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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 29 May 2019 13:16 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 0515612011A; Wed, 29 May 2019 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ppfOZPX8WMlN; Wed, 29 May 2019 06:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5160412006D; Wed, 29 May 2019 06:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (h-4-215.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [158.174.4.215]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0123E1AE0428; Wed, 29 May 2019 15:15:56 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 15:15:56 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20190529.151556.308499982395016083.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: kent@watsen.net
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <0100016aff5c1a19-32fa804b-b9d4-4411-a350-0a5571256e10-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <0100016aff1640f0-a301a70e-ecae-4754-84d1-12170d5b73fd-000000@email.amazonses.com> <BYAPR11MB263191E71A0E09CE1667AB45B51E0@BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <0100016aff5c1a19-32fa804b-b9d4-4411-a350-0a5571256e10-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/xlsXYYI-Ne5ySjJUDgwZH4NSmVI>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-02
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 29 May 2019 13:16:02 -0000

Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>; wrote:
> 
> 
> > [RW] 
> > Yes, I think that is better, and probably OK.
> >  
> > I still slightly question “One strategy is based on the time-proven use of a single backslash ('\') character to indicate where line-folding has occurred, with the continuation occurring with the first non-space (' ') character on the next line.”  Because I don’t think that is how ‘\’ character works, at least in languages such as C.  Specifically, it doesn’t ignore leading whitespace on the following line, instead it is often used where that whitespace is not significant to the compiler.
> 
> Would s/time-proven/POSIX/ be better?

If you write POSIX I think you need a reference.  Is there really a
POSIX standard for how a single backslash is used...?

I think "time-proven" is better.


/martin




> 
> BTW, I also added this to Appendix A:
> 
>    Shell-level end-of-line backslash ('\') characters have been
>    purposely added to the script so as to ensure that the script is
>    itself not folded in this document, thus simplify the ability to
>    copy/paste the script for local use.  As should be evident by the
>    lack of the mandatory header described in Section 7.1.1, these
>    backslashes do not designate a folded line, such as described in
>    Section 7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > [RW] 
> > Perhaps “original text content” -> “exact original text content”?  But I’m also OK with your suggested text.
> 
> I'm hesitant, because it seems redundant, but it doesn't cause harm, so I added it.
> 
> 
> 
> > [RW] 
> > According to RFC2119, RECOMMENDED is interpreted exactly the same way as SHOULD.
> 
> Yes, when composing my response before I was going to say that it's a downgrade "(in IMO)", but figured it would require more explanation, which I was hoping to avoid.  But here we are now  ;)   While I'm aware that they carry the same RFC 2119 weight, RECOMMENDED reads softer to me, less commanding, hence my comment.
> 
> 
> 
> >  I still think that SHOULD/RECOMMENDED is too strong.
> 
> I still disagree.    Any tie-breakers out there?
> 
> 
> 
> > Good point, how about this?
> >  
> >    Scan the text content to ensure no existing lines already end with a
> >    backslash ('\') character while the subsequent line starts with a
> >    backslash ('\') character as the first non-space (' ') character, as
> >    this could lead to an ambiguous result.  If such a line is found, and
> >    its width is less than the desired maximum, then it SHOULD be flagged
> >    for forced folding (folding even though unnecessary).  If the folding
> >    implementation doesn't support forced foldings, it MUST exit.
> >  
> >    <snip>
> >  
> >    For each line in the text content, from top-to-bottom, if the line
> >    exceeds the desired maximum, or requires a forced folding, then fold
> >    the line by:
> >  
> >  
> > [RW] 
> > OK.
> 
> Great.  BTW, I also added this to Appendix A:
> 
>    This script does not implement the "forced folding" logic described
>    in Section 8.2.1.  In such cases the script will exit with the
>    message:
> 
>          Error: infile has a line ending with a '\\' character
>          followed by a '\\' character as the first non-space
>          character on the next line.  This file cannot be folded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kent // author
> 
> 
> 
>