Hi Ben,
Thanks for your review. See in-line.
Ben Campbell 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Substantive:
-4: That seems almost a challenge :-) But seriously, I dont know if it makes
sense to discuss this sort of thing in this document-- but it seems like
sensitivity of content might be a consideration when "typing" models. For
example, models that include security credentials or keys. (An answer of
"that's not what we are talking about" would be perfectly sensible.)
Actually, the security considerations related to the YANG module should
not influence the YANG module classification.
I wrote "should" because I can't think of a single case.
To complete the Security Considerations section, here is a proposal.
OLD:
This document doesn't have any Security Considerations.
NEW:
The document specifying the YANG module to-be-classified already contains a
Security Considerations
section. This document doesn't add to or modify this Security Considerations
section.
Editorial:
-1, " A number of module types have created substantial discussion during the
development of this document including those concerned with topologies."
I'm not sure I understand that sentence. Is the antecedent of "those" "module
types", or "discussions"? Are we talking about network topologies?
OLD:
A number of module types have created substantial discussion during
the development of this document including those concerned with
topologies.
NEW:
A number of module types have created substantial discussion during
the development of this document: for example, those concerned with
topologies.
The section ends with "See figure 1". But that figure seems more related to
section 2. Is the reference out of place?
The reference is right. Positioning the YANG modules from a location
point of view (equipment vendor, controller, orchestrator) helps people
grasp the concepts of Network Element YANG Modules versus Network
Service YANG Modules
Regards, Benoit
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
