Re: [Tools-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Wed, 11 May 2005 10:30 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DVoUN-0000ba-Ug; Wed, 11 May 2005 06:30:51 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DVoUM-0000bV-Bw for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 11 May 2005 06:30:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20402 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2005 06:30:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mtagate4.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DVojq-0006Hh-6U for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 11 May 2005 06:46:51 -0400
Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate4.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j4BAUb78231368 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2005 10:30:38 GMT
Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j4BAUbgF243620 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2005 11:30:37 +0100
Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4BAUbFZ013651 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2005 11:30:37 +0100
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4BAUaxl013641; Wed, 11 May 2005 11:30:36 +0100
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-217-161.de.ibm.com [9.146.217.161]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA92368; Wed, 11 May 2005 12:30:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4281DEC3.6030107@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:30:27 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthew Elvey <matthew@elvey.com>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt
References: <428126DA.20207@elvey.com>
In-Reply-To: <428126DA.20207@elvey.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/tools-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org

Yes, we did a rough survey, and XML was the preferred format by
a substantial majority, with a decent minority still using nroff,
and most of the rest assumed to be using Word.

BTW team, when can I expect a -09 draft to submit to the IESG?
Progress would be good.

    Brian

Matthew Elvey wrote:
> Sorry for the late comments, but it seems another round is in process 
> anyway...apologies for any duplicates.
> 
> Having given this a couple reads, most of my concerns were addressed.  
> Compression is IMO a silly feature, but its implementation is optional, 
> so that's OK. (And I wonder if HTTP 1.1 doesn't support compressed POSTs.)
> 
> I  still wonder if anyone has done a survey (formal or anecdotal 
> guesstimate) to determine what format drafts are created in (i.e. source 
> format) these days. Even though the RFC Editors reportedly* don't use  
> nroff/troff any more, it seems quite popular, and justifiably 
> preferred** by some users who've tried both.  I suppose they can 
> continue to submit drafts the old way, if they're just a vocal small 
> minority.
> 
> *http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/msg00280.html
> **http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/msg00301.html
> 
> Does the draft take into account that it is probably much easier for the 
> Secretariat to convert a document from one format to another (especially 
> given appropriate instructions or better yet standard procedure 
> regarding use of existing tools) than it is to compare two documents to 
> confirm that they are not substantially different?  Or am I mistaken?
> 
> Should one of the validation steps be approval (a good score from) an 
> anti-spam system such as SpamAssassin?  I guess this can be a feature 
> added later if it turns out it's needed.  I'd bet it will be.
> 
> -- 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> Tools-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 


_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss