Re: [netmod] Call for adoption request of draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-04

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 27 June 2018 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F2B7130E2D for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9XT2c7n9Lh0n for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84899130EA0 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (h-80-27.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [212.85.80.27]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EA9A1AE0389; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 22:43:12 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 22:43:11 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20180627.224311.2057585548075314668.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: kwatsen@juniper.net
Cc: bill.wu@huawei.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <E777E7B0-5A9C-4397-83D4-DBA2BA8510AD@juniper.net>
References: <21CFADF6-9FB8-4B0B-A7FC-517FDDAF6F8C@juniper.net> <20180626.220807.1407068226011761897.mbj@tail-f.com> <E777E7B0-5A9C-4397-83D4-DBA2BA8510AD@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/t-6lXnL_EmUwNBs_5wohxs6aeYQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Call for adoption request of draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-04
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:43:17 -0000

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>; wrote:
> 
> 
> >> Those are torture tests, but they due illustrate the one case where having
> >> the '\\n' on the fold column would've been illegal input (and hence the '\'
> >> was replaced with a 'x').  Great for internal algorithm validation, but
> >> perhaps unnecessary for the example in the text.  Or maybe enhance the
> >> comments above these lines to explain why they're there?
> >
> > I suggest you remove this.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> 
> >> > I like the algorithm in the other draft better - it had variable
> >> > placement of the line break ("\\n" sequence), and variable
> >> > indentation.
> >> 
> >> How can you automated variable placement of the line-break, assuming no
> >> awareness of the file format?  Additionally, be aware that variable '\n'
> >> placement would necessitate pre-scanning the file to ensure *no* line
> >> ends in a '\\n', as opposed to just the lines that need folding.
> >
> > I envision this format being used not just by a program, but also by
> > humans trying to construct nice looking examples.
> 
> I really hope humans don't try to do this manually, as the results are 
> error-prone, and it isn't consistent with the goal of integrating validation
> in the build scripts that compile the drafts, for which automated-folding
> is needed (see section 3.1).

I disagree.  I often use my own markup in example files so that I can
validate the examples with tools, and then run a script that turns the
markup into newlines (in the future: '\' + newline).

For example:

           <namespace><!-- PPL -->urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-types</namespace>


turns into:

           <namespace>\
             urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-types
           </namespace>

(the <!-- PPL --> is my own markup).

Compare with

             <namespace>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-types</n\
             amespace>


Not sure if this qualifies as "manual folding" or not.


> I'm not saying that manual-folding shouldn't
> be possible, I'm saying that it is ill-advised, and we shouldn't go out of
> our way to support it.

I don't think it is difficult to support variable placement of the
linebreak.   It is already specified in the other draft.

> I do not support variable placement of the 
> line-break.
> 
> [Note: indentation of the beginning of the line is a different issue, and
> one that I actually support, assuming it is easily automatable]
> 
> 
> > Also, I would prefer a description of the format, rather than of one
> > algorithm that produces the format.
> 
> Okay, we will look into it.
> 
> 
> >> >> >>   - handle two special case on backslash and space at the end of broken
> >> >> >>     line in yang-xml-doc-conventions.
> >> >> >>   - propose to use <WRAPPED TEXT BEGIN><WRAPPED TEXT END> to extract
> >> >> >>     artwork from I-Ds.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The artwork draft proposes only a header, which means that it is not
> >> >> > quite clear where the artwork ends.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Interesting point, but I think that artwork-framing is a different problem
> >> >> from artwork-folding.  If the goal is to support extracting artwork from
> >> >> txt-based RFC scripts, regardless if the artwork is folded or not, then we
> >> >> could level-up this draft to that role, while still supporting folding.
> >> >> 
> >> >> If we were to add a footer, maybe something like this:
> >> >> 
> >> >>   ===padding=== End Folding per BCP XX (RFC XXXX) ===padding===
> >> >> 
> >> >> where the "padding" fills in '=' characters until the max-line width is
> >> >> reached (same as how the header is done).
> >> >
> >> > Ok.
> >> 
> >> I assume that you're okay-ing the proposed footer, but the real question is
> >> if we should expand the scope of this draft to include artwork-framing also?
> >
> > I think I would prefer if there is also a footer.
> 
> Why?  Do you propose the same for all artwork, regardless if it's been folded
> or not?  To me, these are different issues.

Hmm, good point.  Maybe ignore for now.


/martin


> >> >> >> In the artwork draft, section 5.3, you write:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>   This line is self-describing in
> >> >> >>   three ways: use of '\' character, identification of BCP/RFC, and
> >> >> >>   identification of what the maximum line length is for the artwork.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > I was confused about this maximum line length; it seems you define the
> >> >> > maximum line length ot be 53, but that seems too limiting, and indeed
> >> >> > in the example in 5.4 the max line length is 69.  (BTW, the example is
> >> >> > missing in the draft, as is the shell script in Appendix A).   In any
> >> >> > case, I don't see how the header identifies the max line length.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The draft says that the *minimal* header string is 53-characters).  We
> >> >> can make it less if needed, but it involves needing to fold the header
> >> >> itself, which could become messy.  Thoughts?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Per the line just before the one quoted above, this line is '=' padded
> >> >> on both sides until reaching the max value.  Apparently, this isn't 
> >> >> clear enough in the text, or do you think it's okay now?
> >> >
> >> > The draft says:
> >> >
> >> >  The header is two lines long.
> >> >
> >> >  The first line is the following 53-character string
> >> >
> >> > This is what made me confused.  I now understand that the idea is to pad
> >> > with '='.
> >> 
> >> Right, the full sentence is:
> >> 
> >>    The first line is the following 53-character string that has been
> >>    padded with roughly equal numbers of equal ('=') characters to reach
> >>    the artwork's maximum line length.
> >> 
> >> So, leave as is for now?
> >
> > Well ... I don't think this text is even correct...  The section
> > describes the header with the first line being 53 characters.  But
> > that is just an example.  Maybe:
> >
> >    The first line is an N-character string on the following form:
> >
> >    === NOTE: '\' line wrapping per BCP XX (RFC XXXX) ===
> >
> >    where N is the artwork's maximum length (the minimum length is
> >    53).  The string is padded with roughly equal numbers of equal
> >    ('=') characters in the beginning and end to reach the artwork's
> >    maximum line length.
> 
> Yes, this is better
> 
> 
> > ... but as I wrote, I'd prefer a variable-length format.
> 
> Understood, being discussed above.
> 
> 
> > /martin
> 
> Kent // contributor
> 
> 
>