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

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Thu, 05 September 2019 06:42 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 71C1D12006E for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 23:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 cHIbiuhYLRql for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 23:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22E4612003E for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 23:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:a744:2697:a0ec:a420]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 371ED140D18; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:42:06 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1567665726; bh=CdVRIt9ob2xHk9b3xjT2ZiHN52Fk6PUU7GUuHwt/PNk=; h=From:To:Date; b=IV4oP8aisOgGevmLfXJ+oiBWQcJ3MbNzn2DYYedN1KM0D8WFANqyMVbS3ZvuZBTIe uG2GNnLaqGE3JX+TwENyPbThlq80ALN7dQPgkIees3Bmx035ALxFnBXRkyUQR8MKbn VVl4gL8QEcfbQ5GfMcNjM/SBPKQdsIhwo60kpxnw=
Message-ID: <ceb3f6865a14b79bc9cab81e77ce34043ca1d760.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 08:42:06 +0200
In-Reply-To: <156762337738.22782.18440951708689230098.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <156762337738.22782.18440951708689230098.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at mail.nic.cz
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/TIQlNPCUaKjatLC0JSlHa_u0YKc>
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 06:42:10 -0000

On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 11:56 -0700, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-09: Abstain
> 
> 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> RFC 7994 is not a product of IETF consensus, so it seems inappropriate to
> publish a consensus BCP predicated on requirements defined in RFC 7994 which
> themselves do not have IETF consensus. This would be the only document related
> to the RFC format in the last 10 years that I'm aware of that would be
> published on the IETF stream.
> 
> 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.

Lada

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67