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

Kent Watsen <> Mon, 04 March 2019 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E019131038 for <>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:54:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pvA5rNVJZh17 for <>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:54:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1C09130F2A for <>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:54:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug;; 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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 17:54:47 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Martin Bjorklund <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.03.04-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] artwork folding: dual support modes?
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: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 17:54:51 -0000

> On Mar 4, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Martin Bjorklund <> wrote:
> Kent Watsen <> 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)