Re: [netmod] WG LC draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 - 10/2/18 - 10/16/18

[Alex Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Do not support.

This document does not make a good case for why tags should exist.
The introduction does not explain what they are useful for, it just makes a comparison to #hashtags (which is something I would expect to see in an April 1st RFC).
The initial registry values, section 8.2, also provide no insight as to the value of any of these tags. At best these values could be used to categorise modules for human browsing.

In short, I see no evidence that the standard this document attempts to define is actually useful.



Additional major concerns:
- the draft does not indicate who should implement the included YANG module.
- there is no automatic mechanism specified (such as an extension statement) by which the server can read the tags from the module (as 4.1 specifies must happen), therefore the implementer will have to do this manually and is likely to forget.
- I do not believe servers should be concerned with classifying their implemented YANG modules, unless there is a good reason. This seems like a client responsibility. How will the system work in a large network with one client reading data from 500 servers, each of which could have different tag data? Or maybe two clients with different tag data, both trying to update the network to hold the "correct" data.




________________________________________
From: netmod <[e-mail]> on behalf of joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2018 9:21 a.m.
To: NETMOD Working Group
Subject: [netmod] WG LC draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 - 10/2/18 - 10/16/18

This is start of a two week working group last-call for
draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a current netmod working group
document.

You may review at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02

Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support".  If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like
to see addressed once the document is a WG document.

The prior discussion of my mistaken WG adoption call is here

commences here:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg21290.html

In particular Andy's concerns expressed in that thread here:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg21348.html

are probably important to tease out in considering this for last call.

so that we are clear on dates. This last call timing resets and runs
from 10/2/18 - 10/16/18

Joel