Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-D authoring tools
Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Thu, 01 October 2020 14:53 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 8B0033A10B9
for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 WULBXs0cCO6T; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:53:17 -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 D9F6E3A10BA;
Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <3727370E-84BD-4EC4-9B16-77FB8CBCA918@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_ED41CE15-EE79-4B0C-908F-70BB3BB21AE0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 03:53:13 +1300
In-Reply-To: <19f2fc69-b31c-62e5-9a46-4cfc299d6f84@pi.nu>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org,
Tools Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
References: <71CCD4C4-2CBA-4AD3-A254-2F19B261D882@ietf.org>
<19f2fc69-b31c-62e5-9a46-4cfc299d6f84@pi.nu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/sZlDAcJkqabebd_zyPO_pR4KSkk>
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 14:53:20 -0000
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? > > -- > > Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu> > Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@gmail.com <mailto:loa.pi.nu@gmail.com> > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 -- 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… worley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Proposed survey on I-D author… Jay Daley
- 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