John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this document. Just one small comment. In this text: description "The metric is a numeric value indicating the cost of the route from the perspective of the routing protocol installing the route. In general, routes with a lower metric installed by the same routing protocol are lower cost to reach and are preferable to routes with a higher metric. However, metrics from different routing protocols are not directly comparable."; I think you can strike “directly” — they’re simply not comparable, right? Directly or otherwise? _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
