First of all, thanks a lot. Secondly, I’ve added a draft -03 including changes based on the below in github here: https://github.com/YangModels/yang/blob/master/experimental/ietf/YANG-MODEL-CLASSIFICATION/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-03.xml
…and since I made the changes in a renamed file, I can’t send a link to the commit in github, but made the diff available here: http://www.mergely.com/zFp8lfAb/ Comments inline below: > On Jun 27, 2016, at 5:10 PM, Jonathan Hansford <[email protected]> wrote: > > General > · Inconsistent capitalisation of “module”? The intent was to only capitalize instances referring the terms suggested (e.g. "Network Service YANG Modules”), so I have fixed the irregularities I found in the current version. > Abstract > · s/analysis the/analysis of the Fixed, thanks. > 1. Introduction > · The first paragraph is a little confusing. Should the first > reference to YANG replace “and YANG standards” further on? OLD The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) has been actively encouraging IETF working groups to use the YANG [RFC6020] [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] and NETCONF [RFC6241] and YANG standards for configuration management purposes, especially in new working group charters [Writable-MIB-Module-IESG-Statement]. NEW The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) has been actively encouraging IETF working groups to use YANG modeling language [RFC6020] [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] and NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] for configuration management purposes, especially in new working group charters [Writable-MIB-Module-IESG-Statement]. > · s/community gain/community gains > · s/a type of module that have/a type of module that has > · But, would it be better to have “A number of module types have > created substantial discussion during the development of this document > including those concerned with topologies.” Instead of “An example of a type > of module that have created substantial discussion during the development of > this document is topologies.”? > · s/as well as in/as well as on Fixed, thanks > · Figure 1 seems to take a long time appearing Good catch, moved up a couple of paragraphs, thanks. > > 2. First Dimension: YANG Data Model Abstraction Layers > · s/YANG modules For/YANG modules. For > · Given the third paragraph, should this be “First Dimension: YANG > Data Model Abstraction Layers” or “First Dimension: YANG Module Abstraction > Layers”? Yes, fixed, thanks. > 2.1. Network Service YANG Modules > · s/define services models/define service models Fixed, thanks. > > 3. Second Dimension: Module Types > · The first paragraph uses either/and (should be either/or) for more > than two alternatives. It would be better to have a bulleted list. OLD This document suggests classifying YANG module types as either standard YANG modules, vendor-specific YANG modules and extensions, and user-specific YANG modules and extensions NEW This document suggests classifying YANG module types as standard YANG modules, vendor-specific YANG modules and extensions, or user-specific YANG modules and extensions > 3.1. Standard YANG Modules > · If the IEEE acronym is expanded, shouldn’t MEF also be expanded? Removed expansion, it should be well knowN. > 3.2. Vendor-specific YANG Modules and Extensions > · s/contributed back to, or adopted by an SDO/contributed back to, or > adopted by, an SDO > · “lifecycles ... are” or “lifecycle ... is”. I suggest the former > · s/than what is covered/than that covered Fixed, thanks. > > 3.3. User-specific YANG Modules and Extensions > · “operators service providers” – should that be “operators’ service > providers”? > · s/what is provided/that provided > · s/include ability/include the ability Fixed, thanks. > · “lifecycles ... are” or “lifecycle ... is”. I suggest the former OLD User-specific YANG modules are developed by organizations that operate YANG-based infrastructure including devices and orchestrators. For example, network administrators in enterprises, or operators service providers. […] NEW User-specific YANG modules are developed by organizations that operate YANG-based infrastructure including devices and orchestrators. For example, network administrators in enterprises or at service providers. […] > 4. Adding The Classification Type to YANG Module Catalogs > · s/Such catalog/Such a catalog > · s/to YANG module/to the YANG module > · s/A extensible/An extensible > · “definite” or “definitive”? Fixed, thanks. > 5. Security Considerations > · Remove the closing double quote Fixed, thanks. > > 8. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] > · s/epxlain/explain Fixed, thanks. > Jonathan > > From: Benoit Claise > Sent: 27 June 2016 11:40 > To: NETMOD Working Group > Cc: [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-02.txt posted > > Dear all, > > We have posted draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification version 2 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification/ > > We believe that we have addressed all the open issues, and that this > draft is ready for WGLC. > > Regards, Carl, Dean, and Benoit > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
