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

"Adrian Farrel" <> Thu, 22 August 2019 09:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72A5120018; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 02:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQxHLEJHG_tJ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 02:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D91B120115; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 02:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x7M92Ngt028042; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:02:28 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B266522050; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:02:27 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A627C2204C; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:02:27 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x7M92Pso013885 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:02:26 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: 'Barry Leiba' <>, 'The IESG' <>
Cc:, 'Lou Berger' <>,,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:02:24 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <003d01d558c8$5211cf20$f6356d60$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGcLRpVLtklUvVo/VWx3z1J6h/AJqd5NSyw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.079-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--5.079-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--5.079000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 9d2LtCNB3NLxIbpQ8BhdbPVY7U3NX8JgPXu1L28jSnEgcEd8uJSjxOmW pqKXmZL5ZKk6eKONTfdxo9qwhEt9B2j1t8tcTt8vWqDLIdGEwFItHoY2SuDzHR3RY4pGTCyHTSy DPY8FHmcaTjuMW6GGOh+2OZjj2n0/LhiVcI0czH+zmX56C89UdzoSfZud5+GgkBqzlpo2fKoXxG DD7ldukG5YdKGEGLxcy0M3tme4VcNhaj10i6TXQMK1Ib9JAALxKINyBe8DNbJOz8YOQHnBeW4RZ q5BvfozoQDf+Z9vpFDK+QFXYp+GtbQ9b4Fxsj8uYuJV6fJ53KMCn5QffvZFlUvEK4FMJdoqgHb8 2GdiBc5PbhexfXCKb362zYU+73JAjeydHFnA4nmHjFnwsKDMDET0lGtfbK/pxQPzaZASUS2XNag pKKGTE/AGRi37Sdwo1V9OXmImeZQe442PB0TDJpK9FvwQx1hF+KI7RoRYwIbNvY+4S76i2qPFjJ EFr+ol4e8/DBwuXGd0HSe131POnrI7zVffJqTzENgEmt2wIlTtbYdIP/E8oOzUWqQLueKWDRiXX LYGavULU3ty9DPsQX7cGd19dSFd
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-08: (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, 22 Aug 2019 09:02:34 -0000

Thanks for the review, Barry.

These look like good comments to me, and I think we should fix them all.


-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <> 
Sent: 22 August 2019 05:41
To: The IESG <>
Cc:; Lou Berger <>;;;
Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-08: (with COMMENT)

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
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”).