On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 11:56 -0700, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker 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. > > 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.
Well said, I agree with Alissa's conclusion. Lada > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
