Hi Med, 

I agree with your definitions. I believe I have applied this terminology to the 
latest version of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang/ 
Please confirm.

 Note that we are going to update 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang/ with the analogous 
telecast comments from the OSPF SR model (not until next week due to primary 
editor vacation). 

Thanks,
Acee


> On Apr 7, 2025, at 11:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> Hi Lou,
>  I like your suggestions. Updated the PR accordingly. The same link below can 
> be used to track the full changes.
>  Also, tweaked the text to reflect 1-3 items from Kent’s list.
>  Cheers,
> Med
>  De : Lou Berger <[email protected]> 
> Envoyé : lundi 7 avril 2025 13:46
> À : Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>
> Cc : [email protected]; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET 
> <[email protected]>
> Objet : Re: [netmod] Re: data model vs module Again (RE: Mahesh 
> Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-37: (with COMMENT))
>   Mehesh,
> On 4/4/2025 11:05 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> I like the idea of having the discussion here in netmod of the terminology, 
> where the expertise lies, and then taking it back to IESG when we have final 
> guidance.
> I agree that the WG is the right place for  this discussion.  Is your intent 
> to send the document back to the WG to get agreement on the new section, or 
> do you just want the WG to discuss and agree on-list?
> For those that missed it:
> On 4/4/2025 1:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Let's us use this discussion to converge on some clear guidance for every 
> one. 
>  
> Here is a first draft of guidance I suggest we add to 8407bis. This inspires 
> from the guidance I shared earlier in this thread:
>  
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://netmod-wg.github.io/rfc8407bis/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt&url_2=https://netmod-wg.github.io/rfc8407bis/model-vs-module/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt
> Which proposes a new section:
>    2.5.  YANG Data Model vs. YANG Module
>  
>    Both [RFC6020] and [RFC7950] make a distinction between the following
>    concepts:
>  
>    YANG data model:  Describes how data is represented and accessed.
>  
>       YANG structures data models into modules for ease of use
>       [RFC8309].
>  
>    YANG module:  Defines hierarchies of schema nodes to make a self-
>       contained and compilable block of YANG definitions and inclusions.
>  
>       Is typically a ".yang" file.
>  
>    A YANG data model can consist (1) of a single YANG module (e.g.,
>    [RFC9129]) or (2) multiple YANG modules and YANG submodules (e.g.,
>    [RFC7407]).
>  
>    Note that the term "YANG model" is sometimes used as an abbreviation
>    of YANG data model.  However, that term should be avoided in favor of
>    YANG data model.  Likewise, "YANG data module" should be avoided.
>  
>    Even if a YANG data model is structured as a single YANG module, YANG
>    data model term should be used in the title, abstract, and when the
>    overall design is described.  "YANG module" should be used when a
>    specific "*.yang" file is quoted.
> As contributor, I agree/like where this proposed text is heading.  I think it 
> would be helpful to add some more guidance to authors and reviewers on which 
> term to use/expect.  For example, state that when using terminology related 
> to  YANG module specifications, e.g., augmentation or deviation,  a "module" 
> should be referenced, and that when extending the concepts embodied in a 
> module this is an extension to the "YANG Model". 
> also some nits:
> s/when/in the body of the document where/
> s/quoted/referenced
> Thanks,
> Lou
>  
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu 
> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
> falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
> this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]


_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to