Re: [netmod] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Kent Watsen <> Thu, 05 September 2019 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE09120928; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 10:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ZTgErOR5HFwL; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 10:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F7B912091B; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 10:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1567703281; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=yGhu0v78CrDvwiQ1T1vVfFC8p87SUO95vngqHxOGiyA=; b=O6Ly802Dqrlydi5kp2a7pnV3u/LTr/4kOZi9QfEei+Gayh3uqjnfTTOiDJrt6s1K W9eYg1OULIrBb2eBbsW2vedegHWEfUpf2s9RCCyoFn2zIVX4jy7WPcQ3v+2RFAEMaE/ ZT65OX7krOfp8NAq3+vmtNvM7BwmL7YDdKz9HIZ4=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_045D2108-C80A-460B-8C8F-125AFD967AF5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 17:08:01 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, Lou Berger <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: Suresh Krishnan <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.09.05-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-09: (with DISCUSS and 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 17:08:07 -0000

Hi Suresh,

Thank you for your review.  Comments below.

Kent // as co-author

> On Sep 5, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <> wrote:
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-09: Discuss
> 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> After some thought I think there are two things about this document that make
> me uncomfortable enough to ballot Discuss.
> a) Due to its home in the netmod WG it is highly likely that people outside the
> yang community have not paid enough attention to this work. Since this is
> applicable to code fragments of all kinds, I think the home chosen for this RFC
> might have inadvertently limited input from the broader community.

Agreed.  The original I-D was targeted for IAB stream.  It wasn't going to be presented in NETMOD, but did (by coercion).  During the presentation I mentioned that its applicability was more than NETMOD and that it should go thru IAB, just like the "xml2rfc" RFCs (7749 and 7991).  The working group felt that it should stay in the WG and hence here we are.  :sigh:

> b) Given a) I think it is better that this document go forward as an
> Informational document rather than a BCP so that use of this technique becomes
> optional, without the force of a BCP behind it.

I'm okay with this, modulo my comment to Alissa.   Actually, if we only view the RFC as specifying a format then, in my mind, it doesn't actually contain the "best practice".  FWIW, SHOULD appears only once, in a sentence stating that folding SHOULD be automated, in a section titled "Goals".  That said, if not a BCP, then how to encourage people to use it, so that automation works?  For this reason alone, it seems that either the draft should be a BCP or Datatracker is updated to auto-fold as needed.  Perhaps  the right answer is to do Informational now and hope that Datatracker is updated in time?

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I do agree with my Abstaining colleagues that this should probably not be on
> the IETF stream but I think the work is useful enough to go forward.

It should've been on the IAB stream.  Whether it should go forward, after having the BCP attribute removed, or re-run via the IAB stream is up to the IESG.

Kent // as co-author