[netmod] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-26: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-26
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for
my own education).

Special thanks to Lou Berger for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the
WG consensus and the justification of the intended status and the large number
of authors.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of
https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by
a tool to create github issues.

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/,
a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I
really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be
convinced otherwise.

### Section 4.5

In rule #1, the first "SHOULD" has a "unless", but why is the 2nd one not a
"MUST" in `in which case the artifact version "X.Y.Z+1_non_compatible" SHOULD
be used instead` ?

I am unable to fully understand the rule #2.i `unless that version has already
been used for this artifact but with different content, when the artifact
version SHOULD be updated ` (which also has a SHOULD without the required IESG
guidance per
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/
) The part that I do not understand is the use of "when" in the sentence.

There are also too many "SHOULD" without any guidance, i.e., why not using
"MUST" then ?

### Section 6

Why not a "MUST" in `SHOULD begin with a 0` ?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 4.5

`The following four rules specify` is actually followed by 5 rules ;-)

### Section 4.6

Suggest to add a graphical representation (e.g., the trees used in the beginning of this I-D).