Re: [netmod] artwork folding: dual support modes?

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Mon, 04 March 2019 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <0100016949d802d6-ccf713c5-df75-4f24-b479-4bc94b4138ec-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 5E019131038 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:54:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 pvA5rNVJZh17 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:54:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a8-33.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-33.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1C09130F2A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:54:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1551722087; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=a2/9DdyLAM97AZmQ7GZ+OPcVo08S9OtKMyx4z+VZJfo=; b=F1euHbBjPzlIIIhWPVo8o3f0XcheLy3/ZZuw0xQfMttrRGlq2bwYcexuojLPAu91 6U/S2XJ0vscc4C3Av/zT0PiAqMQGg035oHdxm0v9cbM31bU3uzSUz5uihcGE7iSMnml tn96wN99U65imb/M9AjzeqU4j/PdnbY/mkic3PBw=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190304.170423.167423260282534149.mbj@tail-f.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 17:54:47 +0000
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, netmod@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <0100016949d802d6-ccf713c5-df75-4f24-b479-4bc94b4138ec-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <85b4bfc8-1d55-8df2-98b2-85e685996309@cisco.com> <20190304.132926.1893685857666021666.mbj@tail-f.com> <0100016949647f53-8a4d372a-c576-4489-a1e5-b885c6510a1f-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20190304.170423.167423260282534149.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.03.04-54.240.8.33
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ViuWbSYYleXwtBZqaMGZOVZFhV0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] artwork folding: dual support modes?
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: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 17:54:51 -0000


> On Mar 4, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
> 
> Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> But note that figures in RFCs are normally indented with 3 spaces
>>> (they _can_ be outdented, if the lines are long enough).
>> 
>> 
>> The days of scraping from plain-text RFCs are over [1].  Extracting,
>> if needed at all, should be from the XML, where there are no such
>> issues. Extracting from the plain-text output makes about as much
>> sense as extracting from the HTML or PDF outputs.
> 
> I am confused.  Are you saying that the unfolding algorithm only is
> supposed to work on data extracted from the XML version of the I-D or
> RFC?  If so, I think this needs to be clarified in the draft.

The unfolding algorithm works as long as the input == the output.  The 
problem is that plain-text RFCs introduce a lot of artifacts that makes 
lossless extraction difficult.  I don't believe we should try to design a 
solution for input != output.

Now that IETF has officially moved to XML as the sole format, there
is no longer a need to support extracting from plain-text.   In general, 
folks are advised to always extract from XML.   I support adding a 
statement to this affect.



>> Lossless extractions are critical for formal verifications (e.g.,
>> doctor reviews, shepherd reviews, AUTH48 reviews).  Both the
>> double-backslash approach we currently have, and the single-backslash
>> approach we had originally (where the continuation-line begins on
>> column 1, as it has been in programming languages for decades) provide
>> lossless extractions.
> 
> ... as does the single-backslash with leading space removal.

No, there are cases where this fails.  We went thru this before.  This is why
we adopted the double-backslash approach.


Kent // contributor  (also on my previous emails in this thread)