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

Ladislav Lhotka <> Thu, 05 September 2019 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72222120B1B for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FTj_M69jM1hZ for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 066F51200C3 for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2a01:5e0:29:ffff:ffc6:c393:cdb9:8db1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F702140DBF; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 21:13:45 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=default; t=1567710825; bh=5QoLc8VNyYHh48227mTYuzUMCnp+ucXDkOOBO41Nz8M=; h=From:To:Date; b=Kae8Je+Bbkvibh/oQohjJ0d+3qs7pU+Gah+yMrOG7EjSNRhMJaz6WdZ6+VVOxWoKE aTVl0UVJbw4OW2FaF4vrIrZt6fYfl49bf9l2DDm83e2oQR/X6Hxc/OmAiXc2xHSz6J FXWPtzDPkPyhMYG/XKsE9lo2kAAJ3ydYhwWkrpUg=
Message-ID: <>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <>
To: Kent Watsen <>
Cc: "" <>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:13:44 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Alissa Cooper's Abstain on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-09: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 19:13:50 -0000

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).


>   * 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