Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-02

Martin Bjorklund <> Mon, 27 May 2019 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE571200B6; Mon, 27 May 2019 04:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vAmOLD2G9COb; Mon, 27 May 2019 04:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 869CA120046; Mon, 27 May 2019 04:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B67B1AE08D8; Mon, 27 May 2019 13:04:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 13:04:12 +0200
Message-Id: <>
From: Martin Bjorklund <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-02
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, 27 May 2019 11:04:13 -0000


I have reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-02, and here are my

o  6



   begins at the first non-
   whitespace character on the following line.


   begins at the first character that is not a space character (' ')
   on the following line.

  The algorithm talks specifically about space (' ') rather than

o  6.1

  s/is exists/exists/

o  6.1 / 6.2

  6.2 says (correctly!):

   It is RECOMMENDED for implementations to first attempt to fold
   content using the single backslash strategy and, only in the unlikely
   event that it cannot fold the input or the folding logic is unable to
   cope with a contingency occurring on the desired folding column, then
   fallback to the double backslash strategy.

  But 6.1 says about the Single Backslash Strategy:

   automation implementations are likely to encounter scenarios that
   will produce errors without special care

  So it 6.1 thinks it is likely that SBS won't work, but 6.2 says it
  is unlikely.  IMO 6.2 is correct - it is extremely unlikely that SBS
  won't work.

o  7.1.2 / 7.2

  I would prefer if the format is defined with descriptive text,
  rather than with an algorithm.  It is the end result that matters,
  not which algorithm an implementation uses to get to the result.

  I suggest the algorithm is moved to an appendix, and/or a sentence
  is added that explains that the algorithm is just an example.

  Also expand the descriptive text in 7.1.2; I think that the text in
  section 6 is probably enough.  However, there are some important
  details buried in the desciption of the algorithm; specifically the
  cases where SBS can't be used.

o  7.2.1

  I don't understand why there is a min limit of 46 characters for
  folding to work.  If the only reason is for the non-normative script
  to be able to center the header line, then I think this limitation
  should be removed.  (I would even prefer less flexibility in the
  header line syntax...)

o  7.2.1 / 7.2.2

  I don't think the text should assume that folding/unfolding is

o  7.2.1

  Perhaps add to bullet 1:

    If no such location can be found, then exit (this text content
    cannot be folded)

o  7.2.2


o  Appendix A

  Consider using the command "tempfile" instead of /tmp/wip*