Module pedigree seems good. Other alternatives might be "module ownership" or "module origin"
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-07: Yes > > 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
