Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your review. See in-line.
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07: 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-yang-model-classification/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Substantive:
>
> -4: That seems almost a challenge :-) But seriously, I dont know if it makes
> sense to discuss this sort of thing in this document-- but it seems like
> sensitivity of content might be a consideration when "typing" models. For
> example, models that include security credentials or keys. (An answer of
> "that's not what we are talking about" would be perfectly sensible.)
Actually, the security considerations related to the YANG module should 
not influence the YANG module classification.
I wrote "should" because I can't think of a single case.
To complete the Security Considerations section, here is a proposal.
OLD:

    This document doesn't have any Security Considerations.

NEW:
    The document specifying the YANG module to-be-classified already contains a Security Considerations
    section. This document doesn't add to or modify this Security Considerations section.

>
> Editorial:
>
> -1, " A number of module types have created substantial discussion during   the
> development of this document including those concerned with   topologies."
>
> I'm not sure I understand that sentence. Is the antecedent of "those" "module
> types", or "discussions"? Are we talking about network topologies?
OLD:

    A number of module types have created substantial discussion during
    the development of this document including those concerned with
    topologies.

NEW:
    A number of module types have created substantial discussion during
    the development of this document: for example, those concerned with
    topologies.

>
> The section ends with "See figure 1". But that figure seems more related to
> section 2. Is the reference out of place?
The reference is right. Positioning the YANG modules from a location 
point of view (equipment vendor, controller, orchestrator) helps people 
grasp the concepts of Network Element YANG Modules versus Network 
Service YANG Modules

Regards, Benoit
>
>
> .
>