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

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 2/12/19 8:19 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 8, 2019, at 12:40 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 9:29 AM Robert Sparks <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On 2/8/19 11:20 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 8:51 AM Robert Sparks
>>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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?
>
> I think that sounds like what the SOW calls for.
That's what I'm expecting of it too.
> Alissa
>
>>
>> -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>.
>>>         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
>>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development
>