Re: [netmod] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with COMMENT)

Hi Alvaro,
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: No Objection
>
> 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) This sentence in the Introduction caught my attention: "This document
> defines a set of usage guidelines for Standards Track documents containing
> YANG...data models."    The Abstract extends to say that "Applicable portions
> may be used as a basis for reviews of other YANG data model documents."
>
> I don't remember a non-Standards Track document off the top of my head [*], but
> I'm sure the guidelines apply to any IETF document containing a module.  Is
> that true?
In my mind, yes. I don't see why we would make a distinction.
I believe the text should be improved.

As history, this sentence is a cut/paste from RFC6087.
>
> I see, for example, that in 4.1 (Module Naming Conventions) it is clear how
> modules published by the IETF should be named...and a note is included about
> what other SDOs might do.  Are there cases where the guidelines are only
> applicable to Standards Track documents, but would not apply to other IETF
> documents?
I don't think so.

Regards, B.
>
> This may be a nit, but I think it is good to close this door before the
> justification for non-compliance starts being the Status of a document.
>
> [*] I do remember the IESG talking about whether a document with a module for
> an Experimental protocol should be in the Standards Track or not.  IMHO, what
> matters is for the module to be used (i.e. correct, implementable, implemented,
> etc.) and not the status of the document it is in.
>
> (2) The second paragraph in 2.1. (Requirements Notation) is not needed: "RFC
> 2119 language...as if it were describing best current practices."  This
> document is now a BCP.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> .
>