Hi Suresh, Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-10 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-10> for updates. It's now Informational.
Kent // as co-author > On Sep 5, 2019, at 1:08 PM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> 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 >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >> <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/ >> <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: > > >> 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? > > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
