second announcement of intent to discontinue the mhonarc 
archives sent Nov 26, we've received three notable bits of feedback.

1) The mailarch application serves the plaintext version of a message 
archived in multipart mime. Sometimes quoting in the plaintext version 
is broken when the html version is not. We could discuss serving a 
cleaned HTML version, but note that mhonarc itself pushed a new release 
recently to deal with security issues in their HTML rendering (their 
solution was to render the plaintext version instead). (Benjamin Kaduk)

2) We have a report that rendering in IE8 is not what is expected (Tom 
Petch)

3) It was noted that you can export messages in maildir or mbox so that 
you can look at whatever multipart piece you wished, or to process the 
messages in a way that avoided screen-scraping the HTML the mailarch 
application provides, but we currently only allow exporting when you are 
logged in (a restriction we have in place now due to concern of the 
performance hits of multiple anonymous large exports). Making it 
possible to export a small number of messages without being logged in 
might be worthwhile (Rich Salz and Daniel Kahn Gillmor)


>
> 3. RFC Services Projects
>     - RFC Format Contracts -- Heather and Robert
>       -- IDnits
>       -- Publication Formatter
>       -- Text Submission
>       -- RFClint
>       -- SVGcheck
>       -- XMLdiff
I don't think there's anything new to report here since the call two 
weeks ago.
>
> 4. Server Infrastructure
>     - IESG discussions of DMARC -- Henrik and Alexey
>       -- Is there any status on ARC?
>
> 5. YANG Catalog
>     - Progress on Feature Additions -- Eric
>     - Gathering Requirements for Future Additions -- Eric
>     - Transfer yangcatalog.org to the IETF Trust -- Eric
>
> 6. Parking Lot
>     - Prepare the RFC Production Center code for publication
>
> 7. AOB
I sent a draft SoW for improvements to the meeting application out at 
the end of last week. It would be good to get reviews, especially from 
the secretariat.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development