Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-08
review-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-08-secdir-lc-sparks-2019-08-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2019-08-13
Requested 2019-07-30
Authors Kent Watsen, Erik Auerswald, Adrian Farrel, Qin Wu
Draft last updated 2019-08-02
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-08-secdir-lc-sparks-2019-08-02
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/E39V498tsUtutVcVjl7PBXE25c8
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-08-02

Review
review-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-08-secdir-lc-sparks-2019-08-02

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Has Nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document introduces no new security concerns for the Internet.
It aims to establish conventions for wrapping long lines in source code 
sections of RFCs.

It does have shell scripts embedded in the Appendix. I see no obvious
security issues with those scripts.

I strongly suggest this document proceed as Informational and not BCP. 
It's fine if some documents adopt the convention. Other conventions may
work better for other groups. See, for example, the <allOneLine> convention
described in section 2.1 of RFC4475. (No automated wrap/unwrap scripts
have been written for that convention to my knowledge, but it would
not be hard to create some.)

Nits: 

In your headers, you anticipate receiving a two digit BCP number. At the
moment, the next available BCP number has three digits. (We are well
into the 200s). You have header lengths that would need to be adjusted.

In 7.2.1 paragraph 5, I think you're saying to fail if any lines in the
input document already end with a \. I think you mean to say any lines
that you are considering wrapping. If I'm correct, the clarification may
also need to be applied in other places where you say "the text content"