The servers implement the modules which can have predefined tags from the 
module designer as well as the implementer (vendor) which literally cannot come 
from anywhere *but* the server that implements the module.

This is not what I thought would hold this work up.

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Nov 13, 2018, at 5:58 AM, Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Joel, authors,
> 
> I have to confess that I didn't have time to review this during the last call 
> (but have reviewed/provided comments on previous versions).
> 
> These comments may be too late, but I will provide them anyway, so make of 
> them what you will :-)
> 
> In summary, I like the idea of tags and I think that they are a good fit for 
> classifying YANG models.  In particular, I think that a flexible 
> classification of YANG modules is better than a rigid structure that can 
> never be changed.
> 
> For me the one of the great utilities of module tags could be in applications 
> like YANG catalog search (https://yangcatalog.org/yang-search/).  Being able 
> to search for modules by tag seems like it would be a particularly useful 
> thing to be able to do.
> 
> However, I do have some sympathy with Alex's comment, in that it is a bit 
> unclear as to benefits of configuring the tag information on the devices.  At 
> the moment, the configuration doesn't have any material affect on the device, 
> and the only thing that a client can do is read back the tag configuration.  
> Is the intention that the protocols may be extended in future to allow filter 
> queries to be based on module tags?
> 
> So, I am supportive of Alex's comment that it would give the document more 
> clarity if some of the specific use cases could be described.
> 
> 
> Some other random comments/nits:
> 
> 1) 6087bis references can be updated to RFC 8407.  Is a reference even 
> allowed in the abstract?
> 
> 2) Abstract: "writing a modules tags" => "writing a module's tags" or 
> "writing module tags"
> 
> 3) The module is YANG 1.1, so RFC 6020 reference can be changed to RFC 7950.
> 
> 4) Section 3.4: Should there be a tag prefix for "experimental"? Or perhaps 
> this would be "ietf:experimental:<tag-name>" anyway.
> 
> 5) Section 5.1: It might be useful if the tags were also reported under YANG 
> library, e.g. as an augmentation to rfc7895bis.  E.g. this would report the 
> same information as "modules-tags/module[name]/tag" leaf-list.
> 
> 6) YANG module: Should you limit the maximum size of a tag? Perhaps to 255, 
> or 1000 characters.
> 
> 7) Line length for "The operational view of this list is constructed ..." 
> looks like it may be too long.
> 
> 8) Section 7, Guidelines to authors.  I was wondering if this section should 
> state that YANG modules SHOULD define standard tags that are associated with 
> it.  At the moment, it just states what can be done, without providing 
> guidance of what should be done.
> 
> 9) Section 9.2.  A few more possible categories: discovery protocol, vpn, 
> tunnel.  I'm not sure that I particularly like "rfc8199-" as a module name, 
> and possibly "classification-" would be better.
> 
> Apologies for the tardy review comments,
> Rob
> 
> 
> On 12/11/2018 16:46, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> During the Thursday nov 8 session of netmod, we asked if there were any 
>> objections to the publication of the Draft-03 version of 
>> draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags which addresses comments and concerns raised 
>> during the WGLC. In the meeting there were none. This commences a comment 
>> period to confirm that call. As this follows closely on the heels of the 
>> IETF 103 meeting we’ll let the call run through Monday the 26th of November.
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03.txt
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Joel
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to