Subject: [netmod] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 15:28:30 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-11: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the updates in the -10 and -11; the content looks a lot better and
I am not uncomfortable about publishing as Informational (vs. BCP)!

That said, I think the edits to the script have introduced a regression:

     # ensure input file doesn't contain the fold-sequence already
     if [[ -n "$("$SED" -n '/\\$/{N;s/\\\n[ ]*\\/&/p}' "$infile")" ]]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure this gets all cases, since the 'N' command
reads a line and prevents it from being considered as the first half of the
wrapped sequence:

kaduk$:~/git/openssl$ cat /tmp/a
this is a line\
another line\
\that wraps
kaduk$:~/git/openssl$ cat /tmp/b
this is a line
another line\
\that wraps
kaduk$:~/git/openssl$ sed -n '/\\$/{N;s/\\\n[ ]*\\/&/p}' < /tmp/a
kaduk$:~/git/openssl$ sed -n '/\\$/{N;s/\\\n[ ]*\\/&/p}' < /tmp/b
another line\
\that wraps

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A few other comments from reviewing the version of the script in the -11:

When processing input, it's perhaps more robust to check $# before assigning $2
to a named parameter.

     printf "Exit status code: 1 on error, 0 on success, 255 on no-op."

Interesting to have no newline here but two on the next line's printf, but I
guess it might be at the column limit already.

(The quotes on 'Error'/'Warning'/'Debug' in err()/warn()/dbg() are noops.)

   # warn if a non-GNU sed utility is used
   "$SED" --version < /dev/null 2> /dev/null \
   | grep GNU > /dev/null 2>&1 || \

`grep -q` should be usable instead of `grep >/dev/null`

---

From: Erik Auerswald <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 15:24:57 +0100

Hello Benjamin,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding/

Thanks for the review. :-)

> kaduk$:~/git/openssl$ sed -n '/\\$/{N;s/\\\n[ ]*\\/&/p}' < /tmp/b

Thanks for the bug report complete with test cases and analysis. :-)
The fix should be adding ";D" to the sed script:

     sed -n '/\\$/{N;s/\\\n[ ]*\\/&/p;D}'

I'll look into adding this (with tests) soon.

That sounds reasonable.

> guess it might be at the column limit already.

Exactly.

> (The quotes on 'Error'/'Warning'/'Debug' in err()/warn()/dbg() are noops.)

They improve syntax-highlighting results in vim. ;-)

> `grep -q` should be usable instead of `grep >/dev/null`

I intend to change this to use `grep -q`.

Thanks,
Erik

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:05:38 +0000

Hi Ben,

Erik and I addressed the regression issue raised below, and made a few other minor improvements to the non-normative `rfcfold` script.

Here is a direct link to the diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-12.txt <https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-12.txt>

Please let us know if there are anymore improvements to be made.

Thanks!
Kent (and Erik)

> On Jan 11, 2020, at 9:24 AM, Erik Auerswald <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Benjamin,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:30:12 -0800

Hi Kent!

> Please let us know if there are anymore improvements to be made.

I don't see any further improvements; this looks really nice now.
(I assume Erik was consulted about the Acknowledgments change (and trust
the RFC Editor to spell "Acknowledgments" according to house style) that's
also part of the -12.)

I'm updating my position in the datatracker now.

-Ben

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:17:52 +0000

Hi Ben,

> the RFC Editor to spell "Acknowledgments" according to house style) that's

Yes, Erik and I discussed the Acknowledgments update.  We felt that it was no longer needed now that he is an author on the draft.

> I'm updating my position in the datatracker now.

Excellent! 

And, according to Datatracker’s “IESG evaluation record” tab for this draft:

	Summary: Has enough positions to pass.

Kent