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

Erik Auerswald <> Thu, 05 September 2019 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D46D120BEB for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Jl3NM--w8-g1 for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:208:120::220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB5241209B7 for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:208:ef34:0:ff:fe00:65]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id x85GWHQ9142208 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:32:17 +0200
Received: from (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id x85GWHQr006477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:32:17 +0200
Received: (from auerswal@localhost) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id x85GWGte006476; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:32:16 +0200
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 18:32:16 +0200
From: Erik Auerswald <>
To: Martin Bjorklund <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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 16:32:30 -0000

Hi Martin,

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 05:17:30PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Kent Watsen <> wrote:
> > 
> > >> 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.
> But the algorithm in the document isn't supposed to be used for YANG
> modules.  It is supposed to be used primarily for XML and JSON
> snippets (etc).

Technically, XML and JSON are whitespace-agnostic and often can be
"folded" manually without any folding indicators.  That seems to be
true for YANG as well.  Even Python code usually can be kept under any
reasonable line length.

Very long names or values could require algorithmic folding, i.e.,
a generic line-folding mechanism.

I personally would try to keep the line length of any code inside an
RFC short enough to not need additional algorithmic folding.  But if
this does not work, e.g., because some name or value is just too long,
having a recommended algorithm seems to be better than every author
making up another ad-hoc folding scheme.

The I-D.ietf-netmod-artwork-folding seems to try to provide a recommended
algorithm for the case where a generic line-folding mechanism is needed.

Overly long lines sometimes result in lost information in HTML or PDF
documents, if a complex layout is used, but no mechanism for dealing with
unexpectedly long lines is included.  I have seen too many examples of
this to believe that this cannot happen with RFCs.