Re: [netmod] Deborah Brungard's Yes on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 6/8/2017 2:20 PM, Deborah Brungard wrote:
> Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07: Yes
>
> 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-yang-model-classification/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [Added comment on definition of SDO]
>
> My 2cents on the "type" discussion:
>
> The sentence in Section 1 Introduction does cause confusion "A number of module
> types have created substantial discussion" as it's describing the possible name
> duplication of a module in two different "layers", not types. Will read better
> if remove "types".
That makes sense.
>
> I'm very surprised that Adrian on his reading did not question the use of
> "layers" to distinguish between services and network element modules. To me,
> with my layer hat on, this is very confusing.
>
> My suggestion would be to use the generic word "types" for "layers" and use
> "class" to distinguish modules which are standard, vendor, user. Vendor/user
> modules may/may not overlap with standard modules functionality-wise, they also
> may be modules with no interest to be standardized, so they are not necessarily
> associated with maturity/finer aging:-)
>
> I find the definition of SDO and vendor confusing. In the draft, it defines an
> SDO as published by a standards development organization. It provides the
> example of IETF, IEEE, MEF. It defines a vendor-specific module as "..industry
> consortia and opensource projects".."openly published". This is blurring the
> lines of SDO and industry consortia, e.g. MEF is a forum (industry consortia)
> whereas IETF and IEEE (and ITU) are SDOs. It's based on organizational
> criteria, and it's in the organization's description of their product e.g.
> standards, specifications. Some users don't care, others do. To prevent IETF
> from being pulled into the hornet's nest, suggest SDO be defined as only IETF,
> and separate labels for vendor and industry consortia (includes
> opensource/openly published).
Alliteratively, I propose to remove MEF from the list of examples.

Regards, Benoit
>
>
> .
>