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

Ah, got it. I don't believe that I made a request for this report myself but I can say that we've been asked to provide this data in the past, and we have to manually tabulate it. So, insofar as the IESG (or others) may be curious about the number of requested sessions, sessions that met, number of BoFs, etc. in the future, the Secretariat would find it useful to have this information generated automatically rather than manually.

Alexa

> On Feb 12, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> I just forwarded the message to you directly
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Feb 12, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Alexa Morris <amorris@amsl.com <mailto:amorris@amsl.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Apologies, I don’t remember this question. Can anyone remind me so that I can make sure I don’t hold up progress on this today?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alexa
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Feb 12, 2019, at 7:03 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Russ, could we add discussion of this to today’s agenda?
>>> 
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 12, 2019, at 9:54 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Attached.
>>>> 
>>>> The report you mention is still in the text. The last I remember on the discussion of it was an outstanding question to Alexa.
>>>> 
>>>> RjS
>>>> 
>>>> On 2/12/19 8:09 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2019, at 11:51 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> # RFPs #
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ## Open / Out for Bid ##
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The yangcatalog RFP is currently out for bid. Responses are due today (8Feb).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ## In Development ##
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The meeting application improvement SoW is essentially ready to issue.
>>>>> Could you circulate the latest version? I had a question about the report generated for the IESG and I don’t think a final answer made it to the list.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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 <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 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>
>>>> <sow_2019_meeting_v3.pdf><sow_2019_meeting_v3.docx>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
>>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org <mailto:TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>