Hi, As just stated at the mic in the OPS Area meeting, I met with Dean Bogdanovic today to discuss the overlap/underlap between these two drafts.
1. We went through the text changes to draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification and I am happy that changes in the -05 revision address the questions I have been asking. I do see two nits: a. draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model is now RFC 8049 b. The paragraph that references that document is perfect and correct, but may be slightly out of place as its current position suggests that it is a "Network Service model" where I think that Dean and I have agreed that it is actually one level higher (a business service model in his language) and so basically out of scope of this document. I would suggest moving this paragraph to be the last paragraph in Section 2.1. 2. draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained We will revise this document to align a little more closely with the language in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification and (more important) to not re-state (even in different language) what is in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification. I believe this will address all open worries in the document that have been expressed on the list. Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
