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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 6/7/2017 12:13 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> Adam Roach 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not going to pick out a bike shed color, but I do support the assertions
> that "module type" is a bit too ambiguous. When I got to section 3, I had to go
> back to see what section 2 called its things, because "type" is so generic.
What about
OLD: 3. Second Dimension: Module Types
NEW: 3. Second Dimension: Module Origin Types
>
> There are some places where the unexpanded acronyms lost me (VRF, MEF, UNI) --
Ack.
Note: MEF is not an acronym any longer since they want to move away from 
the narrow scope of Metro Ethernet

Regards, B.
> consider expanding these on first use.
>
>
> .
>