Hi Michael, Thanks for the helpful email.
> In general, I believe that distinguishing between different terms for "service > model" is useful. > > Actually, I would suggest to align the terminology in draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service- > model accordingly, e.g., by using the term "Customer Service Model" in the L3SM > WG. For instance, the title of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-12 "YANG Data > Model for L3VPN service delivery" is quite inconsistent with the use of the term > "service delivery" in draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained. It would be > good to avoid confusion. Yes. Although we added text to draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained to explain the terminology mapping, I think you're right that it would be even better to avoid the need. So that is an issue to take to L3SM (or the IETF last call of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model) > Despite the discussion in https://www.ietf.org/mail- > archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04486.html, the draft still contains the wording > "all of the parameters". I continue to believe that a wording such as "the > parameters" would be more consistent with the rest of the document talking > about operator-specific augmentations etc. My bad dropping that email. I'll go back and respond on that thread. > The document, in particular in Section 6.1, could better distinguish between the > terms "module" and "model", if an alignment with draft-ietf-netmod-yang- > model-classification is the objective. One example where the terminology is not > entirely consistent is the sentence "add an additional example of a Network > Service YANG model as shown in Figure 4". That figure actually shows modules. Nice point. Does anyone have a reference for the definition of model and module in the YANG context (or I can search :-) > Apparently Section 6.4 refers to MEF 55. I wonder why the specification MEF 55 is > not referenced. Also, I believe the terminology in Section 6.4 may have to be > reviewed. For instance, MEF apparently uses the term reference points > ("Management Interface Reference Point") instead of "interface" in MEF 55. Thanks for the pointer. It is hard to search all of the MEF documents (public and private) to find a figure. I will add the reference and clear up the language. > Editorial nit: s/to/two/ in "The service model may divided into to categories" Ack Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
