[Tools-discuss] Proposed survey on I-D authoring tools
Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Wed, 30 September 2020 02:58 UTC
Return-Path: <jay@ietf.org>
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 387343A0C96 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 uzFWW_nXER7H; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B3663A0C3D; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Message-Id: <71CCD4C4-2CBA-4AD3-A254-2F19B261D882@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:58:43 +1300
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, Tools Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/Vqw6cPGFECuGPGMVBuEhVJnFXHQ>
Subject: [Tools-discuss] 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 02:58:48 -0000
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? -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director jay@ietf.org
- [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