gmane.ietf.tools

permission error in trac

Mark Nottingham — 2008-09-09T01:38:27

I tried to set a default state for issues and got: -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss< at >ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

minor problem with dhc WG issues tracker

Ralph Droms — 2008-09-08T21:09:19

It seems the dhc WG issues tracker sends announcements to dhc< at >ietf.org, while the official mailing list for the dhc WG is dhcwg< at >ietf.org . Is there a configuration knob I can use to fix that issue? - Ralph

draft name changes

Ed Jankiewicz — 2008-08-25T21:19:22

just for the suggestion box, I'm sure it overfloweth... for the IETF Documents tool, consider adding a link when a draft name changes (e.g. an individual draft is adopted as a working group item), similar to the link from a draft to its publication as an RFC. It would be nice to see that http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-ra-guard-01 didn't just expire, but lived on as http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-00 for example.

internal software error (was: abnf extracting code?)

Frank Ellermann — 2008-08-22T02:51:36

Hi, repost, something is apparently broken again between the tools list and Gmane... :-( ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mail Delivery System core3.amsl.com> Date: 2008/8/21 Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender To: git-tools-discuss< at >m.gmane.org This is the mail system at host core3.amsl.com. I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system core3.amsl.com>: Command time limit exceeded: "/a/postconfirm/mailman post tools-discuss ietf.org" Final-Recipient: rfc822; tools-discuss< at >core3.amsl.com Original-Recipient: rfc822;tools-discuss< at >ietf.org Action: failed Status: 5.3.0 Diagnostic-Code: x-unix; internal software error ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Frank Ellermann" gmail.com> To: tools-discuss< at >ietf.org Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:09:43 +0200 Subject: Re: abnf extracting code? Henrik Levkowetz wrote: Brilliant, down from one hour to one second for 2821bis. Frank

tools wg pages broken?

Jari Arkko — 2008-08-16T05:06:01

I'm seeing the tools wg pages fail in a random fashion. For instance, if I access I get the usual framing structure correctly, but the document frame contains just this: "An error occurred at this point in the web-page generation. An error report has been sent to the webmaster. If this error isn't fixed within 48 hours, please contact the web page author directly. " However, curiously, this does not always happen. *Sometimes* I get the real thing. Jari

abnf extracting code?

Tony Hansen — 2008-08-12T02:49:11

Does anyone have some code that does a good job of extracting ABNF information from an RFC/I-D? If we can find some code that does a decent job, an idea for tools.ietf.org would be tools.ietf.org/abnf/RFC# It would work just like tools.ietf.org/html/, but show the extracted ABNF code from the given RFC or I-D. Tony Hansen tony< at >att.com

Python code for extracting title from an RFC orDraft?

Paul Hoffman — 2008-08-04T15:43:24

Greetings again. I looked on the tools site and don't see any source code. I would love a tool that, given a draft or RFC, extracts the title from the top of the first page. (Extra points for pulling out the abstract). If I have to do it as "given the filename, look in 1id-abstracts.txt or rfc-index.xml", that's fine, but I would like the code for that as well. No wheel-recreating, if not needed. As a side note, it seems odd that the code y'all have created isn't on tools.ietf.org... --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium

IETF tools list issues (update)

Frank Ellermann — 2008-07-19T18:47:40

Hi, an updated list of issues from my POV: * the RFC-I problem was fixed (= ietf.org unlisted), an update sent via GMaNe might be trapped in the moderation queue or in a meeting with Dave Null: * various errata are still AWOL, for a complete list of 667 RFCs with reported errata as of 2008-07-08 see ger.gmane.org>, available in * the "challenge" wasn't identified as challenge by GMaNe, I'm not sure if that is a bug or a feature in practice. Here is the "raw" challenge message: RFC 3834 issues in this "challenge": 1 - The envelope sender address was the ordinary list address, the list bounce address might be better, see RFC 3834 chapter 3.3 2 - There was no OPTIONAL (RFC 3834 chapter 3.1.8) Precedence: list (or similar) header field 3 - There was no RECOMMENDED (3.1.7) Auto-Submitted header field 4 - There were no RECOMMENDED (3.1.6) References and In-Reply-To header fields with the Message-ID of the challenged article, IMO that would be good 5 - There was no OPTIONAL (3.1.5) Auto: subject tag 6 - There was no RECOMMENDED (3.1.2) Reply-To header field, that's bad in conjunction with the next points 7 - The 2822-From was not a list owner address or say tools-discuss-request< at >ietf.org as RECOMMENDED in 3.1.1, it was the list address, IMO that's wrong. * GMaNe considered the challenge as ordinary mail from the list to all members, and that is how I got it, as ordinary "article" in a "newsgroup" gmane.ietf.tools. At that time I had no idea what is wrong and decided to send a "response" as requested, but "just in case" I used another route: Via Gmail corresponding to the 2822-From in the mail that triggered the challenge, a bad idea on my side. The list identified my address as subscribed, missed that it was "response" to its prior "challenge", and sent the response to all IETF Tools list members not limited to GMaNe: Likely the C/R system is still waiting for a response via GMaNe, I'll test that later. RFC 3834 does not mention the problem of a "response" on another route, but I think C/R systems should find such responses - especially if the "challenge" claims to use only the subject to find "responses", not the envelope sender. Frank

historic mailing list archives

Lars Eggert — 2008-07-18T08:18:18

Hi, the mailing list search engine I emailed about earlier (http://people.nokia.net/~lars/ietfsearch.html ) only finds emails that are available in an HTML-ified archive (hypermail, mhonarc, pipermail, etc.) Although most of our current mailing lists have such archives (esp. all the ones hosted on ietf.org), many historic working groups have archives that are only available in mbox format. If they are available at all - when I checked the screen scraped archive URLs on http://tools.ietf.org/wg/concluded I was shocked how many are unvailable. It looks like we're in serious danger to loose some of our institutional memory. So, I'm thinking about starting some concerted effort to collect and HTMLify the archives of historic IETF mailing lists. For example, I grabbed quite large number of them from http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/infosys/network/docs/ietf.org/concluded-wg-ietf-mail-archive/ , and I'm getting ready to convert them via mhonarc. Questions: - do people think this is a worthwhile effort? - where should I collect the archives and host the HTML from? (I'd prefer something at ietf.org rather than my own server) Lars

Confirm: tools-discuss< at >ietf.org:sP94UPSIBP7Q:FDBPoLtOgm-Owa1LJwzMrB62AE-3gq1dAIgsxA

2008-07-18T08:10:21

Confirmation of list posting -- confirmation ID: sP94UPSIBP7Q The ietf.org mailing-list server has received a list posting from git-tools-discuss< at >m.gmane.org to tools-discuss< at >ietf.org with the subject 'Re: search engine for IETF mailing list archives' As the sender address isn't subscribed to the list, and has not been confirmed earlier, we have to request a confirmation of the address. To confirm the address, send a message to tools-discuss< at >ietf.org, with the same subject line as this message. (Simply sending a 'reply' to this message should work from most email interfaces, since that usually leaves the subject line in the right form. The reply's additional "Re:" is ok.) If you do not wish your posting to the list to go through, simply disregard this message. Questions to postmaster< at >ietf.org.

Dublin code sprint?

Lars Eggert — 2008-07-16T14:24:55

Hi, I assume there will be a code sprint again in Dublin? Lars

Incorrect Chair listed on IPPM page

Al Morton — 2008-07-15T19:48:54

Hi Henrick and all, I just noticed that the ippm wg page on the tools site lists Guy Almes as chair! This was correct back in 1998 or so, but Guy hasn't been chair for a long time. Henk and Matt are the current chairs. :-) Al

dailydose feed

Frank Ellermann — 2008-06-21T08:49:12

Hi, is anybody else using the dailydose feed ? I'd prefer ?singlecolumn style URIs, compare vs. Of course a matter of taste, but when I want the overdose I don't want the tools navbar. Generally I like a decent link to a separate page with all relevant links better than a "navbar" wasting real estate in the browser window and bandwidth, but that is obviously a minority position, the whole WWW replaced those pre-historic navframes by navbars. :-( Frank

Errata

Frank Ellermann — 2008-06-19T22:43:23

Hi, the errata are not more in sync with the reported errata, is that as it should be ? Examples: , no link to http://rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3092 , no link to http://rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3406 Frank

ID Submission Tool: I-D Submitter Authentication

Julian Reschke — 2008-06-17T08:59:10

Hi, while submitting drafts this morning, it occurred to me that the current approach of authenticating the draft submission based on an HTTP GET request violates the GET safeness principle. Any chance that this could be changed in the future to require a subsequent POST (via HTML form)? BR, Julian

PDF conversion problem

2008-05-21T11:58:15

The txt to pdf conversion process has somehow failed for this draft: http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-12.pdf The txt version looks OK, so I can't immediately tell why the PDF looks weird... Best regards, Pasi

Disconcerting behavior by rfcdiff

Brian E Carpenter — 2008-05-21T03:04:07

I just ran rfcdiff (the web service version) on draft-miyata-v6ops-trans-approach-00.txt and draft-miyata-v6ops-trans-approach-01.txt It apparently sees the second draft as an empty document. The reason is that the draft starts thus: Internet Engineering Task Force H. Miyata Internet-Draft Yokogawa Electric Corp. Intended status: Informational May 14, 2007 Expires: October 24, 2008 It should be May 14, 2008 - when I patch that error, rfcdiff works perfectly. (Incidentally, idnits doesn't detect the 18 months expiry error, and the ID submission process didn't either, but that's an issue for another list.) Brian

nits version mismatch

Sandra Murphy — 2008-05-15T21:02:52

In a discussion of draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-04.txt for secdir, I reported that that the nit checker showed 7 nits. Adrian Farrell said: to which I replied: I looked at the page: http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/l1vpn/draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode/ which reports: 2008-02-21 16:40 draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-04.txt [txt/plain] [txt/pdf] [nits] [diff -from-03, wdiff, txt] (7 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).) Clicking on the nits link gets you to: ... ** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 3471 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 3473 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 3477 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 4202 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 4204 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 4206 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 4208 Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 0 comments (--). And Adrian noted: Interesting. http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ is at revision 2.08.08 The page you used is at revision 2.08.04 Bug in the tool :-( The RFC clearly states... Category: Standards Track And I volunteered to alert the Tools Team. Hopefully, this is the right address to use for such alerts. --Sandy

Text in RFC 3986 breaks RFC-HTML tool

Jim Bell — 2008-04-29T20:43:47

_______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss< at >ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

xml version of 1id-abstracts.txt/1id-index.txt andall_id.txt

Tony Hansen — 2008-04-23T22:41:26

There was some discussion recently of having an xml version of the internet-drafts files 1id-*.txt and all_id.txt. Moving this further along, I'd like to make concrete proposals for the schema for such files. First off, for 1id-abstract, the schema would be (I'm not an expert at DTDs, so forgive any errors here): Translation: contains and contains 1 or more contains a , , , , and The contains a working group acronym. At the end is a map from working group acronyms to spelled out names. contains 1 or more Each contains an and . A sample would look like this: Transmission of IP over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks HongSeok Jeon 18-Apr-08 16ng draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-06.txt This document describes the transmission of IPv4 over ... ...

16ng IP over IEEE 802.16 Networks 6man IPv6 Maintenance ...

A complete sample file can be seen at http://merlot.tools.ietf.org/~tonyh/internet-drafts/1id-abstracts.xml For all_id.xml, I'm proposing this schema: Translation: contains one or more Each contains a , a , and a Depending on the value of , there may be a , a , a and a . A sample would look like this: draft-adolf-dvb-urn-03 2007-12-18 In IESG processing Revised ID Needed draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-03 2007-10-25 In IESG processing Publication Requested draft-zorn-radius-port-type-04 2006-04-04 RFC 4603 draft-yokota-mipshop-3gfh-02 2008-03-03 Replaced draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh A complete sample file can be seen at http://merlot.tools.ietf.org/~tonyh/internet-drafts/all_id.xml Thoughts? Tony Hansen tony< at >att.com

I-D.ietf-eai-dsn

Frank Ellermann — 2008-04-10T14:33:56

Hi, shows a tracker link for , but the page doesn't. Trying to figure out what rfcmarkup does, this can't happen, in I see a "docidnum", "docphase" doesn't begin with "ID-Exists": Rfcmarkup 1.62 never run for this draft after the PubReq, the old HTML page was apparently created by version 1.58. Is the code calling rfcmarkup 1.62 also visible somewhere ? Frank