Subject: Re: ietf 1id_guidelines tool broken

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:03:55 +0100

On 2010-02-26 20:42 William Allen Simpson said the following:
> As of Feb 9th, the IESG posted a second status boilerplate.  But the tool
> doesn't yet recognize it....  Be warned.

Specifics, please?

 * Is this the idnits tool or some other tool?
 * Which version did you use?
 * Did you use the downloaded script or the web-service, and if so, with which URL?
 * Which boilerplate change specifically isn't recognized? I.e., what is your input?
 * What is the output of the tool, given your input?

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:25:16 +0100

The short response to the information below is that it seems that the
secretariat is still running version 2.12.00 of idnits, while the newer
version 2.12.01 (released 4 Feb 2010) accepts the new boilerplate correctly.
I'm notifying the secretariat so they can update to the newest version.

---

The longer response is that diagnosing this required much more time than
would have been required if all the requested and available information
had been supplied below (instead of flippancy); further comments inline:

On 2010-02-27 00:03 William Allen Simpson said the following:
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Whatever the IETF Secretariat is using.

Not particularly helpful.  The program version is indicated on the first line
of its output.  It would have been good if you'd provided the full output
below, instead of snipping away part of it.

> http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt

(I doubt the text below is what you actually submitted; but at least it
does show the boilerplate you refer to.)

> I-D Guidelines                                 R. Housley (for the IESG)
>                                                            Vigil Security
>                                                           9 February 2010
> 
>     In the modern Internet, the need for stable URLs is more important
>     than providing multiple sites around the world to obtain I-Ds.
>     Also, search engines have replaced the need for a file containing
>     a collection of I-D abstracts.  As a result, the second choice is:
> 
>        "This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
>        provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> 
>        Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
>        Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
>        working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current
>        Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current.
> 
>        Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
>        months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
>        documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
>        Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
>        "work in progress.""
> 
> 

As indicated earlier, what you provide here is only part of the output, and
you've managed to snip away the part which would have made the actual problem
obvious without detective work.

>    ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about
>       Internet-Drafts being working documents -- however, there's a paragraph
>       with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
> 
>       1id_guidelines, paragraph 1:
>       "Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
>        Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that other
>        groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts."
> 
>       ... text found in draft:
>       "Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
>        Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working
>  ..................^
>        documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts
>        is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current."
> 
> 
>    ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of
>       current Internet-Drafts.
> 
>       1id_guidelines, paragraph 3:
>       "The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
>        http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html"
> 
>    ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of
>       Shadow Directories.
> 
>       1id_guidelines, paragraph 4:
>       "The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
>        http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html"
> 

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:27:36 +0100

On 2010-02-27 04:46 William Allen Simpson said the following:
...
> You are incorrect.  Get off your high horse.  You should have notified the
> secretariat of the version change weeks ago.

Below is the response from Glen at the secretariat staff to my notification
of the version change, which *was* sent weeks ago, on February 4th.  The new
version *has* been installed for the automated submission tool (I verified
that yesterday before answering your first mail) but clearly there's an older
copy somewhere else in their system.

Your assumption of what I haven't done but should have done is incorrect.

Your initial 'bugreport' contained no specifics whatsoever.

You inappropriately sent the 'tool is broken' message to the whole IETF
general discussion list, in addition to addressing me directly (so it's
not as if you didn't know where to direct a bug report).

All of the above earns you no respect with me, and that colours my
responses.  Next time, send a bug report to the secretariat or to me
directly, containing specifics that lets us *fix* the problem, rather
than blazoning an unspecific and unhelpful 'Things don't work' message
across the sky, and you might get a different tone back.

	Henrik

On 2010-02-04 20:09 Glen said the following:
> Installed!  :-)
> 
> Glen
> 
> On 2/4/2010 3:31 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is an automatic notification about a new idnits version, v2.12.01,
>> generated when doing 'make upload' for idnits.
>>
>> Release notes:
>>
>> idnits (2.12.01)
>>    * The order of final double-quote and sentence stop in the ID-guidelines
>>      paragraph 5 text differed between the idnits expectations and the
>>      web page.  Changed to accept both.
>>    * The ID-guidelines document combines the trust-specified statement of
>>      conformance with BCP 78 and 79 with the following statement of drafts
>>      being working documents into one paragraph, while idnits only would
>>      recognize them as separate paragraphs.  Fixed to accept both.
>>    * Idnits expected the final URL in the ID-guidelines section 5 para 7
>>      to end in a slash, while the guidelines specifies it without slash.
>>      Changed to accept both.
>>
>>
>> The new version is available for download here:
>>   http://shiraz.tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/idnits-v2.12.01
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> 	Henrik
>>
>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:47:35 +0100

On 2010-02-27 13:17 William Allen Simpson said the following:
> All IETF draft submitters need to know promptly, as Monday is the deadline
> for -00 version internet-drafts.

So you're still maintaining that it's good and right to send out a notice
of a problem widely and provide no information which makes it possible to
resolve it?  Bah!

> It took some time (2 hours) to figure out that you had written the tool
> that generated the bad output, as the secretariat does not put your name
> (nor the tool name nor the version number) in their response message.
> 
> I'm regretting wasting my time (finding you).

So am I.

> And you probably shouldn't increment the .trivial for such a huge change.
> That was really a major change (as was 1id_guidelines itself).
> 
> Maybe that's the reason the secretariat didn't think it was important
> enough to install.

You're not duplicating what I've been saying.  The tool *was* installed
on February 4th.  Somewhere there's been a slip-up, but translating that
into evaluation of importance is nonsense.

> It was reported to the secretariat directly ~13:53 EST by 'phone, but
> could not be fixed promptly.
>
> AFAICT, it's still not updated!
> 
>    http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
> 
> At this very moment:
> 
> Version: 2.12.00

Ooh, that's not good.  The .01 version is only available on some of the
tools servers, not all.  Fixed.

> Author:
> 
> Note the author is missing here, too.

Funny.  I see my name quite clearly on the web page there.

> Also, the verbose output doesn't count line lengths correctly.  Apparently,
> it is including the non-printing FF in the count.  Not good.
> 
> <sarcasm>
> Also, this was somewhat amusing:
> 
>    ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1700 (ref. 'RFC 3232') (Obsoleted by
>       RFC 3232)
> 
> Outstanding!  Fails on the reference to RFC 1700 in the *title* of the
> RFC 3232 reference that obsoleted RFC 1700:

I'm afraid I can't comment on this, as the error message is based on the content
of the reference entry in your document, which you've not seen fit to provide,
although I requested it in my first note.

> 1432	   [RFC 3232]  Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by
> 1433	               an On-line Database", January 2002.
> </sarcasm>
> 
> At least the secretariat was smart enough to know that "**" pseudo-error
> was bogus, and didn't include it in their message to me.

I'm very gratified that you actually expect a mere computer program written
by me to be able to make human grade intelligent evaluations of content.

> As I wrote previously, get off your high horse.  We really don't need the
> attitude....

My attitude to you, sir, is that you should make it possible for me to fix
things, by providing information instead of generalities of the "it doesn't
work" type.  I do what I do as a volunteer, and I certainly don't need the
aggravation of broadcast generalities of this kind.

>  Next time, test to see that your own code was installed and
> actually works.  It's obvious that you never tested much of anything.

It would be obvious to you if you'd looked at the idnits report of your own
submission that idnits *had* been installed:
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/display_idnit.cgi?submission_id=21622

So I'm afraid that your idea of what's obvious doesn't count for much with
me.

	Henrik

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:41:05 -0500

I am very grateful for the efforts of Henrik and the rest of the tools
team.  They provide their services to the entire community with little
recognition and no pay.  They try very hard to keep the tools current
and relevant.

When I have found bugs, I have done my best to report them with very
clear description of the problem that I encountered.  And then, the
problems have been corrected quickly.  In my experience, a respectful
interaction leads to speedy corrections.

I think it is time to end this thread.  It seems the most recent update
was not installed on all of the tools servers, and that has been corrected.

Russ Housley
IETF Chair

On 2/27/2010 7:47 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>