Subject: Fw: IETF Tools

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:13:52 -0500

Fred Baker posted the following note to v6ops, and other versions may be 
floating around other mailing lists, but I wanted to follow up to a wider 
distribution.

- The IETF tools site IS continuing to add really cool functionality (as 
detailed by Bert/Fred below), but I haven't seen anything broadly 
distributed about one of the most helpful additions.

- If you go to http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ and select a specific working 
group, you get the working group drafts that you can get from other places, 
but you ALSO get "Related Documents", which is basically any non-working 
group Internet Drafts that have "-(working group name)-" as a component in 
the filename.

- So, if you select  http://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/, you don't just get the 
WG drafts, you also get a list of documents with titles like 
draft-baker-v6ops-end2end-00.txt  - not a working group draft, but "of 
interest".

- This makes scraping all of the drafts that will be discussed in a 
face-to-face meeting a LOT easier than cut-and-pasting draft names from a 
text agenda (of course, the tools page also provides HTML-ized agendas, if 
the text agendas included actual draft names - see 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/agenda for an example).

- The definition of "related" means "includes -(working group name)- in the 
filename", so if Fred had named his draft 
draft-baker-hamster-end2end-00.txt, it would not have appeared as a "related 
document", unless we end up with a working group called hamster ("Host-Agile 
Multihomed Streaming Terrabit Error Reporting" would be an awesome BoF name, 
though).

- So, there's a real incentive to include working group names in your draft 
filename, if the draft actually targets a specific working group...

Thanks again to the Tools Group, for continuing to hack away at stuff like 
this.

Spencer

From: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 12:58 PM
Subject: IETF Tools

> Forwarded from Bert Wijnen, with some slight hacking for relevance...
>
> Goto http://tools.ietf.org
>
> If you want to see nits or diffs for any I-D in your WG, you can find 
> them on the IETF Tools Page too!
> If you go to WG status pages, you get to:
>
>     http://tools.ietf.org/wg/
>
> From there you can go to your (or any) WG.
> See for example:
>
>     http://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/
>
> You can click on dependencies and get to:
>
>     http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/viz/v6ops.pdf
>
> Of you can click on document draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios  and 
> you get to:
>
>     http://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment- 
> scenarios/
>
> from there you can see the file itself, any nits (ID-checklist) that  were 
> found, the diff bnetween all the versions etc.
>
> Very usefull information for authors, WG chairs, WG reviewers  actually 
> for everyone!
>
> Not sure everyone is really aware of it.
> 

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

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:20:37 -0400

As Spencer says, if you haven't looked recently, you really should.

Let me just give a big Thanks to Henrik and the tools team for the
work that has gone into tools.ietf.org. It is an incredibly useful
resource.

That is the first place I go when I want to see what the status of
something is in a WG. There is a wealth of detailed information
presented in a very nice format.

Enough said.

Thomas

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:48:14 -0700

This is a great tool and I am (was) thinking that this would help identify 
contributions to WG1 that may be related to WG2 by listing both the names 
in the title.

For instance, the MSEC WG has some IPSEC related documents.  For example, 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/msec/draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-signatures.  But for 
some reason that I-D does not show up in the IPSEC page of the tools 
pages.  Perhaps it is a bug or perhaps that is so because IPSEC is 
closed.  Anyway, I am hoping we can use this to facilitate cross-wg (or 
cross-area) review.

thanks and regards,
Lakshminath

At 07:13 AM 9/14/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>group, you get the working group drafts that you can get from other 
>places, but you ALSO get "Related Documents", which is basically any 
>non-working group Internet Drafts that have "-(working group name)-" as a 
>component in the filename.
>
>- So, if you select  http://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/, you don't just get 
>the WG drafts, you also get a list of documents with titles like 
>- The definition of "related" means "includes -(working group name)- in 
>the filename", so if Fred had named his draft 
>draft-baker-hamster-end2end-00.txt, it would not have appeared as a 
>"related document", unless we end up with a working group called hamster 
>("Host-Agile Multihomed Streaming Terrabit Error Reporting" would be an 
>awesome BoF name, though).
>
>- So, there's a real incentive to include working group names in your 
>draft filename, if the draft actually targets a specific working group...
>
>>Of you can click on document 
>>draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios  and you get to:
>>
>>from there you can see the file itself, any nits (ID-checklist) 
>>that  were found, the diff bnetween all the versions etc.
>>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:27:30 +0200

> presented in a very nice format.

On behalf of the whole team, thanks to you all.  I believe the driving
force for us is to prototype and specify tools which make the work
easier, leaving more time and energy available for the content and
purpose of the IETF work rather than the mechanics.

There will continue to be incremental additions and refinements to
the tools which are already on the site, so suggestions and
contributions are very welcome.  We're also working on new stuff
which we hope you'll like :-)

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:05:16 +0200

Hi Lakshminath,

> closed.  Anyway, I am hoping we can use this to facilitate cross-wg (or 

Ah!  Good catch! :-)  For the 'related' drafts, I only considered
non-wg drafts -- but the cross-wg drafts are obviously at least as
relevant.

I've fixed the code, and both sites should be updated within an hour.

	Henrik

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:39:15 -0500

> I've fixed the code, and both sites should be updated within an hour.

... and this is the OTHER reason people should be looking at the IETF tools 
website - if you have feedback on what the tools do and how they can be 
improved, updates usually happen really quickly :-)

Spencer

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:08:58 +0200

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

> suggestions and contributions are very welcome

Minor nit, the output is still "transitional" using <center>,
table layout, etc.  That's fine from my POV with a "legacy"
browser.  But the "right column" is often much shorter than
the "left column" (= list of WGs).  And the default vertical
alignment is "middle", forcing me to scroll down until I see
the actual content of the "right column".

As long as you're not yet religious about "strict + CSS" vs.
"transitional" I'd like it if you'd "copy" the CSS hint...

    td          { vertical-align: top; padding: 0 0 0 0; }

...to the one place where "legacy" browsers don't get it,
i.e. s/<td>/<td align="top">/ below <!-- Right Column -->

As soon as you want "strict" this obscure <td align="top">
would automatically vanish again, "strict" doesn't fly with
table layout.
                           Bye, Frank

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:29:15 -0700

Excellent!  Many thanks for this great tool.  It is already in my firefox 
toolbar :-).

One curious side effect might be that everyone will now know if other WGs 
set out to make modifications to <substitute your favorite protocol here; 
mine is> IPsec, and might make life in the IETF more exciting, if it not 
already exciting enough :-).

thanks again to the tools team,
Lakshminath

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:31:59 +0200

Hi Frank,

> i.e. s/<td>/<td align="top">/ below <!-- Right Column -->

Hint taken :-)

You can verify that I got it right on this page:
    http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/mip4/

- it should be in place for all WG pages within an hour.

> would automatically vanish again, "strict" doesn't fly with

... which is one reason I haven't gone to "strict" so far - 
I haven't found out how to work with that in such a manner
that it doesn't make common, currently easy things harder...

	Henrik

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 05:29:29 +0200

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

> verify that I got it right

Of course you did, but my stupid browser still doesn't get it,
sigh...  embarassing, let's say "IOU ten legacy browser tests"
whenever you need them.  Is there any better place than this
list for cases of "user hallucinates technical problem with an
IETF server" ?  I like to limit the audience before I screw up.

                          Bye, Frank

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:00:31 +0300 (EEST)

> which we hope you'll like :-)

A suggestion: it might be a good idea to include a changelog of 
user-visible changes somewhere.  That way, the folks might discover 
the fancy new features more easily..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:46:51 +0200

Hi Pekka,

on 2005-09-15 07:00 Pekka Savola said the following:
[...]
> the fancy new features more easily..

Yes - it's only a few days away...   The gray version indication which
has recently appeared in the top right corner will soon lead to a page
which gives you release notes and links to source code, license, proposed
features, bug-tracker and whatnot.

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:03:20 +0200

> IETF server" ?  I like to limit the audience before I screw up.

The tools-discuss list ([email-masked], 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss) would be
quite appropriate for anything tools-team related.  If you need
it smaller than that, you can send an email to me directly for
tools-team related tools - for other stuff, [email-masked]
would be right.

	Henrik

---

From: "Mukesh Gupta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:51:04 -0700

Wow !  This is good !

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Spencer Dawkins
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:14 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Fw: IETF Tools
> 
> places,
> the
> the
> "related
> draft