Re: [netmod] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Andy Bierman <> Thu, 05 September 2019 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C38120B52 for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 14:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oHEh8SsieW2i for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 14:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59D72120B74 for <>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 14:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r134so3252617lff.12 for <>; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 14:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=k36gQIrCqwiUnPWJhCzk1qotSWyHOlOpm798FV4U9F0=; b=LShua06NEagu8gnsam/8J9mvRCuEH9F3bC817ch2kWDYJu0JNVzGDmFC5SVL1Ut/Sf PM2WM5vBcFdkccHzT4rOgf2/4ghC37w0olxjkf+o7oy/oFhO4QaXIJ5DRO5vwD8WAmx0 mkCUFjIx5Ikr/Q1oG9UKuG17duyQao3mgMMcpPHJDES8Hw2WO/JgXObUo93sXx17kO8f 0upnEupHwLOpknmJhD2bzkI/es5uQ2Az9c8ZE01kS2s6RQT8I/TWiWz368K0wIJxebWu bkYdijUlCnefGyIHxuYdKMefovNnDbLKs610ddL+PKAnvN9zt7j6yCgwBghKRdv1CdRX bZ0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=k36gQIrCqwiUnPWJhCzk1qotSWyHOlOpm798FV4U9F0=; b=cHJnQvNwVa4BW4XZJjOWR4ihGGtiKQJUtWhNX4ySnuN4LO0wfm6979CHM4KyVfehnm HO/eL48ivUFjIE0WSJBy8gU2ePQcCewltwLor4iJaXCkZWDjMNVpWKHXdPKuPIh+HM5n 4PIu9g96NDe97sWrvoEQBrekjUo+oC5G3mRPsLApOPNBL2Hqtw7gTDrFKF+F4uuFtI91 vMZewxm/3GiU5iaWMEDaqrOThZorMkIrRCkBapfHxYkuzw9v+LjbJwolMBR3lURi/ceU 7Q7oTeYD6jmx/58qFUKlxqUSjqnB84WMhBNyeGMG0aBogMOmdxOLdbDtEOYy3e91A+2z mjSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX1qJRYH++S2HwhUeZ2SZF+Ht9m7HfsiPw1hhEgLr03j6tEMGSP 88SedMRveAJtYEMyfGo99TozdIulMW1iHVE7Vc8MEdZU
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxD7UBEiChqDH7364xt2ijR+IRWgTtswwrOwFUc+vOeAjcdXWE5hCV0AeZTZcTzoK/F6Bdr/bQdvhqYJJdoKxg=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:431e:: with SMTP id q30mr3890070lfa.171.1567720030439; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 14:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Andy Bierman <>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 14:46:59 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Kent Watsen <>
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <>, "" <>, "" <>,, The IESG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000085a32e0591d543f3"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:47:24 -0000

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:08 AM Kent Watsen <> wrote:

> Hi Suresh,
> Thank you for your review.  Comments below.
> Kent // as co-author
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <
>> wrote:
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-09: Discuss
> 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> After some thought I think there are two things about this document that
> make
> me uncomfortable enough to ballot Discuss.
> a) Due to its home in the netmod WG it is highly likely that people
> outside the
> yang community have not paid enough attention to this work. Since this is
> applicable to code fragments of all kinds, I think the home chosen for
> this RFC
> might have inadvertently limited input from the broader community.
> Agreed.  The original I-D was targeted for IAB stream.  It wasn't going to
> be presented in NETMOD, but did (by coercion).  During the presentation I
> mentioned that its applicability was more than NETMOD and that it should go
> thru IAB, just like the "xml2rfc" RFCs (7749 and 7991).  The working group
> felt that it should stay in the WG and hence here we are.  :sigh:
It seemed self-evident that the scope of this draft did not fit the NETMOD
WG charter.
I assumed the work was permitted to start because (1) nobody else was
willing to
work on it and (2) nowhere else to put it.

> b) Given a) I think it is better that this document go forward as an
> Informational document rather than a BCP so that use of this technique
> becomes
> optional, without the force of a BCP behind it.
> I'm okay with this, modulo my comment to Alissa.   Actually, if we only
> view the RFC as specifying a format then, in my mind, it doesn't actually
> contain the "best practice".  FWIW, SHOULD appears only once, in a sentence
> stating that folding SHOULD be automated, in a section titled "Goals".
> That said, if not a BCP, then how to encourage people to use it, so that
> automation works?  For this reason alone, it seems that either the draft
> should be a BCP or Datatracker is updated to auto-fold as needed.  Perhaps
>  the right answer is to do Informational now and hope that Datatracker is
> updated in time?
IMO Informational status is the only option.
There is a simple solution that solves applicability:

Add some text in this draft that UPDATES RFC 8407 so that only RFCs
that contain YANG modules are required to use this line-wrap solution.


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I do agree with my Abstaining colleagues that this should probably not be
> on
> the IETF stream but I think the work is useful enough to go forward.
> It should've been on the IAB stream.  Whether it should go forward, after
> having the BCP attribute removed, or re-run via the IAB stream is up to the
> Kent // as co-author
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list