Re: [netmod] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-06

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Pete,

Version 7 has been posted.
All your feedback has been taken into account.
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07

Regards, Benoit
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-??
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2017-05-09
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-14
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: Ready with Minor Issues/Nits
>
> To an outsider like me, this seems like a useful document and it was
> an interesting read. The document could use a serious edit for grammar
> and typos. A few specific comments below.
>
> Major issues: None.
>
> Minor issues:
>
> In section 2.1, paragraphs 4 and 5 mention "speed". The speed of what?
> Development of the module? It's not clear from the text.
>
> In section 3.1, it says:
>
>                            While there is no formal definition of what
>     construes an SDO, a common feature is that they publish
>     specifications along specific processes with content that reflects
>     some sort of membership consensus.  The specifications are
> developed
>     for wide use among the membership or for audiences beyond that.
>     
> First of all, s/construes/constitutes. But aside from that, it's not
> at all clear to me that a common feature is "membership consensus".
> For example, we don't have membership, and many other organizations
> use voting and not consensus. Perhaps replace the above with something
> simpler like:
>
>                            Most SDOs create specifications according
> to
>     a formal process in order to produce a standard that is useful for
>     their constituencies.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> In the Abstract and section 3.1, you use "standards-defining
> organization" for SDO. I've never heard that phrase used before.
> Elsewhere in the document, you use "standards development
> organization", which is the phrase I've always seen used. I suggest
> you change to that in both places.
>
> Throughout the document, you say things like, "the authors believe" or
> "we assume". This is a WG consensus document. While I generally think
> that using these terms is bad form in a WG document, saying "the
> authors believe" almost sounds like the authors believe it, but the WG
> might not. If the authors and the WG believe XYZ, don't say "the
> authors believe XYZ" or "we believe XYZ"; just say "XYZ", or at least
> use the passive voice. So:
>
> Section 1:
>
> OLD
>     The intent of this document is to provide a taxonomy to simplify
>     human communication around YANG modules.  The authors acknowledge
>     that the classification boundaries are at times blurry, but
> believe
>     that this document should provide a robust starting point as the
> YANG
>     community gains further experience with designing and deploying
>     modules.  To be more explicit, the authors believe that the
>     classification criteria will change over time.
> NEW
>     The intent of this document is to provide a taxonomy to simplify
>     human communication around YANG modules.  While the classification
>     boundaries are at times blurry, this document should provide a
> robust
>     starting point as the YANG community gains further experience with
>     designing and deploying modules.  To be more explicit, it is
> expected
>     that the classification criteria will change over time.
> END
>
> Section 2:
>
> OLD
>                                                       For the purpose
> of
>     this document we assume that both approaches (bottom-up and
> top-down)
>     will be used as they both provide benefits that appeal to
> different
>     groups.
> NEW
>                                                       This document
>     considers both bottom-up and top-down approaches as they are both
> used
>     and they each provide benefits that appeal to different groups.
> END
>
> Section 2.1:
>
> OLD
>                                                       For the purpose
> of
>     this document we will use the term "orchestrator" to describe a
>     system implementing such a process.
> NEW
>                                                       For the purpose
> of
>     this document, the term "orchestrator" is used to describe a
> system
>     implementing such a process.
>
>
> Section 2.2:
>
> OLD
>     Although the [RFC7950], [RFC7950] doesn't explain the relationship
> of
>     the terms '(YANG) data model' and '(YANG) module', the authors
>     understand there is a 1:1 relationship between a data model and a
>     YANG module, but a data model may also be expressed using a
>     collection of YANG modules (and submodules).
>
> (This one's not even grammatical. Here's my best guess as to what you
> meant)
>
> NEW
>     Although [RFC7950] doesn't explain the relationship between the
> terms
>     '(YANG) data model' and '(YANG) module', there is a 1:1
> relationship
>     between a data model and a YANG module. However, a data model may
>     also be expressed using a collection of YANG modules (and
> submodules).
>     
> That's it for all of the "author" and "we" items. One other nit:
>
> 3.2 s/augmented into/added into. I don't think you can "augment into"
> something.
>
>
> .
>