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

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Thu, 05 September 2019 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <0100016d01f89905-2d99967e-a660-4ae2-a0a3-1fd270ad4a07-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113B5120170 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rzGodFM9tP6T for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-32.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-32.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D58851200FB for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw; d=amazonses.com; 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 <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <0100016d01f89905-2d99967e-a660-4ae2-a0a3-1fd270ad4a07-000000@email.amazonses.com>
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, 5 Sep 2019 15:08:52 +0000
In-Reply-To: <ceb3f6865a14b79bc9cab81e77ce34043ca1d760.camel@nic.cz>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
References: <156762337738.22782.18440951708689230098.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <ceb3f6865a14b79bc9cab81e77ce34043ca1d760.camel@nic.cz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.09.05-54.240.8.32
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/8DbwywSCqWrPum2NR1a2jUcFH_Y>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Alissa Cooper's Abstain on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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, 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.

Thoughts?

Kent