On 6/4/17 21:54, Tianran Zhou wrote: > Dear OPSAWG, > > In Seoul, we got enough interest and positive response on this service models > explained draft. > By the authors' request, this email starts a formal poll. The chairs would > like to know if the WG participants agree that the following document should > be adopted as a WG document in OPSAWG. > > Service Models Explained > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained/ > > The adoption poll will take two weeks. Please let us know your opinion by > June 19. It would also be good to hear who is willing to review this document. > > Since we already found that the majority of the f2f participants at our > IETF97 session like this idea, please do speak up now if you do not agree or > have serious objections (with explanation of course). > > Regards, > Tianran, OPSAWG Co-Chair >
Writing as an individual contributor, I have read this draft, and I support adoption. My main comment (which I made to Adrian in a chairs-only thread, and I will raise here publicly) is around the text in Section 6.1, which made me think there was intent to modify I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification based on ratification of draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained-06. Specifically: Figure 1 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification] can be modified to make this more clear and to add an additional example of a Network Service YANG model as shown in Figure 4. Adrian said that the netmod authors do not wish to modify the draft, and the SM draft should serve to further refine or extend the definitions therein. If others have the same thought, perhaps new text could be chosen to clarify. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
