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