Re: [netmod] Alissa Cooper's Abstain on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-09: (with COMMENT)

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 15:08 +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> 
> > > There has been discussion about how embedding YANG models in RFCs seems
> > > like a
> > > poor fit for a number of reasons. By standardizing line-folding mechanisms
> > > and
> > > claiming them as a best practice, this document reinforces the root of
> > > that
> > > problem rather than trying to fix it.
> > 
> > Well said, I agree with Alissa's conclusion.
> 
> Assuming 'a', yes, 'b' follows 'a'.  That said, the concern is nebulous
> and how to address it more so.  Proposals?

First, one can ask whether it is a good idea to have RFCs as the authoritative
source of YANG modules. I don't think so.

Otherwise, if the practice of including YANG modules in RFCs continues, I would
suggest to include YANG modules unchanged in xml2rfc and leave the presentation
issues to the RFC Editor (or their tools). With the upcoming RFC format change
there will be more publication formats (HTML, TXT, PDF, EPUB), so it is IMO
ridiculous to modify the source code in order to suit one of them. For example,
I don't want to see folded lines in HTML-formatted RFCs.

> 
>   * Initial and NBC modules go thru standard RFC publishing process (i.e.,
>     there is still a need to publish YANG modules in RFCs).

Why? The RFC could include a link to an external module resource (possibly with
a hash to guarantee that the referred resource hasn't been modified).

Lada

> 
>   * BC modules can skip standard publishing process but, to be an "IETF"
>     product (not some random fork), they would need to be released via an
>     IETF-owned mechanism (e.g., an Git repo) with restricted write-access.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Kent
> 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67