[netmod] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-08: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 22 August 2019 04:41 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietf.org
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC5212006F; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, netmod@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Message-ID: <156644887163.25781.14997941309022671135.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:41:11 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/3ac5tCZQszDn-9ETgVWi58pNwhA>
Subject: [netmod] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 04:41:12 -0000

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


— Section 4.1 —

I find the BCP 14 “SHOULD” in this section to be odd, and would lower-case

   When needed, this effort again
   SHOULD be automated to reduce effort and errors resulting from manual

This sentence is really awkward: “when needed”, the use of “effort” twice, and
the uncertainty of whether the clause “resulting from manual processing”
applies to both effort and errors, or only to the latter.  I would say it this

This work should also be automated to reduce the effort and to reduce errors
resulting from manual processing. END

— Section 6 —

         assumes that the continuation begins at the character that is
         not a space character (' ') on the following line.

Should be “at the first character”.

— Section 7.1.1 —

   The second line is a blank line.

The code in the appendix generates an *empty* line (no text).  Is that what you
mean by “blank line”?  Will a line that contains only space characters (*looks*
the same) work also?  The code in the appendix appears to discard the second
line without checking its content at all.  I think you should be clearer about
what qualifies as a “blank line”.  (This also applies to Section 8.1.1.)

— Section 7.2.1 —

   If this text content needs to and can be folded, insert the header
   described in Section 7.1.1, ensuring that any additional printable
   characters surrounding the header does not result in a line exceeding
   the desired maximum.

Should be “do not result” (to match the plural “printable characters”).