Re: [Tools-discuss] Updated survey (was: Proposed survey on I-D authoring tools)

["Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]>]

I think it will be useful to know this kind of stuff, and folks must recognize it's a "point in time" status.

I worry about how long it will take to do the survey, but c'est la vie.

On 10/1/20, 1:09 PM, "Jay Daley" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    The updated survey is below.  Please note that 

    - this doesn’t show the links
    - I am still not sure how to point people to their Datatracker stats page
    - the flow logic may change when the survey is tested.

    Further feedback is most welcome.

    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 xml2rfc-xxe editor plugin
    	• XML using xml2rfc to create plain text for submission
    	• 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 the lyx2rfc editor plugin
    	• TeX / LaTeX using a different output process
    	• nroff using the Nroff Edit editor
    	• nroff using nroff2xml template
    	• nroff using a different output process
    	• .doc/.docx using Joe Touch’s Word Template (RFC5385)
    	• .doc/.docx using a different output process (This means specifically using rich text styles that a template/convertor will recognise)
    	• 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 of my document chose for me
    	• The I-D I wanted to contribute to was already drafted in one of these tools
    	• Someone else helped me set up my 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_tools_templates_&d=DwIGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=xVHNxz6VGHMvSCNgEu_8tuBVqta0NSRyqdqKWHi40mo&s=DSnQGm6Hyl9_OfYe6k4icoHs57aG-7m1z883qZRIVYM&e=  
    	• 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 do you use the following checking tools? (Ignore any you don’t know about)
    Items
    	• I validate against the RelaxNG schema for the RFC XML in my XML editor 
    	• Bill’s ABNF parser to check ABNF
    	• idnits to check a draft before submission 
    	• idspell to check a draft for spelling errors
    	• pyang to check YANG modules
    	• RFC dependency checker
    	• rfcdiff to find diffs between versions of drafts
    	• SMICng to check MIBs
    	• smilint to check MIBs
    	• svgcheck to check a draft for SVG schema compliance 
    	• xml2rfc validator to validate RFC XML
    	• YANG validator to check YANG modules
    Scale
    	• Always
    	• Very often
    	• Sometimes
    	• Rarely
    	• Never [Ensure this is scored as 0]

    [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
    How often do you use the following conversion 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
    	• rfc2629xslt to convert RFC XML to another format
    	• xml2rfc to convert RFC XML to another format
    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 
    	• Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]

    [QUESTION - Multiple Choice]
    Do you run an automated build process?
    	• Yes - I-D Template
    	• Yes - Using GitHub CI/CD
    	• Yes - Using Gitlab CI/CD
    	• Yes - Using Jenkins
    	• Yes - Using CircleCI
    	• Yes - Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
    	• No


    [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
    	• Integration with version control systems
    	• 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
    	• Integration with version control systems
    	• 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
    	• Plain text
    	• Markdown
    	• XML
    	• nroff
    	• AsciiDoc
    	• Some form of WYSIWYG (e.g. MS Word or LibreOffice)
    	• 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?

    -- 
    Jay Daley
    IETF Executive Director
    [e-mail]

    ___________________________________________________________
    Tools-discuss mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_tools-2Ddiscuss&d=DwIGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=xVHNxz6VGHMvSCNgEu_8tuBVqta0NSRyqdqKWHi40mo&s=IClP4a41N1JspVd_SfEh2fZUdJ0sZGo86bjQaPPWsfE&e= 

    Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
    bugs at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tools.ietf.org_tools_ietfdb&d=DwIGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=xVHNxz6VGHMvSCNgEu_8tuBVqta0NSRyqdqKWHi40mo&s=i5rznLdvxJkg5w8D-bVLZ8y7-yi7o2X3opal9vPIlOE&e= 
    or send email to [e-mail]

    Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tools.ietf.org_tools_issues&d=DwIGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=xVHNxz6VGHMvSCNgEu_8tuBVqta0NSRyqdqKWHi40mo&s=63Mz1exu5UWe_yZecJIBR0XSFuZeFruwNhEjH8PjKbM&e= 
    or send email to [e-mail]