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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 07 June 2017 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C075E1270AC; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qXoh9Cjw_L8x; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C2441272E1; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.2.125] (ip-100-232-239-173.texas.us.northamericancoax.com [173.239.232.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v57DBOUA033741 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:11:25 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host ip-100-232-239-173.texas.us.northamericancoax.com [173.239.232.100] claimed to be [10.0.2.125]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (14F89)
In-Reply-To: <5ff62d49-9b3b-9fe2-9f34-bf4660009302@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:11:23 -0400
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5831EE80-4EA7-4846-91EF-CA56CF0BA4A4@nostrum.com>
References: <149671949959.3984.3647471702123309969.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5ff62d49-9b3b-9fe2-9f34-bf4660009302@cisco.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/a9dGa3IMAorDzZbYOJ9HhAHJTgk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 13:11:32 -0000

Thanks for the response. Also in-line:

> On Jun 7, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> 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
>> 
>> 
>> .
>> 
>