Re: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

> 
> 
>>  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.