I-D/RFC source formats
On Fri April 8 2005 13:55, Francis Dupont wrote: >and intuitively OpenOffice doesn't seem likely either. > > => to prefer emacs to OOo is a subtle way to like open source (:-). OOo is one of those that I mentioned doesn't seem to be able to generate formatted plain text with appropriate parameters (in addition to apparently not being able to generate RFC-specific XML). > => nroff is not so bad. The problem is the community which supported it > moved to Latex many years ago... Oh? One of the reasons that I haven't used TeX (and things like LaTeX which are layered on it) is the difficulty of getting suitable plain text output. > BTW IMHO the best tool should be so painful that > I-Ds would be very small (:-)? The size of the boilerplate alone precludes that, unfortunately. And it gets worse next month when the secretariat stops accepting "he" (or "she", as the case may be) as an alternative to "he or she" in that boilerplate. > PS: what we need is a rfc2xml. It seems there is a secret rfc2nroff... Going from formatted RFC or draft to troff source is fairly easy. As text will be re-flowed into paragraphs, it's mostly a matter of inserting the right directives between paragraphs, for section headings, etc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
> Date: 2005-04-07 17:33 > From: "Alex Rousskov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote: > > >> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If text and PDF/PS formats are generated automatically (and correctly) > >> by > >> the Toolset from the same source, then the Toolset effectively validates > >> that PDF/PS content matches plain text format. > > > > not necessarily - for instance if the source can conditionally generate > > content depending on the output format. > > Good and important point indeed! I will try to include a corresponding > informal "hint" into the draft. With *roff source, nroff is generally used (with appropriate preprocessors and command-line arguments) for text, and troff (with possibly different preprocessors and/or arguments) for PostScript (which can subsequently be used to generate PDF). All of which can be easily automated with a Makefile and suitable suffix conventions. Raw *roff also has facilities for conditional processing, including separate processing depending on whether troff or nroff is being used for processing -- indeed, most macro packages internally use that capability. > > which, if you think about it, > > is about the only reason we should bother trying to generate multiple > > formats from a common source. > > Here I disagree because presentation quality matters to humans who read > our drafts, but I do not think we should argue about this. It will > probably boil down to the definition of "content". Not important... Generally I agree with Keith on this point; the only reason (in an ideal world) to generate PostScript/PDF in addition to text is when the specific draft/RFC has content (typically diagrams or mathematics) which can only be approximated in plain text. However, a certain vendor has created a non-ideal situation, and the RFC Editor accommodates victims of that situation by providing PDF versions of RFCs even where there are no diagrams etc. that warrant improved presentation quality. As far as I know, however, the IETF Secretariat doe not do the same for drafts. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
On Fri April 8 2005 07:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my > assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that > proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate > I-Ds using a plain text editor, and intuitively OpenOffice > doesn't seem likely either. The question was worded to indicate a preference. Therefore, the "neither" option covers not only "none of the above (other)", but also "no preference (don't care)". Which illustrates another pitfall of polling/voting; the precise wording of the question, interpretation of that wording by respondents, and interpretation by those evaluating results play substantial roles. Wording questions in a neutral, fair, balanced, clear, and concise manner is a non-trivial exercise. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Voting Idea?
> Date: 2005-04-07 19:49 > From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Actually there is not only financial backing to consider but corporate, > cultural, language, time, etc. This was no problem as long as the IETF wasi > the technical forum for consensus uncovering for the Academic ASCII > Internet (you will note that corporates are vendors). You might also note that some academic institutions have (in some cases substantial) financial interests. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
In your previous mail you wrote: I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate I-Ds using a plain text editor, => why? I used a plain text editor before moving to xml2rfc (xml edited with a plain text editor too) because of the new boiler stuff pressure... and intuitively OpenOffice doesn't seem likely either. => to prefer emacs to OOo is a subtle way to like open source (:-). It's easy to create your own poll at the same site. We're at 11/43/10 now, by the way. It looks as if XML suits about 2/3 of our authors, but we have a substantial nroff party. => nroff is not so bad. The problem is the community which supported it moved to Latex many years ago... And for short I-Ds direct writing is easier/faster/etc. BTW IMHO the best tool should be so painful that I-Ds would be very small (:-)? Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: what we need is a rfc2xml. It seems there is a secret rfc2nroff... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' toInformational RFC
On Apr 8, 2005 6:40 AM, Elwyn davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That way you could get the best of both worlds... more or less WYSIWYG > Construction for the bulk of the text and pictures, auto-insertion of > boilerplate and some way to leverage the references stuff in xml2rfc. I've written a plugin for the XMLMind XML Editor that gives almost WYSIWYG editing of xml2rfc documents. See http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/xml2rfc-xxe/ for a screenshot and download info. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
On Apr 8, 2005 6:48 AM, Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > my biggest gripe is the fact that (as of the last time I looked) the > draft version is taken from the input filename rather than text internal > to the file If you use , and run the tool like "xml2rfc input.xml draft-fenner-xml-aint-so-bad-01.txt", then you can keep the input file named whatever you like. draft-fenner-literal-zoneid-01.txt was produced that way; its source filename is "literal-zoneid.xml". Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
On Apr 8, 2005 5:27 AM, Scott W Brim wrote: > On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > > prefer nroff: 8 > > prefer xml: 37 > > neither: 9 > > I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? I picked "neither" since I use both and don't have a strong preference. nroff gives me much more control over the actual formatting, xml lets me leave the tool maintenance to someone else and I do see the advantage of well-formed metadata. (otoh I have nroff macros to help in writing MIBs, which e.g., create the SEQUENCE so it's never out of sync with the objects in a table... can't think of how I would do that in XML offhand) Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
On Fri, 2005/04/08 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: my biggest gripe is the fact that (as of the last time I looked) the draft version is taken from the input filename rather than text internal to the file, which makes putting this stuff under source control in a meaningful way really annoying as most of the lightweight SCM tools like CVS, RCS, and SCCS don't cope well with renames. Xml2rfc takes the draft version from XML sources, not draft filename. FWIW, I do not put the draft version into the file name. In fact, I do not even name the draft file following the IETF standard (so renaming the draft will not cause me any pain). Instead, I simply copy the file to a properly named file when I need to submit it for posting. That last step can be easily automated as well. Alex. P.S. The fact that CVS and friends cannot cope with file name changes is a [well known] huge bug in their design. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-arun-ncc-smtp-02.txt
Hi Keith, It is definately backward compatiable as there is a Extended SMTP header (NCC) that also needs to be in place for the NCC processing to proceed. Keith Moore wrote: On Tue April 5 2005 15:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Ncc in Mail Header Author(s) : A. Sankar Filename : draft-arun-ncc-smtp-02.txt Pages : 4 Date : 2005-4-5 This draft presents a mechanism to simplify one of the cumbersome aspects of mailing, when one needs to send mails only to a subset of mail-ids from an alias [ALIAS] . The basic intention is only to minimize the complication and difficulty of a mail user when a mail needs to be sent to n - m mail IDs i.e. send it to a group Id of n and exclude m from the alias [ALIAS] list. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arun-ncc-smtp-02.txt As the draft lacks any indication of where discussion should take place, I'm sending these comments to the author and the IETF discussion list, with informational copies to the ietf-822 and ietf-smtp lists. All of your comments miss the most important points - namely that this proposal breaks layering and it isn't backward compatible with the installed base.For those reasons alone there's no way that this proposal should be seriously considered. Keith -- Arun Optimism: "Sir, we're surrounded!" "Excellent. We can attack in any direction!" --An Army Officer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-arun-ncc-smtp-02.txt
[followups redirected to [EMAIL PROTECTED] list] On Apr 8, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Arun Sankar wrote: It is definately backward compatiable as there is a Extended SMTP header (NCC) that also needs to be in place for the NCC processing to proceed. no, it is not, in at least two ways: 1. with existing MUAs and other processors that don't display or take the Ncc field into account, it creates a mistaken impression that the message was sent to recipients that the message was not actually sent to 2. because not all systems will support Ncc (either because they predated it, or because they think it's not a desirable feature) senders might send a message with the mistaken expectation that it will not be delivered to particular recipients. this extension seems of marginal value. it can be used to attempt duplicate suppression, such as when a message arrives at a recipient's mailbox both directly and via a list - but it's better to just have duplicates suppressed at the recipient's message store. the other use that comes to mind is that people will be tempted to use it as a way to implement "send to everyone on this mailing list except that troublemaker Joe". while I sympathize with the desire to do that, it will work so unreliably in practice that it's better to not have the feature. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Intermediate Drafts of network layer protocols
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Carl Malamud wrote: > Hi - > > I think a research request to study how protocols are designed and features > added over time deserves a more accurate answer than an official > incantation of "they're gone." Is this more "official": Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." > Try this site: >http://www.watersprings.org/ > > You'll find all drafts and diff's between them. You'll find copyright violations too. There are copies of drafts that predate changes to I-D copyright; further, though the IETF reserves the right to post expired drafts under current rules, I'm not aware that watersprings.org has acquired permission from the IETF to do so. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCVqjnE5f5cImnZrsRAiINAJ4h9KOLSSH3uUDmvMtIgKzz8e19FwCeKzJe IxPY4gfw/8ySXNkJFEwn5g8= =7/jF -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' t o Informational RFC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > >>-Original Message- >>From: Scott W Brim >>Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 14:27 >> >>On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: >> >>>Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', >>>what the toy shows after about a day is: >>> >>>prefer nroff: 8 >>>prefer xml: 37 >>>neither: 9 >> >>I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? Do you prefer poking your eye with a stick or a pencil? Just because these are output formats doesn't mean we should have to write a draft using them. Or do you also write code in executable object format? > I have! and I clearly prefer xml I have too, which is why I revised the Word template. I hope to figure out how to get it to generate XML soon, which I consider an otherwise irrelevant output format. I don't care about the output, so long as I can generate it easily from a reasonable editor. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCVqfVE5f5cImnZrsRAo89AJ9w2HMftbnavgRGZnFt+f9LogFKUQCfV6kw w34PH6nLSQNVJ0sGLF+dPHU= =0yaF -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' t o Informational RFC
> -Original Message- > From: Scott W Brim > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 14:27 > > On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > > > prefer nroff: 8 > > prefer xml: 37 > > neither: 9 > > I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? > I have! and I clearly prefer xml Bert ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:27, Elwyn davies wrote: > Xml2rfc has a mechanism for adding comments which is a little bit more > trouble than M$Word's but works in very similar ways. > > You are right that revision marking is not so easy but the various diff > tools help. Maybe we ought to ask for some way to do this before the > xml2rfc improvement window closes! that's something I prefer to see outside the document rather than inside it. my biggest gripe is the fact that (as of the last time I looked) the draft version is taken from the input filename rather than text internal to the file, which makes putting this stuff under source control in a meaningful way really annoying as most of the lightweight SCM tools like CVS, RCS, and SCCS don't cope well with renames. - Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' toInformational RFC
One big win with the xml2rfc toolchain is draft and rfc references. Just musing... With an appropriate set of styles it ought to be possible to make a processor that turned .rtf files into xml2rfc source. I did think about and start work on a text draft to xml converter but it turned out to be very hard work (too many heuristics). That way you could get the best of both worlds... more or less WYSIWYG Construction for the bulk of the text and pictures, auto-insertion of boilerplate and some way to leverage the references stuff in xml2rfc. Regards, Elwyn > -Original Message- > From: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 08 April 2005 14:01 > To: Elwyn davies; Stewart Bryant; Brian E Carpenter > Cc: Alex Rousskov; Bruce Lilly; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; IETF > TOOLS discussion > Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' > toInformational RFC > > Elwyn, > > As one of those who still use M$Word when writing drafts, I can also > confirm the generic text driver problems. Actually, I have had to > patch the draft parser for each new Windows version. However, after > doing that, I am still fine with using Word for drafts, as I like > WYSIWYG, and have no problems with making sure myself what I have > actually put in the draft (when it comes to mandatory sections, etc). > > In most cases when you ask people what tools they prefer, they will > answer that they prefer to use the one(s) they have been using before > and are familiar with. So some people prefer to use nroff, others > use XML, others MS Word, etc. > > Thanks to the IETF principle of having txt being the official format, > people have the opportunity to use whatever tool they like when they > write drafts. That is excellent, and I hope we can keep that principle. > > Cheers, > /L-E > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > Elwyn davies > > Sent: den 8 april 2005 12:32 > > To: 'Stewart Bryant'; 'Brian E Carpenter' > > Cc: 'Alex Rousskov'; 'Bruce Lilly'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > ietf@ietf.org; 'IETF TOOLS discussion' > > Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft > > Submission Toolset' > > toInformational RFC > > > > > > FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc. > > > > I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style > > and handle > > revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The > > main problem I > > found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not > > worked properly for a number of versions of Word in my > > experience. Symptoms > > include: > > - unilaterally changing the paragraph width so that it > > outputs one character > > on each line starting from some random point in the document > > - unilaterally changing the fount height to a microscopic > > value so that text > > is converted to a horizontal line in random paragraphs > > > > Microsoft are in denial about these bugs. Presumably there > > is not much call > > for the Generic Text Printer. (I must admit I haven't > > bothered to try it in > > my most recent version of Word, but I wouldn't hold my breath). > > > > I am aware of other possible ways to get the ASCII output but > > they are all > > just as flaky and tedious. > > > > I'll live with the need for balanced tags (I am pretty adept > > at detecting > > what has gone wrong by now) and some other minor irritations > > for the sake of > > knowing that I won't end up fighting the tools when trying to > > get a draft > > out close to the deadlines (when of course the random bugs noted above > > always strike!) > > > > I know several other authors who have defected for similar reasons. > > > > Regards, > > Elwyn > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of > > > Stewart Bryant > > > Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47 > > > To: Brian E Carpenter > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; > > ietf@ietf.org; IETF > > > TOOLS discussion > > > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft > > Submission Toolset' > > > to Informational RFC > > > > > > I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word > > > to produce drafts. > > > > > > Stewart > > > > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > > > > > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > > > > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > > > > > > > prefer nroff: 8 > > > > prefer xml: 37 > > > > neither: 9 > > > > > > > > which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. > > > > > > > >Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > Ietf mailing list > > > Ietf@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > ___ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > ___ Ietf m
RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
Xml2rfc has a mechanism for adding comments which is a little bit more trouble than M$Word's but works in very similar ways. You are right that revision marking is not so easy but the various diff tools help. Maybe we ought to ask for some way to do this before the xml2rfc improvement window closes! Regards, Elwyn > -Original Message- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 08 April 2005 14:11 > To: Elwyn davies > Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Bruce Lilly'; 'Alex > Rousskov'; ietf@ietf.org; 'IETF TOOLS discussion' > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' > to Informational RFC > > > > Elwyn davies wrote: > > > FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc. > > > > I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style and handle > > revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The main problem > I > > found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not > > worked properly for a number of versions of Word in my experience. > Symptoms > > include: > > - unilaterally changing the paragraph width so that it outputs one > character > > on each line starting from some random point in the document > > - unilaterally changing the fount height to a microscopic value so that > text > > is converted to a horizontal line in random paragraphs > > > > Microsoft are in denial about these bugs. Presumably there is not much > call > > for the Generic Text Printer. (I must admit I haven't bothered to try it > in > > my most recent version of Word, but I wouldn't hold my breath). > > > > I am aware of other possible ways to get the ASCII output but they are > all > > just as flaky and tedious. > > > > I'll live with the need for balanced tags (I am pretty adept at > detecting > > what has gone wrong by now) and some other minor irritations for the > sake of > > knowing that I won't end up fighting the tools when trying to get a > draft > > out close to the deadlines (when of course the random bugs noted above > > always strike!) > > > > I know several other authors who have defected for similar reasons. > > I have never hit that bug. I might have a different view if I had. > > What is useful is the ability for authors to imbed comments to each other > and track changes inline etc as the version develops. I have never tried > the xml tool chain but I assume that it does not have that feature? > > That said, as a person that thinks in diagrams and not in text, I would > take any tool chain, regardless of cost or convenience, if the end > result was that normative IETF text had "proper" drawings just like > IEEE and ITU. > > Stewart > > > > > Regards, > > Elwyn > > > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >>Stewart Bryant > >>Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47 > >>To: Brian E Carpenter > >>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; ietf@ietf.org; > IETF > >>TOOLS discussion > >>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' > >>to Informational RFC > >> > >>I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word > >>to produce drafts. > >> > >>Stewart > >> > >>Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > >>>what the toy shows after about a day is: > >>> > >>>prefer nroff: 8 > >>>prefer xml: 37 > >>>neither: 9 > >>> > >>>which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. > >>> > >>> Brian > >>> > >> > >> > >>___ > >>Ietf mailing list > >>Ietf@ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
Scott W Brim wrote: I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? Isn't it sufficient for one to have to have suffered *roff in other contexts? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
Elwyn davies wrote: FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc. I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style and handle revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The main problem I found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not worked properly for a number of versions of Word in my experience. Symptoms include: - unilaterally changing the paragraph width so that it outputs one character on each line starting from some random point in the document - unilaterally changing the fount height to a microscopic value so that text is converted to a horizontal line in random paragraphs Microsoft are in denial about these bugs. Presumably there is not much call for the Generic Text Printer. (I must admit I haven't bothered to try it in my most recent version of Word, but I wouldn't hold my breath). I am aware of other possible ways to get the ASCII output but they are all just as flaky and tedious. I'll live with the need for balanced tags (I am pretty adept at detecting what has gone wrong by now) and some other minor irritations for the sake of knowing that I won't end up fighting the tools when trying to get a draft out close to the deadlines (when of course the random bugs noted above always strike!) I know several other authors who have defected for similar reasons. I have never hit that bug. I might have a different view if I had. What is useful is the ability for authors to imbed comments to each other and track changes inline etc as the version develops. I have never tried the xml tool chain but I assume that it does not have that feature? That said, as a person that thinks in diagrams and not in text, I would take any tool chain, regardless of cost or convenience, if the end result was that normative IETF text had "proper" drawings just like IEEE and ITU. Stewart Regards, Elwyn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47 To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; ietf@ietf.org; IETF TOOLS discussion Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word to produce drafts. Stewart Brian E Carpenter wrote: Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', what the toy shows after about a day is: prefer nroff: 8 prefer xml: 37 neither: 9 which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' toInformational RFC
Elwyn, As one of those who still use M$Word when writing drafts, I can also confirm the generic text driver problems. Actually, I have had to patch the draft parser for each new Windows version. However, after doing that, I am still fine with using Word for drafts, as I like WYSIWYG, and have no problems with making sure myself what I have actually put in the draft (when it comes to mandatory sections, etc). In most cases when you ask people what tools they prefer, they will answer that they prefer to use the one(s) they have been using before and are familiar with. So some people prefer to use nroff, others use XML, others MS Word, etc. Thanks to the IETF principle of having txt being the official format, people have the opportunity to use whatever tool they like when they write drafts. That is excellent, and I hope we can keep that principle. Cheers, /L-E > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Elwyn davies > Sent: den 8 april 2005 12:32 > To: 'Stewart Bryant'; 'Brian E Carpenter' > Cc: 'Alex Rousskov'; 'Bruce Lilly'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > ietf@ietf.org; 'IETF TOOLS discussion' > Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft > Submission Toolset' > toInformational RFC > > > FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc. > > I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style > and handle > revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The > main problem I > found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not > worked properly for a number of versions of Word in my > experience. Symptoms > include: > - unilaterally changing the paragraph width so that it > outputs one character > on each line starting from some random point in the document > - unilaterally changing the fount height to a microscopic > value so that text > is converted to a horizontal line in random paragraphs > > Microsoft are in denial about these bugs. Presumably there > is not much call > for the Generic Text Printer. (I must admit I haven't > bothered to try it in > my most recent version of Word, but I wouldn't hold my breath). > > I am aware of other possible ways to get the ASCII output but > they are all > just as flaky and tedious. > > I'll live with the need for balanced tags (I am pretty adept > at detecting > what has gone wrong by now) and some other minor irritations > for the sake of > knowing that I won't end up fighting the tools when trying to > get a draft > out close to the deadlines (when of course the random bugs noted above > always strike!) > > I know several other authors who have defected for similar reasons. > > Regards, > Elwyn > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of > > Stewart Bryant > > Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47 > > To: Brian E Carpenter > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; > ietf@ietf.org; IETF > > TOOLS discussion > > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft > Submission Toolset' > > to Informational RFC > > > > I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word > > to produce drafts. > > > > Stewart > > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > > > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > > > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > > > > > prefer nroff: 8 > > > prefer xml: 37 > > > neither: 9 > > > > > > which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. > > > > > >Brian > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > prefer nroff: 8 > prefer xml: 37 > neither: 9 I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to ...
I use nroff Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate I-Ds using a plain text editor, and intuitively OpenOffice doesn't seem likely either. It's easy to create your own poll at the same site. We're at 11/43/10 now, by the way. It looks as if XML suits about 2/3 of our authors, but we have a substantial nroff party. Brian Stewart Bryant wrote: I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word to produce drafts. Stewart Brian E Carpenter wrote: Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', what the toy shows after about a day is: prefer nroff: 8 prefer xml: 37 neither: 9 which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Intermediate Drafts of network layer protocols
As I had already written to the original enquirer privately, I agree that the research needs the 'design diary' aspects as well as the output snapshots. The lack of a permanent archive for some of the mailing lists will be a problem for historians and others looking back on the IETF process. Personal interviews would be the only way of getting any idea of the corridor discussions. In trying to assist Syed Farooq Ahmed, I tried to access the old IPng mailing list that was hosted on playground.sun.com: although there is still an IPv6/IPng page there, the mailing list archives are not accessible in their original location. I don't know whether the old IPng mailing list was mirrored onto the IETF site as 'history' for the new IPv6 list when the IPng mailing list closed two years or so ago, and the current archive interface makes it essentially impossible to check (just how many 'Next Page' clicks do you need to retreat about 6000 messages?). A little research showed that the MARC (Mailing listARChive) at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/ has the sequence back to 1995 in a more accessible form, but even that misses the earliest exchanges. Maybe we need to pay a bit more attention to our history! Regards, Elwyn > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Stewart Bryant > Sent: 08 April 2005 10:43 > To: Carl Malamud > Cc: Syed Farooq Ahmed; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Intermediate Drafts of network layer protocols > > > > Carl Malamud wrote: > > Hi - > > > > I think a research request to study how protocols are designed and > features > > added over time deserves a more accurate answer than an official > > incantation of "they're gone." > > > > Try this site: > >http://www.watersprings.org/ > > > > You'll find all drafts and diff's between them. > > > > That will only give you a part of the story. You also need > the WG emails, the WG proceedings and details of the current > external environment. > > Then to understand the change from last draft to RFC you need the > telechat minutes and emails between the AD and editors. > > To complete the picture you also need a fair number of private emails > and the recollections of a numbers of flys that were on the walls of > the the IETF corridors and surrounding restaurants. > > Regards > > Stewart > > > Regards, > > > > Carl > > > > > >>Unfortunately, as you will see by looking at any current > >>Internet Draft, these drafts are automatically withdrawn after > >>6 months (or as soon as they are updatded), so you won't find old > >>ones on the ietf.org site. You may find them on some unofficial > >>sites. > >> > >>If you look at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html > >>you will find all the *current* IPv6 drafts and pointers to some of > >>the obsolete IPv6 RFCs, as well as the current ones. > >> > >>Brian > >> > >>Syed Farooq Ahmed wrote: > >> > >>>hello, > >>> > >>>Can i get intermediate drafts of any standard network layer protocol > like IPv4 or IPv6. I am studying how protocols are designed and the > features added over time etc. > >>> > >>>Normally, those drafts are removed and not found on the internet, only > the last complete RFC remains. > >>> > >>>I would be thankful if any one of you can send me such drafts > (documents). > >>> > >>>Regards, > >>> > >>>- > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>- > >>>Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>--- > - > >>> > >>>___ > >>>Ietf mailing list > >>>Ietf@ietf.org > >>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >> > >> > >>___ > >>Ietf mailing list > >>Ietf@ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >> > > > > > > ___ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc. I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style and handle revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The main problem I found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not worked properly for a number of versions of Word in my experience. Symptoms include: - unilaterally changing the paragraph width so that it outputs one character on each line starting from some random point in the document - unilaterally changing the fount height to a microscopic value so that text is converted to a horizontal line in random paragraphs Microsoft are in denial about these bugs. Presumably there is not much call for the Generic Text Printer. (I must admit I haven't bothered to try it in my most recent version of Word, but I wouldn't hold my breath). I am aware of other possible ways to get the ASCII output but they are all just as flaky and tedious. I'll live with the need for balanced tags (I am pretty adept at detecting what has gone wrong by now) and some other minor irritations for the sake of knowing that I won't end up fighting the tools when trying to get a draft out close to the deadlines (when of course the random bugs noted above always strike!) I know several other authors who have defected for similar reasons. Regards, Elwyn > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Stewart Bryant > Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47 > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; ietf@ietf.org; IETF > TOOLS discussion > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' > to Informational RFC > > I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word > to produce drafts. > > Stewart > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > > > prefer nroff: 8 > > prefer xml: 37 > > neither: 9 > > > > which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. > > > >Brian > > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Intermediate Drafts of network layer protocols
Carl Malamud wrote: Hi - I think a research request to study how protocols are designed and features added over time deserves a more accurate answer than an official incantation of "they're gone." Try this site: http://www.watersprings.org/ You'll find all drafts and diff's between them. That will only give you a part of the story. You also need the WG emails, the WG proceedings and details of the current external environment. Then to understand the change from last draft to RFC you need the telechat minutes and emails between the AD and editors. To complete the picture you also need a fair number of private emails and the recollections of a numbers of flys that were on the walls of the the IETF corridors and surrounding restaurants. Regards Stewart Regards, Carl Unfortunately, as you will see by looking at any current Internet Draft, these drafts are automatically withdrawn after 6 months (or as soon as they are updatded), so you won't find old ones on the ietf.org site. You may find them on some unofficial sites. If you look at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html you will find all the *current* IPv6 drafts and pointers to some of the obsolete IPv6 RFCs, as well as the current ones. Brian Syed Farooq Ahmed wrote: hello, Can i get intermediate drafts of any standard network layer protocol like IPv4 or IPv6. I am studying how protocols are designed and the features added over time etc. Normally, those drafts are removed and not found on the internet, only the last complete RFC remains. I would be thankful if any one of you can send me such drafts (documents). Regards, - - Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC
I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word to produce drafts. Stewart Brian E Carpenter wrote: Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', what the toy shows after about a day is: prefer nroff: 8 prefer xml: 37 neither: 9 which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
