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:-) _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
