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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the response. Also in-line:

> On Jun 7, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
[...]
>> 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.

I'm fine with that, as long as people have thought about it--and this shows evidence that they have.

> 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.  
I'm okay with either version at this point.

>> 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. 
Would it make sense to say "... for example, modules 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

So this was just an editorial comment, so feel free to ignore, but the bullet point containing the reference is not obviously about the concepts of element vs service modules. It does talk about relationships between models. The idea of service vs element models has not yet been explained at that point, and the figure is not sufficient by itself to explain that idea. Maybe saying "relationships between types of models" would tie the ideas together more closely. Or maybe consider changing the reference to Figure 1 to a reference to Section 2 in it's entirety.

> 
> Regards, Benoit
>> 
>> 
>> .
>> 
>