Subject: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:13:47 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07: No Objection

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to pick out a bike shed color, but I do support the assertions
that "module type" is a bit too ambiguous. When I got to section 3, I had to go
back to see what section 2 called its things, because "type" is so generic.

There are some places where the unexpanded acronyms lost me (VRF, MEF, UNI) --
consider expanding these on first use.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:55:25 +0200

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification/
What about
OLD: 3. Second Dimension: Module Types
NEW: 3. Second Dimension: Module Origin Types
> There are some places where the unexpanded acronyms lost me (VRF, MEF, UNI) --
Ack.
Note: MEF is not an acronym any longer since they want to move away from 
the narrow scope of Metro Ethernet

Regards, B.
> .