Subject: RE: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:55:42 +0100

smb writes:
> >I've been pondering change tracking, in the context of copy-editing,
> >but I haven't come up with a complete thought yet.
> >
> 
> CVS?  Should the Secretariat make CVS archives available to WG 
> document editors?  I've written a book and many joint papers via CVS; 
> it works very well for line-oriented ASCII input, whether XML, LaTeX, 
> nroff, or what have you.
> 

I think such a service would be a GREAT service for our WGs and document
editors/authors. Has the tools team looked at it at all?

Bert

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:47:34 +0100

> editors/authors. Has the tools team looked at it at all?

Every little open source software project uses version control systems
these days. The IETF does not. And interestingly, the IETF even likes
to standardize this stuff (look at the WebDAV RFCs). Personally, I
liked CVS and I do even more appreciate SVN these days (which is
actually a superset of WebDAV).

I would love if the IETF could _offer_ subversion services for WGs who
want to use this. It would be nice to be able to simple modify a
document and post the diff in a common format instead of the arcane

OLD:

NEW:

format which really boils the ocean if you have to rename/rewrite
something throughout a document.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:42:46 -0800

On 11/15/05, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Personally, I
> want to use this.

I think this is quite sensible (and agree that subversion makes sense
- its authentication model is better suited to giving accounts to
hundreds of random users than CVS's).

  Bill

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:30:53 +0100

On Nov 15 2005, at 18:47 Uhr, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

> these days. The IETF does not.

Many WGs, of course, do, in scattered places, using random identity/ 
authentication schemes, depending on individuals for hosting that may  
disappear from the face of the earth any minute.
Centralizing this service at ietf.org makes about as much sense as  
centralizing mailing lists and issue trackers (i.e., a lot!).
And yes, subversion is the tool of choice right now, and it is  
relatively easy to set up and administer.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:35:49 +0100

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>...
> ...

Nit: it's an implementation of WebDAV (RFC2518), but only a *subset* of 
WebDAV Versioning (RFC3253).

> document and post the diff in a common format instead of the arcane

Here I completely agree.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:21:37 +0100

> something throughout a document.

If the IETF needs all RFCs in plain text, why would it not also need
plain text for version control?

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:29:41 +0100

Hi Bert,

> editors/authors. Has the tools team looked at it at all?

No, we've not looked seriously at this.  It should not be too hard
to set up as a stand-alone service, but it would be a bit more work
to integrate nicely with the work-group pages.  Which is no reason
at all not to start out with a simple stand-alone service :-)

We'll have a look at it.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:53:26 -0800

Henrik,

I can't believe we finally asked for something that the tools team had NOT 
already thought about :-)

Thanks for all the stuff that you HAVE thought about, to the point of making 
it happen, of course, and best wishes in your continued thinking...

Spencer

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:02:45 -0800

> it happen, of course, and best wishes in your continued thinking...

I strongly agree.  What I've seen of the new tools provided is
excellent; they've immediately had me change over to using them.  I'm
particularly fond of the wg status pages - with the individual drafts
nicely associated.

Alia

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:38 +0100

> already thought about :-)

Oh, there are many features on the current tools.ietf.org pages which are
there because someone had a bright idea and asked for it.

Not surprising, among so many bright people. :-)

> particularly fond of the wg status pages - with the individual drafts

Glad you find them useful!  We'll strive to continue to add useful
tools.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:46:04 -0800

Many ietf folks use a "open source" source code control repository at
sipfoundry.org to edit drafts. The folks at sipfoundry have been happy to
give accounts to any IETF folks (and given sipfoundry is littered with IETF
folks, I'd be surprised to see this change :-). There are already about 160
IETF drafts in this repository. It uses svn instead of cvs. One of the nice
part of that is that people who don't use svn can just use a normal web
browser to get a copy of the document. For example you can see a bunch of my
drafts at 

http://scm.sipfoundry.org/rep/ietf-drafts/fluffy/

It has been *very* useful for allowing multiple people to edit the draft at
the same time (like at 2 am before the deadline) and also allow author X to
see all the changes author Y made and quickly review them. The ability to
revert makes it easier to propose text between authors.

I really like using some SCM systems for editing drafts and encourage others
to give it a try.

Cullen