Jari Arkko | 14 May 16:22 2010
Picon

IESG measurements tools, IETF status Facebook application

By the way, I have now updated the IESG measurement tools 
(http://www.arkko.com/tools/admeasurements/stat/base.html). They were 
broken when the web interface changed, as they had been based on screen 
scraping HTML output from the IETF website. The update moves most of 
this scraping to the use of the new all_id2.txt and other machine 
readable interfaces.

The data looks valid, but if you spot any errors (other than those were 
the reality and tracker do not agree -- thats not something I can do 
anything about), let me know.

The update also means that the facebook IETF status application 
(http://apps.facebook.com/ietfstatus/) and the IETF dashboard 
(http://www.arkko.com/tools/dashboard/index.php?firstname=jari&lastname=arkko) 
is no longer stuck on old information.

Jari
Robert Sparks | 14 May 17:44 2010

Fwd: Maastricht IETF Codesprint

If you are planning to help improve the IETF tools, please sign up for the
codesprint in Maastricht.

If you can't attend, but have an idea for a new tool or an improvement to
an existing tool, please make sure it's captured at

RjS

Begin forwarded message:

From: IETF Chair <chair <at> ietf.org>
Date: May 4, 2010 10:06:16 AM CDT
To: IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
Subject: Maastricht IETF Codesprint
Reply-To: ietf <at> ietf.org

Maastricht IETF Codesprint

When:  24 July 2010 beginning at 9:30 AM

Where: IETF Hotel

What:  A bunch of hackers get together to work on code for the IETF.
     Some people may be preparing for the transition to a new
     database schema; some people may be preparing for the
     upcoming extensions to support working groups; some people
     may be adding exciting new functionality.  All code will
     become part of the open source IETF tools.

How:   See http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/wiki/IETFSprintHowto

Who:   Hopefully you can help

Many of the results of previous codesprint activities are being
used every day by the IETF community.  Steve Conte will be helping
with advance planning.  Henrik Levkowetz will be coordinating the
event in Maastricht.  More information is available at:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/wiki/IETF78Sprint

If you are able to participate, please sign up on the wiki at:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/wiki/IETF78SprintSignUp

Please support the tools development effort,
 Russ


_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
Mark Nottingham | 19 May 13:15 2010
Picon

tools/html -> datatracker/doc

Is there any reason we aren't redirecting URLs of the form

http://tools.ietf.org/html/{draft-name}{draft-revision}

to

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/{draft-name}

?

(where draft-revision is optional, of course).

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Julian Reschke | 19 May 13:30 2010
Picon
Picon

Re: tools/html -> datatracker/doc

On 19.05.2010 13:15, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Is there any reason we aren't redirecting URLs of the form
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/{draft-name}{draft-revision}
>
> to
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/{draft-name}
>
> ?
>
> (where draft-revision is optional, of course).

I don't think the datatracker URI is very useful for *reading* IDs -- 
for instance, it misses lots of features tools.ietf.org has (CSS print 
support, link highlighting), and it also has lots of information that 
only becomes relevant very late in the process.

Best regards, Julian
Mark Nottingham | 19 May 13:32 2010
Picon

Re: tools/html -> datatracker/doc

Can't we port those features to datatracker?

Having so many URLs* for the same bit of information is pointless, and more importantly it confuses newcomers.

Cheers,

* I didn't even mention http://www.ietf.org/id/{draft-name}{draft-version}

On 19/05/2010, at 9:30 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 19.05.2010 13:15, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Is there any reason we aren't redirecting URLs of the form
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/{draft-name}{draft-revision}
>> 
>> to
>> 
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/{draft-name}
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> (where draft-revision is optional, of course).
> 
> I don't think the datatracker URI is very useful for *reading* IDs -- for instance, it misses lots of
features tools.ietf.org has (CSS print support, link highlighting), and it also has lots of information
that only becomes relevant very late in the process.
> 
> Best regards, Julian

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Julian Reschke | 19 May 13:46 2010
Picon
Picon

Re: tools/html -> datatracker/doc

On 19.05.2010 13:32, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Can't we port those features to datatracker?
>
> Having so many URLs* for the same bit of information is pointless, and more importantly it confuses newcomers.
>
> Cheers,

I think one important difference is that the documents on tools.ietf.org 
are generated (and re-generated) on demand, but then served from static 
files. Anything else would likely become a problem (with, for instance, 
Wikipedia linking to these URIs).

Best regards, Julian
Mark Nottingham | 19 May 13:47 2010
Picon

Re: tools/html -> datatracker/doc

You've lost me. If it's a performance problem, that can be fixed. If it's a 404 issue, we can redirect to the
datatracker URLs. What am I missing?

Cheers,

On 19/05/2010, at 9:46 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 19.05.2010 13:32, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Can't we port those features to datatracker?
>> 
>> Having so many URLs* for the same bit of information is pointless, and more importantly it confuses newcomers.
>> 
>> Cheers,
> 
> I think one important difference is that the documents on tools.ietf.org are generated (and
re-generated) on demand, but then served from static files. Anything else would likely become a problem
(with, for instance, Wikipedia linking to these URIs).
> 
> Best regards, Julian

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Julian Reschke | 19 May 13:55 2010
Picon
Picon

Re: tools/html -> datatracker/doc

On 19.05.2010 13:47, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> You've lost me. If it's a performance problem, that can be fixed. If it's a 404 issue, we can redirect to the
datatracker URLs. What am I missing?
> ...

It *could* be fixed. But it might be a lot of work.

I really don't see a problem that needs to be solved. Reading IDs for WG 
chairs, authors, and IESG members has different requirements than for 
most other people. Not sure why they need the same URI.

Best regards, Julian
Mark Nottingham | 19 May 13:59 2010
Picon

Re: tools/html -> datatracker/doc

Adding some print css, a redirect rule and a reverse proxy is a lot of work? *shrug*

I agree it's not a problem for people who are used to it and the IETF. For the rest of the population of the
planet, it's very odd and confusing to see slightly different versions of documents floating around,
with different capabilities, all available at slightly different times. 

On 19/05/2010, at 9:55 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 19.05.2010 13:47, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> You've lost me. If it's a performance problem, that can be fixed. If it's a 404 issue, we can redirect to the
datatracker URLs. What am I missing?
>> ...
> 
> It *could* be fixed. But it might be a lot of work.
> 
> I really don't see a problem that needs to be solved. Reading IDs for WG chairs, authors, and IESG members
has different requirements than for most other people. Not sure why they need the same URI.
> 
> Best regards, Julian

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Spencer Dawkins | 19 May 14:41 2010

Re: tools/html -> datatracker/doc

For what it's worth ...

> I agree it's not a problem for people who are used to it and the IETF. For 
> the rest of the population of the planet, it's very odd and confusing to 
> see slightly different versions of documents floating around, with 
> different capabilities, all available at slightly different times.

I would agree with Mark that the current situation doesn't make it EASIER 
for part-time participants to figure out how things work ... sure, that's 
not a problem for me, but I do the IETF full time, and we keep saying we 
want more interaction with implementers and less dependence on full-time 
standards guys, right?

Thanks,

Spencer 

Gmane