YANG Module Classification
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-08

[Ballot comment]
[Added comment on definition of SDO]

My 2cents on the "type" discussion:

The sentence in Section 1 Introduction does cause confusion "A number of module types have created substantial discussion" as it's describing the possible name duplication of a module in two different "layers", not types. Will read better if remove "types".

I'm very surprised that Adrian on his reading did not question the use of "layers" to distinguish between services and network element modules. To me, with my layer hat on, this is very confusing.

My suggestion would be to use the generic word "types" for "layers" and use "class" to distinguish modules which are standard, vendor, user. Vendor/user modules may/may not overlap with standard modules functionality-wise, they also may be modules with no interest to be standardized, so they are not necessarily associated with maturity/finer aging:-)

I find the definition of SDO and vendor confusing. In the draft, it defines an SDO as published by a standards development organization. It provides the example of IETF, IEEE, MEF. It defines a vendor-specific module as "..industry consortia and opensource projects".."openly published". This is blurring the lines of SDO and industry consortia, e.g. MEF is a forum (industry consortia) whereas IETF and IEEE (and ITU) are SDOs. It's based on organizational criteria, and it's in the organization's description of their product e.g. standards, specifications. Some users don't care, others do. To prevent IETF from being pulled into the hornet's nest, suggest SDO be defined as only IETF, and separate labels for vendor and industry consortia (includes opensource/openly published).

[Ballot comment]
My 2cents on the "type" discussion:

The sentence in Section 1 Introduction does cause confusion "A number of module types have created substantial discussion" as it's describing the possible name duplication of a module in two different "layers", not types. Will read better if remove "types".

I'm very surprised that Adrian on his reading did not question the use of "layers" to distinguish between services and network element modules. To me, with my layer hat on, this is very confusing.

My suggestion would be to use the generic word "types" for "layers" and use "class" to distinguish modules which are standard, vendor, user. Vendor/user modules may/may not overlap with standard modules functionality-wise, they also may be modules with no interest to be standardized, so they are not necessarily associated with maturity/finer aging:-)

[Ballot 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.

There are some places where the unexpanded acronyms lost me (VRF, MEF, UNI) -- consider expanding these on first use.

[Ballot comment]
If there is a desire to change from "module types", which I agree is likely to be overused,  an alternate term might be "module pedigree".
Thank you for an excellent, clear, and useful document; I remember the confusion that generated this.

[Ballot comment]
I wonder if we can find a better word than "module types" because really both axes are types. Perhaps "module scope" or "module maturity"?

[Ballot 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.)

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?

The section ends with "See figure 1". But that figure seems more related to section 2. Is the reference out of place?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification@ietf.org, Lou Berger , lberger@labn.net, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Module Classification) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language
WG (netmod) to consider the following document:
- 'YANG Module Classification'
  as Informational
RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-05-14. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The YANG data modeling language is currently being considered for a
  wide variety of applications throughout the networking industry at
  large.  Many standards-defining organizations (SDOs), open source
  software projects, vendors and users are using YANG to develop and
  publish YANG modules for a wide variety of applications.  At the same
  time, there is currently no well-known terminology to categorize
  various types of YANG modules.

  A consistent terminology would help with the categorization of YANG
  modules, assist in the analysis of the YANG data modeling efforts in
  the IETF and other organizations, and bring clarity to the YANG-
  related discussions between the different groups.

  This document describes a set of concepts and associated terms to
  support consistent classification of YANG modules.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
>
> Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
> is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
> title page header?

Informational. This is properly noted on the title page.  The document
helps establish a common categorization rather than any specific
mechanism. 

>
> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
>
> Technical Summary
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.
>

This document describes a set of concepts and associated terms to
support consistent classification of YANG modules.  It serves as
possible foundation for other work which may provide actual
mechanisms to support model classification.

> Working Group Summary
>
>  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>  example, was there controversy about particular points or
>  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>  rough?

Nothing particularly noteworthy.


> Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>  review, on what date was the request posted?
>

This document has received extensive input and review.  It already
serves as foundation for related work in the working group and OPS
area.

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Benoit Claise would normal serve as AD, but he is co-author so Warren
Kumari is the likely alternate AD.

> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
> the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
> for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
> the IESG.

The Shepherd reviewed the draft multiple times as well as ensured that
appropriate review was conducted in the WG.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
> took place.

No.

> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.

The document is an informational foundation.  It does not, nor is it
expected to, include complete list of possible classifications, but
rather establishes basic principles of YANG model classification.


> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

No.

> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Solid among interested WG participants.

> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

There is one outdated reference found by idnits.  It will be corrected
in the next version issued for the draft.

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?

yes.

> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
> references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A.

> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
> If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
> the Last Call procedure.
N/A

> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
> listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
> part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
> other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
> explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
N/A


> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
> section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
> document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
> are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
> Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
> identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
> detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
> allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
> reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There is no IANA section in this Informational draft.

> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
> useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
N/A.

> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
> language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
>
N/A.