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, 1 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