Subject: [Tools-team] Minutes for 22 Sep 2004 Telechat

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:29:17 +0200

I'm resending this with a more appropriate subject line :-) /Henrik

Here are the minutes from today's meeting, as far as I was
on it.  I added some tentative action items, see if they make
sense, and comment back.

---------------------------------------------------------

Agenda:

1. Agenda bashing

	Added 2.a and item under 4.	

2. Chat with Carl, mutual questions and answers

	Carl - admin restruct is moving along - looking at which 
	 My work were:
	 1. document data flow
	 2. write restruct draft
	 3. help with contracts
	
	* What interaction do you have with secretariat?

	- Basically all communications with the secretariat is reflected
	  in the tools-team list

	* What was this ticket issue ?
	- Described by Henrik, details also on the tools-team list.

	* What ticket system are they using?
	- RT, lightly customised, just a few queues

	Larry: Carl's view on priorities?
	- Current work is good, needed and will help a lot

	Carl: Are you only spec'ing, or also prototyping?
	- Only spec'ing

	Carl: I'd be happy with a much less opaque process,
	interaction between you and the sectretariat developers

	Carl: I recommended RFP out the network infrastructure, so we
	could run things on our own hardware, and have much closer
	access to it.

	Carl: It would be good if we could put out some development for
	RFP, that might also lead to more open sources.

	Larry: We had an opportunity to spec a larger basic
	infrastructure, including for example authentication as a common
	element, but we are not doing that now.

	Alex: Should we specify the format and interface to the
	repository of e.g. xml sources for drafts, lists of submitters,
	etc.

	Henrik: In addition to the xml format author and draft info, I'd
	love to have xml format information on ADs, Chairs etc.

	Alex: Somebody should be *responsible* for maintaining information
	like which drafts, chairs etc. etc. should be maintained. Is
	this within the area of the tools team.

	Carl: Getting back to identifying existing tools - this is an
	important institutional knowledge.  It would be real nice to be
	able to say that "Start with this tool, it does 90 % of the job,
	and 

	Henrik: Wide picture - what tools exist outside ....
	Biggest database/system is the secretariat database, but that
	is also pretty much off limit 

	Carl: We might anyway need to start from scratch in order to
	develop a new version of what the secretariat uses for a
	database, anyway.

	Carl: If there is a tool you think could be slotted in, I would
	be happy to work at getting you free eval licenses.

	Carl: diff tool - docucop - would like to bring that in and look
	kick it around.

	Carl: I'm also happy to look at software for you - if there is
	something that would need evaluation ...

	Carl: is RFC editor and IANA in scope?

	Henrik: IANA might be, unclear, RFC editor not.  With agreement
	from the RFC editor, could be in scope.

	Carl: Although it is in scope for my document data flow
	investigation to look at the RFC editor, so we could come to a
	point where it could be in scope for the tools team.

	Larry: Why so poor interface to the RFC editor's queue etc?

	Carl: Had an interview with Bob Braden, & ..., and on a
	question on not developing and using more tools, Bob said:
	We're here to edit RFCs, all this fancy technology is not
	necessary in order to do that. 

	... A lot of good reasons for more tools helping the RFC editor
	interface was given ...

	RFC editor things they are somewhat underfunded, and we thing
	they are adequatly founded.

	Larry: In your workflow analysis, would anything we would
	identify as a tool something that would be a step in one of your
	workflow diagrams?

	Carl: Yes, basically.  I'm not doing a classic workflow
	analysis, but I'm looking at for instance which IANA files could
	be turned into XML

	Carl: I will be able to indicate a number of points where tools
	would do good use, which is a much better than the current
	situation.

	Larry: Workflow would be very helpful, and I'd be willing to
	spend some time on that.

	Carl: Right, but you won't see a classic workflow analysis

	Larry: A chart, names of processes, layout, bottlenecks would
	indicate where tools might be needed.

	Carl: If you can help me get insight into the workflow of the
	secretariat, that would be helpful.  I've been looking at the
	pretty opaque IANA.  I'll be preparing another report with this
	information, hopefully that should be ready by the next IETF.

	Carl: Documenting the workflow is necesesary, and should be done
	over the coming weeks.  Our job this year is to understand how
	the IETF functions in this respect, bottlenecks etc.

	---- Henrik's SIP box overheats and cuts out --- 

2a. Where does requirements about rendering of drafts belong

3. Comments on minutes from last teleconference.

4. Action item review.

    * Alex:	Deadline for comments on the -00 draft is Friday,
		aim at getting a new draft out beginning of next
		week.
	+ Done

    * Henrik:	Get info about relationship of cc: and spam mail
      		causing false addresses from the secretariat
	+ Done

    * Henrik:	Solicit information from chairs list regarding
      		wg-chairs tickets handling via web pages.
	+ Done, summary sent to list

    * Bill:	Send a little summary of his experiences so far to 
      		the list
	+ Done

    * All:	give feedback on http://tools.ietf.org/ - design and content
	- Requests continues to stand

    * Larry:	ask the w3 what software they are using to get peoples
		consent to publish mailing list submissions
	+ Done, good info and pointers to code available

    * Henrik:	Automate the generation of tools pages based on xml data
	- Started, not completed

    * Larry:	to add a link from the wiki to the mailing list's copies
		of the meeting minutes.
	+ Done

4. Next steps

	Time to publish a suggested schedule of other tools, and get
	community input on them.  Propose to have a first draft by
	next week.

5. Any other business.

6. Action items, summary

    * All:	give feedback on http://tools.ietf.org/ - design and content

    * Henrik:	Automate the generation of tools pages based on xml data

    * Alex:	Continue polishing and filling out the spec, new version
		in 1 week?

    ? Larry:	Assist Carl on the workflow mapping ?

7. Next meeting:

     Teleconference Wednesday 29 Sep, 16:00 GMT (same time as today).

---------------------------------------------------------
Connection details:

    To join the call, dial +1-734-531-0125 and enter PIN 0151989.

    One can also join the call by dialing:
      sip:[email-masked] 
    on a SIP-enabled voice communications client. 

    If the SIP client cannot dial URLs, you can have the conference
    system call you if you have the sip URL for your phone.  Go to
      https://edial.internet2.edu/call/0151989
    and type in the URL to your phone, and follow the directions.

_______________________________________________
Tools-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-team

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:02:57 -0600 (MDT)

> 	community input on them.  Propose to have a first draft by

Do we really need/want a draft for this information? Priorities and 
schedule are dynamic, and historic value of some snapshot is low. 
Should we just do a web page instead? IETF can review web pages, not 
just drafts!

Alex.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:39:35 +0200

Alex Rousskov wrote:
> schedule are dynamic, and historic value of some snapshot is low. Should 
> we just do a web page instead? IETF can review web pages, not just drafts!

I'm thinking draft because that is traditionally the way to more
widely solicit comments within the IETF.  Yes, I expect that 
priorities may change as things happen and as we learn more.

But presenting a proposed priority and sequence for comment
seems good, and a draft would be one of the appropriate means.

	Henrik