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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa,

Thank you for your review.  Comments below.

Kent // as co-author


> On Sep 4, 2019, at 2:56 PM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 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.

Agreed.   Should the draft re-run through the IAB 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.

FWIW, YANG modules are themselves never expected to be folded.  Per Section 5.2 of the draft, authors should do as much as possible within the YANG format to avoid long lines.  From the NETMOD WG's perspective, this draft is primarily targeting the XML and JSON examples that should accompany a draft publishing a YANG module.

That said, while I'm aware of the concern, it remains unclear, and how to address it more so.  In the meanwhile, there are real and immediate issues with the ability to use automation to validate structural content in drafts (e.g.,  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-git-xiax-automation-01#section-6 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-git-xiax-automation-01#section-6>).  This is not just a YANG issue, it is an issue that spans the IETF, and a solution for it might be considered best practice.

Regarding the BCP attribution, I don't have a preference.  Actually, I think it was the WG that pushed for it.  I only think the IETF should label it right, re-running it thru IAB stream if need be.   As I see it, the "best practice" is that draft authors SHOULD stitch pre-folded inclusions so as to enable automated verification.  The format itself is not best practice.  That said, a better solution would be for IETF to 1) only support XML-based uploads and 2) have Datatracker auto-fold inclusions as needed for plain-text and PDF outputs (note that folding is NOT needed, or desired, for HTML output).

Kent // as co-author