Subject: [netmod] Deborah Brungard's Yes on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 05:20:39 -0700

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07: Yes

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-yang-model-classification/

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

[Added comment on definition of SDO]

My 2cents on the "type" discussion:

The sentence in Section 1 Introduction does cause confusion "A number of module
types have created substantial discussion" as it's describing the possible name
duplication of a module in two different "layers", not types. Will read better
if remove "types".

I'm very surprised that Adrian on his reading did not question the use of
"layers" to distinguish between services and network element modules. To me,
with my layer hat on, this is very confusing.

My suggestion would be to use the generic word "types" for "layers" and use
"class" to distinguish modules which are standard, vendor, user. Vendor/user
modules may/may not overlap with standard modules functionality-wise, they also
may be modules with no interest to be standardized, so they are not necessarily
associated with maturity/finer aging:-)

I find the definition of SDO and vendor confusing. In the draft, it defines an
SDO as published by a standards development organization. It provides the
example of IETF, IEEE, MEF. It defines a vendor-specific module as "..industry
consortia and opensource projects".."openly published". This is blurring the
lines of SDO and industry consortia, e.g. MEF is a forum (industry consortia)
whereas IETF and IEEE (and ITU) are SDOs. It's based on organizational
criteria, and it's in the organization's description of their product e.g.
standards, specifications. Some users don't care, others do. To prevent IETF
from being pulled into the hornet's nest, suggest SDO be defined as only IETF,
and separate labels for vendor and industry consortia (includes
opensource/openly published).

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:52:25 +0200

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification/
That makes sense.
> opensource/openly published).
Alliteratively, I propose to remove MEF from the list of examples.

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:13:14 +0000

> Alliteratively, I propose to remove MEF from the list of examples.
[deborah] 
Sounds good-
Deborah