On 02/12/2021 03:22, Dale R. Worley wrote:
Addressing what seems to be the difficult issue:
t petch <ie...@btconnect.com> writes:
The trouble with the way that Last Call is organised is that the changes
suggested below will pull this I-D out of line with the others
potentially leading to contradiction and confusion.
As I understand it, the only critique I presented of the overall
organization is:
But since the data model definition
does not depend on the overall architecture, the document should be
revised to either (1) remove unnecessary references to the overall
architecture, (2) segregate them in ways that show they are not needed
to understand the data model, or (3) carefully referenced back to the
documents that define them.
My intention was to suggest multiple ways that this draft could be
adjusted so that it was clear to someone who hadn't already absorbed the
gestalt of the whole document set. There are likely other possibilities
as well.
It seems to me that the approach that would require the least change is
(3), updating the terminology section to list all the terms that are
imported from the other documents and provide references to their
definitions.
I would also give some consideration to whether there are
definitions/descriptions of the data items that could be clearly
understood without external references, but the current text requires
that external context to be easily understood. In such cases, it's
usually best to provide a "context-free" defintion, and then add an
explanatory sentence describing how that fits within the larger system.
But I don't see any of this as pulling this draft away from the others.
Is there an example that comes to mind?
Dale
I think that your comments are excellent as comments on a isolated I-D
but might not be such an improvement for the set of six (or seven or
eight) that I reference. When these I-D first appeared, there was a
debate on the WG list. This is not Event-Condition-Action. Oh yes it
is. Oh no .. (we are in the pantomine season). I have seen a number of
such divergences since. Your comment that there are two different
definitions of Event in this I-D reminds me of this.
If you add a terminology section to this, as I have seen other WG do,
then you need to update all the other I-D with something similar IMHO
and I have seen this take a lot of effort to get that consistent. I had
forgotten, perhaps never knew, that there is an expired I-D on I2NSF
Terminology. WIth hindsight, putting it all in there would simplify my
task, but then might complicate one whose only interest is in - say -
nsf-monitoring who would then need to reference two I-D instead of one.
My approach has been to focus on the YANG and make that coherent with
the other I-D in the set. I have mostly ignored the text. Your review,
to me, focusses on the text and the inconsistencies therein and not the
YANG. My concern is then that changing the text will introduce
inconsistencies between text and YANG and between this I-D and the
others in my set.
There is a similar issue with the YANG that there is much overlap within
the set of YANG modules (which I have worked to make consistent). WIth
hindsight, a common module, two or three years ago, would have
simplified my work but, as before, someone with only an interest in -
say - nsf-monitoring would have yet another Normative Reference to
become familiar with.
Tom Petch
Dale
.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
