Hi John, > On May 22, 2023, at 19:38, John Scudder via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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?
I guess this comes from too much protocol-specific bias. Some OSPF/IS-IS implementations allow the external metric to be the redistributed route’s metric. In this case, metrics from different protocols are indirectly compared. However, I can remove “directly”. Thanks, Acee > > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
