Francesca, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On 2020-6-16, at 21:55, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Francesca Palombini > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-15 > Reviewer: Francesca Palombini > Review Date: 2020-06-16 > IETF LC End Date: None > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: This draft is basically ready but has one minor issue, described in > the review. > > Minor issues: > > In the last paragraph of Section 4 there are a number of non-normative may, > should, must. I believe the last "should" at least could be normative: > >> Also, implementations should have validation to assure >> that there is no recursion amongst nested routing policies. > > (More of a question than an issue) I was surprised that all but one references > were considered normative. Is that common to consider the RFC that appear in > the model as normative references for the document? > > Note that for the version reviewed, the Yang Validation for > draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-15 failed: err : Data model "ietf-if-extensions" > not found. > > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
