> > >> I do not think the tail end of a WGLC is an appropriate time or place to >> start wondering out loud about whether it would be a good to have. I admit >> to being confused by this since I believe you were actively participating >> WRT this work when it had the yang library augmentation as well as after we >> removed it. > > My apologies, but I had intended to review this more thoroughly during the WG > LC but ran out of time. If was when I read Alex's comments that I thought > that he was raising some valid points. The key one that struck a chord is > that this document describes a solution but doesn't seem to clearly describe > what problem it is solving (other than tags are good), or how it is intending > to be used. When I reviewed this document after reading Alex's comments, I > was asking myself how this was going to be used, and the answer I came up > with was that I didn't really know. Or the case that I had in mind (YANG > catalog filtering on module tag) doesn't seem to match the authors envisaged > use cases. Looking back at some of the previous comments on this work (not > just Alex), others have also questioned what problem it is solving and how it > will be used. >
So the backup slides I had for the talk basically asked if more proscriptive text was required on their use. Which is a bit different then working how they are to be used. The three cases of module tags, IETF, Vendor and User come from different sources. The IETF source comes with a demand for IETF consensus. The others do not. Ultimately I can imagine all sorts of user classification schemes that might emerge so my general conclusion that that any description should come in the form of guidance rather than proscription. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
