Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-06
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 17 May 2017 13:14 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2078F129BA8; Wed, 17 May 2017 06:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IOU2rbt_vqWk; Wed, 17 May 2017 06:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6FF0129478; Wed, 17 May 2017 06:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5801; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495026884; x=1496236484; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/fADXs/yfgxTZTiut3FKe8vYxggIr5YCY7OMfugQb+U=; b=HkdowfrHokzZHyv1hx+l6Yb+1fpYlyQzvSZM+iOMZiRw1lnj7sFZVFpU 2o660Wvlx8Fbt8zGBllRFIfrfOQ/StxM2QJBvSjpRi/e1XZTD899iDhAU kE8amdeoWSommR4E7HBUxLB0LyAC2q+/TVqKV2YJoeb7kyRuQxkmI6MCs g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BIAQCRSxxZ/5hdJa1cGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBg1VihHmKGJFFIXKVA4IPLoV2AoVaPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUZBiMVNAYHEAsOBgYCERUCAlcGAQwIAQEQig8OrROCJosIAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARoFgQuFVIFeKwuCMTSDIYIBglOCYAEEnhCHHIM1iEqCBIU8g0MjhkeMFogwHziBCi8gCBkVh1gkhnCCGhQBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,354,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="424764137"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 May 2017 13:14:42 +0000
Received: from [10.82.217.158] (rtp-vpn3-412.cisco.com [10.82.217.158]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4HDEg9K029140; Wed, 17 May 2017 13:14:42 GMT
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
References: <149439618175.1801.10155387201501790876@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <8f002f0c-fea3-7a4b-9250-1e870f423d86@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 09:14:40 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <149439618175.1801.10155387201501790876@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/UkM5yXY5QZpTvvK9UndtgVIimIU>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 13:14:46 -0000
Thanks Pete, Version 7 has been posted. All your feedback has been taken into account. https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07 Regards, Benoit > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-?? > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review Date: 2017-05-09 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-14 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Ready with Minor Issues/Nits > > To an outsider like me, this seems like a useful document and it was > an interesting read. The document could use a serious edit for grammar > and typos. A few specific comments below. > > Major issues: None. > > Minor issues: > > In section 2.1, paragraphs 4 and 5 mention "speed". The speed of what? > Development of the module? It's not clear from the text. > > In section 3.1, it says: > > While there is no formal definition of what > construes an SDO, a common feature is that they publish > specifications along specific processes with content that reflects > some sort of membership consensus. The specifications are > developed > for wide use among the membership or for audiences beyond that. > > First of all, s/construes/constitutes. But aside from that, it's not > at all clear to me that a common feature is "membership consensus". > For example, we don't have membership, and many other organizations > use voting and not consensus. Perhaps replace the above with something > simpler like: > > Most SDOs create specifications according > to > a formal process in order to produce a standard that is useful for > their constituencies. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > In the Abstract and section 3.1, you use "standards-defining > organization" for SDO. I've never heard that phrase used before. > Elsewhere in the document, you use "standards development > organization", which is the phrase I've always seen used. I suggest > you change to that in both places. > > Throughout the document, you say things like, "the authors believe" or > "we assume". This is a WG consensus document. While I generally think > that using these terms is bad form in a WG document, saying "the > authors believe" almost sounds like the authors believe it, but the WG > might not. If the authors and the WG believe XYZ, don't say "the > authors believe XYZ" or "we believe XYZ"; just say "XYZ", or at least > use the passive voice. So: > > Section 1: > > OLD > The intent of this document is to provide a taxonomy to simplify > human communication around YANG modules. The authors acknowledge > that the classification boundaries are at times blurry, but > believe > that this document should provide a robust starting point as the > YANG > community gains further experience with designing and deploying > modules. To be more explicit, the authors believe that the > classification criteria will change over time. > NEW > The intent of this document is to provide a taxonomy to simplify > human communication around YANG modules. While the classification > boundaries are at times blurry, this document should provide a > robust > starting point as the YANG community gains further experience with > designing and deploying modules. To be more explicit, it is > expected > that the classification criteria will change over time. > END > > Section 2: > > OLD > For the purpose > of > this document we assume that both approaches (bottom-up and > top-down) > will be used as they both provide benefits that appeal to > different > groups. > NEW > This document > considers both bottom-up and top-down approaches as they are both > used > and they each provide benefits that appeal to different groups. > END > > Section 2.1: > > OLD > For the purpose > of > this document we will use the term "orchestrator" to describe a > system implementing such a process. > NEW > For the purpose > of > this document, the term "orchestrator" is used to describe a > system > implementing such a process. > > > Section 2.2: > > OLD > Although the [RFC7950], [RFC7950] doesn't explain the relationship > of > the terms '(YANG) data model' and '(YANG) module', the authors > understand there is a 1:1 relationship between a data model and a > YANG module, but a data model may also be expressed using a > collection of YANG modules (and submodules). > > (This one's not even grammatical. Here's my best guess as to what you > meant) > > NEW > Although [RFC7950] doesn't explain the relationship between the > terms > '(YANG) data model' and '(YANG) module', there is a 1:1 > relationship > between a data model and a YANG module. However, a data model may > also be expressed using a collection of YANG modules (and > submodules). > > That's it for all of the "author" and "we" items. One other nit: > > 3.2 s/augmented into/added into. I don't think you can "augment into" > something. > > > . >
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-n… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Benoit Claise