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

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:08 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> 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 <
> [e-mail]> 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 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/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.


Andy


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
> IESG.
>
>
> Kent // as co-author
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>