Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-D authoring tools
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 01 October 2020 07:43 UTC
Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EA53A0DEB; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hTft9rxOShLV; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B74C3A0DE9; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [124.104.122.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C01631F980; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 09:43:29 +0200 (CEST)
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, Tools Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <71CCD4C4-2CBA-4AD3-A254-2F19B261D882@ietf.org>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <19f2fc69-b31c-62e5-9a46-4cfc299d6f84@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:42:47 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <71CCD4C4-2CBA-4AD3-A254-2F19B261D882@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/0fuLPnKwNJo36GDJhAd6lHrDDkM>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-D authoring tools
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 07:43:36 -0000
Jay, while I can understand that it is "a good thing" to understand what formats and tools is used to author I-Ds, it does not fully answer the question why this survey is done. Once we know "formats and tools" what will this be used for? /Loa On 30/09/2020 10:58, Jay Daley wrote: > We are planning to send out a survey on I-D authoring tools to authors and wider to provide information for a number of groups including RSOC, Tools Team, Tools Architecture and Strategy Team, and the LLC. The proposed question plan is below and we would welcome any feedback. In particular: > > - are all the important questions asked? > - are all the key tools / processes mentioned? > - is the language clear including for those for whom English is not their first language? > > thanks in advance > Jay > > > # Question Plan > > [PAGE] > Introduction > > [HELPTEXT] > Thank you for taking part in this survey. This survey has been sent to everyone who has authored an Internet-Draft (I-D) in the last five years and is open to anyone who has ever authored an I-D. > > We are hoping to understand what formats and tools you use to author I-Ds, from drafting to submission. > > In particular, we are hoping to find out more about the use (or non-use) of the v3 XML format for I-Ds, which became the publication format for RFCs on 16 September 2019. > > [QUESTION - Multiple Choice] > Approximately, how many I-Ds have you authored in total (different I-Ds not versions of the same I-D)? > If you need a reminder then your Datatracker page will have the details. > • 0 > • 1-5 > • 6-10 > • 11-20 > • 21-50 > • 51+ > > [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale] > Approximately, how many times have you submitted a draft (both a new draft and a new version) to the Datatracker? > Items > • 0 > • 1-10 > • 11-20 > • 21-50 > • 50-100 > • 101+ > Scale > • In total > • Last 2 years (Since September 2018) > • Last year (since September 2019) > > [QUESTION - Multiple Choice] > How many RFCs have you authored? > • 0 > • 1-5 > • 6-10 > • 11-20 > • 21-50 > • 51+ > > > [PAGE] > Drafting to submission > > [LOGIC] > Only get here if they have authored an I-D. > > [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale] > How often have you used the following document format(s) and associated output process(es) (editor/template/converter) when authoring an I-D? (Ignore any you don’t know about) > Items > • Plain text using no markup > • Plain text using a different output process > • Markdown using the kramdown-rfc2629 converter > • Markdown using the mmark converter > • Markdown using the draftr converter > • Markdown using the Pandoc2rfc converter > • Markdown using a different output process > • XML using the XMLMind editor and xml2rfc-xxe > • XML using a different output process > • AsciiDoc using the metanorma-ietf (formerly known as asciidoctor-rfc) converter > • AsciiDoc using a different output process > • TeX / LaTeX using Lyx editor and lyx2rfc > • TeX / LaTeX using a different output process > • nroff using the Nroff Edit editor > • nroff using nroff2xml template > • nroff using a different output process > • Microsoft Word rich text using Joe Touch’s Word Template (RFC5385) > • Microsoft Word rich text using a different output process (This means specifically using rich text styles that a template/convertor will recognise, it does not mean using this an editor for one of the other formats) > • Other format (Only use this option if you author in a different format to all of those above) [PLEASE SPECIFY what format you author in and what output process you use] > Scale > • Always > • Very often > • Sometimes > • Rarely > • Never [Ensure this is scored as 0] > > [QUESTION - Comment Box] > If you answered “a different output process” in the question above then please specify what it is? > > [QUESTION - Checkboxes] > How did you choose the document format(s) and associated output process(es) that you use? (Check all that apply) > • I researched the tools > • I decided on my authoring format first and then chose a tool that uses that > • I saw a presentation on one of the tools at an IETF meeting > • Another author chose for me > • The I-D I wanted to contribute to was already drafted in one of these tools > • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY] > > [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale] > How often have you used the following template(s) when drafting an I-D? (Ignore any you don’t know about) > Items > • A copy of a previous I-D / RFC > • A template from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/ > • A template that came with my chosen authoring tool/process > • My own > • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY] > Scale > • Always > • Very often > • Sometimes > • Rarely > • Never [Ensure this is scored as 0] > > [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale] > How often have you used the following additional authoring tools? (Ignore any you don’t know about) > Items > • bibtext2rfc to convert bibtext citations into bibxml references > • bibxml2md to convert bibxml references into markdown > • Doublespace tool to change spacing between sentences to two spaces > • id2xml to convert a plain text I-D into XML > • idnits to check a draft before submission > • idspell to check a draft for spelling errors > • rfc2629xslt to convert RFC XML into another output format > • RFC dependency checker > • rfcdiff to find diffs between versions of drafts > • svgcheck to check a draft for SVG schema compliance > • xml2rfc validator to validate RFC XML > Scale > • Always > • Very often > • Sometimes > • Rarely > • Never [Ensure this is scored as 0] > > [QUESTION - Checkboxes] > How do you run your tools? (Check all that apply) > • Locally > • On a private hosted server > • On an IETF public web service > • On a third-party public web service > • Using CI/CD with GitHub > • Using CI/CD with Gitlab > • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY] > > > [PAGE] > XML v3 > > [QUESTION - Multiple Choice] > How do you rate your knowledge of the v3 official RFC/I-D XML format? > • Excellent > • Good > • Fair > • Poor > • None > > [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale] > How satisfied are you with the following characteristics of the v3 XML format? > Items > • Ease of use > • Features > • Documentation > • Tools support > • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY] > Scale > • Very satisfied > • Satisfied > • Neutral > • Dissatisfied > • Very dissatisfied > • N/A > > [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale] > How important are the following characteristics of the v3 XML format to you? > Items > • Ease of use > • Features > • Documentation > • Tools support > • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY] > Scale > • Very important > • Important > • Neutral > • Unimportant > • Very unimportant > • N/A > > [QUESTION - Comment Box] > What more needs to be done to support the rollout of the v3 XML format? > > > [PAGE] > State of the current authoring tools landscape > > [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale] > How satisfied are you with the following characteristics of authoring tools? > Items > • Ease of use > • Integration with IETF processes > • Support for the full range of tags / metadata > • Control of output > • Support of various output formats > • Speed at which new features are added > • Overall quality > • Choice of different tools > • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY] > Scale > • Very satisfied > • Satisfied > • Neutral > • Dissatisfied > • Very dissatisfied > • N/A > > [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale] > How Important are the following characteristics of authoring tools to you? > Items > • Ease of use > • Integration with IETF processes > • Support for the full range of tags / metadata > • Control of output > • Support of various output formats > • Speed at which new features are added > • Overall quality > • Choice of different tools > • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY] > Scale > • Very important > • Important > • Neutral > • Not important > • Not at all important > • N/A > > [QUESTION - Multiple Choice] > Should the IETF invest in a new, modern toolchain for authoring drafts? > • Strongly agree > • Agree > • Neutral > • Disagree > • Strongly disagree > > [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale] > How important is it for you for any new tool to support the following authoring formats? > Items > • Markdown > • XML > • WYSIWYG > • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY] > Scale > • Very important > • Important > • Neutral > • Not important > • Not at all important > • N/A > > [QUESTION - Comment Box] > Do you have any more feedback on authoring tools and formats? > > > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@gmail.com Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [Tools-discuss] Proposed survey on I-D authoring … Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Dan York
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Proposed survey on I-D author… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Proposed survey on I-D author… worley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- [Tools-discuss] Updated survey (was: Proposed sur… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Updated survey (was: Proposed… Salz, Rich
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Updated survey (was: Proposed… Warren Kumari
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Updated survey (was: Proposed… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Ronald Tse
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… tom petch
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Updated survey (was: Proposed… Warren Kumari
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Ronald Tse
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-… Ronald Tse
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Updated survey (was: Proposed… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Updated survey (was: Proposed… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Updated survey (was: Proposed… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Updated survey (was: Proposed… Jay Daley