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

From: Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:24:26 -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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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:-)