Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. I really admire the 4 authors managing to reach a consensus even while having different affiliations: IETF at its best! Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated). I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 2 -- Having "Policy chain: A policy chain is a sequence of policy definitions (described in Section 4)." in the terminology section does not really help the reader... -- Section 4.1 -- While I am not a YANG expert, I wonder about the "*" (usually meaning 0 or more) for address in the neighbor-set container ? How can a neighbor exist w/o an address ? Why not using the "min-elements' YANG statement ? _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
