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

Kent Watsen <> Thu, 05 September 2019 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113B5120170 for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 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] 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 rzGodFM9tP6T for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:08:54 -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 D58851200FB for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1567696132; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=bhC3m3x72UhdMcFLGICxya/6m2h7XzitZnlhWWTHSIE=; b=WJA4/s3LsD2L3Zr1kNtwjAt8SVrHqyfwLpkrXZ303IU+tu7cJPX/H+ScokB5fvOs Lmaa/bskMNatlV/h8X8MNVeXpVoSn8+3ysTIy/EGpfXwu1XdWeu19n6wsHQqRnAJPPf 4b368zPGRjDvWuEpzF8stZBtUweyARXnhlsZHm9g=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_12AF3CCB-A9CE-4C7E-A73F-668CFB5FAC13"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 15:08:52 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.09.05-
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 15:08:56 -0000

>> 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?

Assuming the concern is process-overhead for minor spins, perhaps we
could leverage the module-versioning work as follows:

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

  * 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.