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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 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: Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" To: Ladislav Lhotka References: <156762337738.22782.18440951708689230098.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> 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: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 15:08:56 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_12AF3CCB-A9CE-4C7E-A73F-668CFB5FAC13 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> 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. >=20 > 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 --Apple-Mail=_12AF3CCB-A9CE-4C7E-A73F-668CFB5FAC13 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

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

= --Apple-Mail=_12AF3CCB-A9CE-4C7E-A73F-668CFB5FAC13--