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

Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Thu, 01 October 2020 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <petithug@acm.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 388AE3A1164; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 eBAIdyWYqNu5; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:45:216:3eff:fe7f:7abd]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DCD53A1163; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:648:8400:8e7d:d95:cc56:7ad0:ad89] (unknown [IPv6:2601:648:8400:8e7d:d95:cc56:7ad0:ad89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "Marc Petit-Huguenin", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 659F9AE760; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 19:05:18 +0200 (CEST)
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, Tools Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <71CCD4C4-2CBA-4AD3-A254-2F19B261D882@ietf.org> <19f2fc69-b31c-62e5-9a46-4cfc299d6f84@pi.nu> <3727370E-84BD-4EC4-9B16-77FB8CBCA918@ietf.org>
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
Autocrypt: addr=petithug@acm.org; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBE6Mh9wBEADrUEDZChteJbQtsHwZITZExr7TAqT7pniNwhBX3nFgd+FrV3lsLKJ1rym2 52MAYpubXEJZGzMp6uCCAnROWbtmQbOm8z/jHnjxHhPqfuYCYPpAQqu8K/Sc194Rp37krMwB jz32yr7+gvWLzRgQGKIh9d2mzy8QLMETVWWQWGb6fEfpOxXo0wumN1rc/275kZwOu44JIPGg zbgwZdnEqYOUUa18K9MXeRDoWbwDISP30CvKuZDwD14lbBE3o7tBQrU9uoMhE7eFlTjbsCox qoubI2tZSuOTF8mRXjPmNrRGtf9mYkQnOB7y6qy/QxmOVMq4IRtHzOYIm/EZ6NTodcpZQHOM 2v6B6YK9uKrYrapSpJzn4f9oU7alT31Y3o2hOlxAWDQ16+Dd1MOPYsKQXOwY1/ihm4PTjiJ8 ud8yPzy7c+BSVs5wkBU6QuLNIgZHrrxdn+KxM+F/oAVtfzO7XzVoeOcXyWi3/CHL5pgoBruY enIF/RrRuplpy09pvZjmFPNfqKBYJGnqpQuqsQwO7LsFqDqfY2EuHg+KsGN1XuN+jxXc48/1 gCnKw7ALSPWEb7g25wD6KfiZTAcyRTG8LePNFQKhw61LbIWmkw9EaVLyXvwPTc1iCSc0dDT/ pcT/z+8xrWOyWGZNZAjR584NlDpKollbItcxYtFcYZkvTCmOVwARAQABtCZNYXJjIFBldGl0 LUh1Z3VlbmluIDxwZXRpdGh1Z0BhY20ub3JnPokCOAQTAQgAIgIbIwYLCQgHAwIGFQgCCQoL BBYCAwECHgECF4AFAlfy11wACgkQKcRFldZqfsRWqBAAu/61DGo+j38UefTKnEse0mftPBXa S4lre7vknn33MI0L5QXmiM8zRs9FOKSuXPx0EV+JhI4pWZGW/2MJPuyifXHvnIChcdGInN8J GBdTLZSOgdDFZL9msO+QUsvMA8ZUsqlKOEcVL1NyoLupblCWNq4fYhBCx1zDwX9LZSuGn8lZ Mk8a4QFGoR6dWKaOxeCwnoquW5IK1CfRIhYjHfQMjA5gY0H46F0iCqBaFF/S7krQwIJd0XN4 YbSL4KOrWuxtgQ+iH/iaxxBXgJ1blBNRzXaWJBF4PHv23nSnEzWO17j+uVMaHJu7ycYEf8T9 pVc0xcok1BM2rCrNE5FUFAzsUtAtBZEEK6sSIeOhRG93uD/Hv1hrWzEwf+Z7B1tVQLCQQ4kL 7wyS7SXI/JTuW2xTEGCmwMeWYGERdkgsatmx4zi5nVHDjt3/mlPMj4L+u05SkI2iV4W6xxU1 jHlBIJDs7AVM0dsxzTyIPf2Sz843WyHuBgkoCskxGfOwlkZzDX9rwcWRKal1wjy1w/25LsBY U50INandw3UbrS2I73VX8ARI8uOWZrW7uzRLf8EmuPhtSQ35ThmdoNSgGMP9EXwNgzi/i+5G hbX5KbrSLG9SITFJEcJA4tnwu3nqmBh7D7vbd5ln5X7rmqPdyjidt0zcSjvuaBA+nkmakA4A O+choWy5Ag0EToyH3AEQAL+LguHhcSDCL/IevdcvH/5/fzO2fmuuTxdGwrZZSm7l6/HD2Ira h6Wpa1LvVeRbnsRq8k6O8/i3wVapEoQPmNY3vjWfXaJb8R4vHcqgcxw9N9jhZa+mvGJk9+cI ilDyPzHRBBID4d/3oFKQCQ4Y2SIkO66znPhfBOS2f2AU7AtXHhVEyj6WsLK6boEMcj7j+w5a es2nZam0jhgoz+4DQem4uk8outrRlboGnZN7A2kCNuy39UeOp7BpvQ95IKcJCIeSoiJt2A4B NPQroqhW0zGn9Y9FJ9UiZ9YIeNPYbscUxxvrD+OU9Jv67hW0v3KfvoIKDwVKpO3MW6o+1teS Gt1KCSz+CvGJCvIxfCk7S5K5SBne7ZNKz7rkGXYIzlyr7ZoEgRHmqGmcK/sHTS4e6g2pQQrR USkspyqLZl5Uzmg7yI5oGBL0aHTzYdDkkOKMRXYnl7ivBeNtGcniGqlONLJxpbwec8j7hLRq pXFuepbtPqX/GefuK8rdo+ppEqpRJ50cJTegchTfWfSjn5/mG1B4Oz9OnOcBEeTLO729n0K9 BeTx1pmisD6P/fyrqZZTozDwVEi7Wo9AOaqWOhuTe8L0FlFIk6fc/yM0wzvDWP7sNrevEYHK V9rd+Yc/Jjt293J4uayrt6DNMmSkAw3nlBq3uK5d54J0FAsAUcsE/W2/ABEBAAGJAh8EGAEI AAkCGwwFAlfy11wACgkQKcRFldZqfsSQyA/+Kx3eWtKyb/y35TjgtjT/Hrtw+aIpr1uK97LA ln1j5m7+lQ/jh0/rvSZjs+YQMYLqVGI8oaaF/u+qrokkU6pfrhVZ49D1BmmSTMBSYgnBDYqZ yZ+uzQnnDYt/mpo2OLbl9BhuifR5QXLp43cE1FIhyDT46wfse5tNZ+ll4m4HtXuTw4W3b4cP Hto10260Mki7hXbkDMZ+icBFDMkrrZyYHSnBhelzIM7XnY7A/XZdulfFcDXEcZhAFEv3ylJs xTnGwzDyP1VAdBFL3hpP1CqfP1Kti4hKcxXZYbIgTSsBjcYbPchw3ktUTU29I/nWKH5gmD+q wFizyhtt8Qhl6U67OdZ/XbRGBXs/7tlYJIGiGZyG7IQtDOX0PsVd+6WRcDdFqkpBwYkxU8gd iCeW+YTQ5d8mXXPT2dhFAeK2hCFa2+IdaXvH8ovjZpTMeKstHrWJUDaSqQ4GFT676DbDyqtm P6Ul9cjGVtXIs64FWqR9wrbwBH1GuIHhDmG9sN5AkyB9mxXaEG3uG4E6qQeedtIKC6p+ebAs aTGgztFWMJDC8LUznu7B0oyWxNVoE/RGt5mesOeAtqYr6Jtdh7unyk8BYP1y4e+SSMwvtwh+ 69tJwNhGYbOJrdX34tXNAKb6r/rFRjVJm+sPPs5ok7LddvV35o+Fho0LRNDsioDV3HytlhA=
Message-ID: <e97f84d0-c248-3359-b43e-509cc13bca34@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:05:14 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3727370E-84BD-4EC4-9B16-77FB8CBCA918@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="836oNXgpSVR4a9gUs5POKNsrOE5elZ8AN"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/aZulPZDjwNEIVFKc28QIlMUU2mw>
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 17:05:25 -0000

As the author of a tool that generates xml2rfc v3, I am also interested in the results of this survey.

On 10/1/20 7:53 AM, Jay Daley wrote:
> Hi Loa
> 
> There are three groups that can use the output of this survey for their work: RSOC, Tools Team and Tools Architecture and Strategy Team.  It’s up to them how to use it but having a sound evidential basis on which to act is preferable to the current situation.
> 
> Jay
> 
>> On 1/10/2020, at 8:42 PM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> -- 



-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug