Subject: [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:17:17 -0700

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document, and thank you to the shepherd for a
very well-written and in-depth shepherd write up: it was very informative and
very appreciated.

I have one DISCUSS point (that should be easy to fix) and a question.

Francesca

1. -----

   then BASE64 encoded and line wrapped to 72 or fewer characters.

FP: Please add a (normative) reference to RFC 4648 and specify if Section 4
("base64") or Section 5 ("base64url") is to be used.

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

2. -----

   then BASE64 encoded and line wrapped to 72 or fewer characters.

FP: Less of a comment and more of a question: what is the reason for setting
the line length, and specifically to 72 (or fewer) characters?

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 13:58:48 +1000

> the line length, and specifically to 72 (or fewer) characters?

RPSL uses a 6 character indent from the 80 column days to denote
folded lines. 72 ensures you can block quote things and conform to 80
inside that limit, using the continuation format to represent the text
block as a single "extent" of value.

it also works for >>> nested quoting. 80 is used extensively as a
boundary for textual encoded content which may be subject to line
limit in the path through applications stacks.

(my personal opinion, Randy may have better logic but this is what I
went to, when I saw the question)

-G

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 07:16:29 +0200

> ("base64") or Section 5 ("base64url") is to be used.

… and it also doesn’t hurt to specify that padding does need to be added (at least the example does), “with padding” (Section 3.2 of RFC 4648).

Grüße, Carsten