Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-D authoring tools

Ronald Tse <tse@ribose.com> Mon, 05 October 2020 01:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tse@ribose.com>
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 957853A0AF7; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 18:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ribose.com
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 qwn6LwIPrZIL; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 18:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr1300082.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.130.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 774323A0AEA; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 18:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=azBz08FKoqUKY+gVbQyGThx++o7+psIE3EpHBahrgvRTOCV8TV8JK/mfBmAdq1qPC0gQHKZ6o77qj6f2qUWxiHTrucOADe/FxAJo5RZsKlS7VnOTVuzeXW3Cw6jTje+cRMTgOrX/72OBfey1Znyy21lHNlcLcmQxHLowa1eV3yCiI4qI/y7HMhDBf1CpF1yFL2krs86pocYw4+5joxyRdnHpy9zmSCVecL1BEJKOK7lq5tEeJoNj+ayYZUGrO3sCMXqhnAxn2wRZvBWYVSzy/nvuXQt8acsAcma6JxNv17IlLx+TKktd2qScK4crNJrfp/TioabmnfjLcgZozWSlMg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=NgyxsC3l06kNHYLGIy9dslZ8cgopVUx3joqWCvQi8rQ=; b=RkIC69jFynluazGezlAOOsbTO0bOqE94kJ5TVjCekeo1LqO97rUhQ5AkSonGnfZ4jwXBioxuBKw5A+QaATg8lhmTRmMIxuVMZAenRw6oFqOjJg50P4FjynHjEXSO/SEbcRp+h48mavzT4w4egnbI0dxU8k13ZXzHWCELz2wmF5X4MO257/LnA/3wA2NQAqd53iVSrNKYsyA3GUVgvm3z+J0t9/O5kST/YqjwTuMGwYPTY7G0bupUREkaoh1SurvPspUSNgEDhLWzRI/4w9KaBmffI0R9wyZP+7IuheF5WWDAuiTqtaJye5HfnLcsIgR+W0J/MZjVz5xy+hWOSWYRIw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ribose.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ribose.com; dkim=pass header.d=ribose.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ribose.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=NgyxsC3l06kNHYLGIy9dslZ8cgopVUx3joqWCvQi8rQ=; b=c6TTY5BWQH0xBn+xFYFz1IB/5KQbhDERGjrZyqWTXYSIcfChcCtMVkU80NaV5vKNyd3QM2BxTavvIg8pqS9qXbpu0kFfUzGZuOOIOt31OWqh+FjCXqLuLa11RIFdeJDdavv8MBwQwsc+5V6LGY0klc3Wm2vzA5pQC6MzGP/qKXk=
Received: from HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:1096:203:98::14) by HK2PR01MB3332.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:1096:202:18::20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3433.38; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 01:37:30 +0000
Received: from HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::950d:3e33:78e0:8c4c]) by HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::950d:3e33:78e0:8c4c%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3433.044; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 01:37:30 +0000
From: Ronald Tse <tse@ribose.com>
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
CC: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Tools Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] Proposed survey on I-D authoring tools
Thread-Index: AQHWl/uqN1J/NExTA0SCI57toMvfCKmC5cIAgAAFvQCAABT4gIAAYVkAgAAAb4CAAHiFgIAAJM+AgAE5aICAAt7ygIAAKEeA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 01:37:30 +0000
Message-ID: <EC1C88C9-55DE-4ED5-84B4-02CD9300E1CB@ribose.com>
References: <71CCD4C4-2CBA-4AD3-A254-2F19B261D882@ietf.org> <m2lfgqq2ww.wl-randy@psg.com> <1071F4D3-3F36-4012-9CBB-19DDDE6D0564@ietf.org> <m2h7req25a.wl-randy@psg.com> <9F1ABBE7-DC90-4C3C-8493-E89243C73C4C@ietf.org> <m24knepwg4.wl-randy@psg.com> <A62BA403-01EC-4142-A91C-6E675C1E1942@ietf.org> <19017.1601561002@localhost> <m2h7rendtv.wl-randy@psg.com> <DBCBE873-ACFA-423D-8ABF-9D4DEBF1AFAB@ietf.org> <m27ds9onz0.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAF4+nEEC31Cj20vCYsXA-xfmVVTHPf6BHjNYvMnsHcocao3YYQ@mail.gmail.com> <m25z7tmt7a.wl-randy@psg.com> <3B086B7A-7DC7-424A-8267-5972904C561B@ribose.com> <0CBB8BB9-D251-4841-8D1B-B2C29A28AD2D@ietf.org> <B0B9E99F-4D93-4F50-90B9-26DA5A552924@ribose.com> <6F6B1A02-1045-4DD2-BCA6-44BDD7C61E71@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <6F6B1A02-1045-4DD2-BCA6-44BDD7C61E71@ietf.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ribose.com;
x-originating-ip: [118.140.121.70]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b72a2f0a-4bf6-45d8-024e-08d868cf39a0
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HK2PR01MB3332:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HK2PR01MB333291E2CAE0763A04909584D70C0@HK2PR01MB3332.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: XqIp2DqKznM9JrY4o8GiPsZO2jd1MTmwBIrzO4K0RHI886uet73rErKIOoG/xIHLdbTcXCWjBoRZMf6RIpd1RlSlXtkLYeSj6uGA9E6gyFhPvZIltuL1NgIfK3D9hbPwx0vXKq25dXQz7wwG9qHW0xAqlnkPUvuTrOQh3Mq3bMLCHjF3HbwalyBeA++iULKSUWlTJRPt5q+VrrTRra9Oqa7xtbHjngyLAG2yRIPLWPWKONYPxVqX3I+9f8uUsXCVr59k6b495bQ6QN6NWUfCC04Z7oky5uVuyle9JUyoIMT74BDYfRpTu8Uy897FGQ/zBf7RyPp4+u3ztjCSF6pLaQ==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(376002)(346002)(396003)(39830400003)(136003)(366004)(71200400001)(2616005)(86362001)(8936002)(316002)(8676002)(5660300002)(6512007)(6486002)(64756008)(76116006)(33656002)(83380400001)(4326008)(478600001)(66446008)(66556008)(66476007)(91956017)(26005)(186003)(36756003)(6916009)(54906003)(2906002)(6506007)(66946007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: bGu9fG7pm3F32EAaySUUjGM5Hs9Hu6bNGDVtQtuPnPpYqIbc1o6IPOa+zQ0JzksK9WedfQ02rTnmsaWH4tT+ylogeEAYuz4E2Pl6qihGYFYXmMvc2XxTCIrNV5t8ustShXkquK95jiNw9if4weBEBYu9TK1Jwbif65jN6kJrxpX3k5MVTTkGwSK8dKzGrv5uA1Ts+G+d4WRRtoWJUyR8ETvsX/Gmcrvopz7tX8qNKjoY5PqwuvYXaTFfSTjvgyVApwLNtvA76fobsZKsYZI9666CcigMYuuSPFDNwKJ2Uwwq3jpgAgAFRgZgLJNUvD8VRb7j1ajfa8ROMa5kpD3jahGD6gpN0oe3tIFY3uGwDcdGKXqd5+TeRagQ+KMqJ3pk6ke4CyuaU69otZTNke7fDAxPz4bcfcyhMyX9N6/MK0tyYrseSnr26K0I5GD/uOYep3BT2E5EcTKZVshC2w8Kv2SsaawetW99EwzJpDOYTICsUG3CG/VpWh4UdjIBVQ5Jr2rRgq/ETQ3GFZ6qb35fCFRq6eun3QpbEQ+L75zZNhtKMR5+dToue+l+hx5G8JQoosi+P1dU8/dOTEE0lSsxhCIgLGaR61/wrTjKKYdlBzHgW/dIubR7ZqTQkdZoflLrq85PT17DOHRH/iNof4/TBw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EC1C88C955DE4ED584B402CD9300E1CBribosecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ribose.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: HK0PR01MB2900.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b72a2f0a-4bf6-45d8-024e-08d868cf39a0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Oct 2020 01:37:30.5242 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: d98a04ff-ef98-489b-b33c-13c23a2e091a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: GJbMcRueo98v60a4Xj9E/Uy2qqHBDc96z3ZiOz+/Kq870s15WXYt81IR0J2zBm2t
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HK2PR01MB3332
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/UFvFJYXvA8mODLbk2wSH9f8lFhs>
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: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 01:37:38 -0000

Hi Jay,

I realized after my response the survey is intended to gather information for some period of history so you’re absolutely right about the first. Please feel free to keep the original for the “versionally” challenged!

First, just to be clear - I’ve bundled all checking/validation tools together but you’re only talking about validating the XML, not validating YANG, ABNF etc, and so you only mean to see if Metanorma reduces the need for xml2rfc as a validator?  I’m checking this, because if that is the case then this extra option doesn’t make sense to add for all those other validators.

Metanorma does not reduce the need for xml2rfc as the authoritative validator, it simply provides most of the validation beforehand to prevent issues with xml2rfc.

It seems that the question here assumes that machine-readable semantics inside an I-D/RFC can be validated (YANG, ABNF, etc.). This would be the case if the author(s) was originally told to do so, but existing cases may be tricky. For example, RFC 5545 (iCalendar) splits its ABNF into separate clauses for easier reading. In order for validation to happen, we’re looking at a monolithic piece of ABNF. Moreover, some I-D/RFCs also contain other types of content (XML, JSON, C…). It would certainly be a good approach if enforced in the future.

"How do you ensure that your draft is correctly formatted/validated when you submit it? (check all that apply)"
- I use the checkers/validators in the question above
- This is a feature of my authoring tool
- I submit my draft and correct any errors if it is rejected [Remove if invalid drafts are accepted]
- I don’t ensure that my draft is correctly formatted  [Remove if only valid drafts are accepted}
- Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]

Your proposed question would certainly address my concerns, thank you!

BTW if you want to know if people only use Metanorma then I can filter for that[…]

There’s no particular need for that — thanks!

Kind regards,
Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.


First, just to be clear - I’ve bundled all checking/validation tools together but you’re only talking about validating the XML, not validating YANG, ABNF etc, and so you only mean to see if Metanorma reduces the need for xml2rfc as a validator?  I’m checking this, because if that is the case then this extra option doesn’t make sense to add for all those other validators.

Second, I must admit that I assumed that only valid XML was accepted and I need to check exactly what happens there.  If not then yes that will have an impact on resources.  However, that’s not the intent of the question, which is to understand what tools people use and adding this doesn’t fit with that intent.

To get at what you have identified here, I could add a question similar to this:

"How do you ensure that your draft is correctly formatted/validated when you submit it? (check all that apply)"
- I use the checkers/validators in the question above
- This is a feature of my authoring tool
- I submit my draft and correct any errors if it is rejected [Remove if invalid drafts are accepted]
- I don’t ensure that my draft is correctly formatted  [Remove if only valid drafts are accepted}
- Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]

Thoughts?

BTW if you want to know if people only use Metanorma then I can filter for that and I’ve also got a general action to safely release survey data, so this could be the first of those to allow people to understand the results in more depth.

Jay


Kind regards,
Ron


--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org<mailto:jay@ietf.org>