Subject: [mpls] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-15: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 14:31:46 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-15: No Objection

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-mpls-base-yang/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Section 3, it says: "This document registers the following URIs in the IETF
XML registry."  I think it should say "This document registers the following
URIs in the 'ns' sub-registry of the IETF XML registry."

I can relate to Barry's comment about "module" vs. "model".  I think I
understand the difference, but I've run into this with every YANG document
that's come up lately:  I think the "model" is a formal expression for a
configuration of some network component, while "module" is a chunk of YANG code
that describes that model, which can be evaluated (a la ABNF) against some
input to validate a configuration.

I also concur with Barry's remark about BCP 14 being cited when it's not used
anywhere.  This should be cleaned up (by either using it, or removing the
citation).  I'm tempted to DISCUSS this, but I assume since it's easily
resolved that that'll happen in due course.