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

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

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://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 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]