Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-07.txt

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

Kent

Stepping back, I think that there is a problem of applicability.

You have labelled this I-D draft..netmod.. and are discussing it on the
netmod WG list.  Therefore I apply it to YANG I-D - to me, that is the
obvious connection - and the problem I keep seeing with YANG I-D is
lines too long - comment, description - in the YANG module so that is
the problem for which I want a solution (I see no problem with code
snippets).  This has something to do with, I know not what, the
processing cycle of YANG modules, of the module being generated outside
the I-D/RFC process and then being inserted without the constraints that
the I-D/RFC process normally apply; I recall Benoit giving an
explanation.

However, when I ignore the I-D name and the list we are on, and take the
text in isolation, then I wonder what are we doing here.  This should be
on a different list, art perhaps or the main ietf list, since what you
are proposing has nothing to do with netmod, YANG or any of the topics
that this list discusses; rather it seeks to change the whole of the
IETF.

So, put this up for adoption and I will oppose; this is outside our
remit.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
To: "tom petch" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 9:08 PM

> Hi Tom,
>
>
> >> Good enough?
> >
> > No:-)  The authors of YANG modules seem not to understand that it
> > applies to them, or incorrectly use the tools that would apply
> > were they correctly used.
>
> This seems to be a problem outside the scope of this draft.  I was
> thinking to strengthen Section 4.2 some, but this sentence really
> seems to say it right:
>
>    As such, it is RECOMMENDED that authors do as much as possible
>    within the selected format to avoid long lines.
>
>
>
> > OLD
> > [RFC7994][RFC7994]sets out the requirements for plain-text RFCs and
> >   states that each line of an RFC (and hence of an Internet-Draft)
must
> >   be limited to 72 characters followed by the character sequence
that
> >   denotes an end-of-line (EOL).
> >
> > NEW
> > [RFC7994]sets out the requirements for plain-text RFCs and
> >   states that each line of an RFC (and hence of an Internet-Draft)
must
> >   be limited to 72 characters followed by the character sequence
that
> >   denotes an end-of-line (EOL).  This applies to all of an RFC,
> >   including, for example, the comments or description clauses in a
YANG
> >   module, and to artwork.
>
> First, I'd recommend simplifying the last sentence to just "This
applies
> to all of an RFC, including any artwork.", but then it seems to step
on
> what the next paragraph says.  Perhaps the next paragraph could be
> simplified? - suggestions welcomed.
>
>
> > Not sure why you have [RFC7994] twice.
>
> Fixed in my local copy.
>
>
> PS: folded YANG-modules will break tooling (e.g., module validation)
until
> extraction tools (i.e., `xym`) are updated to be folding aware.  Even
after
> this draft becomes an RFC, authors need to ensure that YANG modules
are not
> folded until such tools are updated.  Other artwork (tree diagrams,
instance
> examples, etc.) being folded is not a problem, as no automated tooling
acts
> on them currently.
>
>
> Kent // contributor
>
>
>