[i2rs] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Even if just Informative, it would be nice to have a reference to
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model.

(2) I think that the use of some Normative Language is not as expected.

(2.1) For example, in S2.1 (RIB definition): "There MAY be many routing
instances and each routing instance MAY contain RIBs."  In both cases "MAY"
seems to be a statement of fact, and not a normative statement to indicate that
a routing instance can optionally include RIBs.  Note that S2.2 (Routing
instance) identifies a rib-list as a mandatory component of a routing instance,
and there's no clear indication that the list may be empty.

(2.2) S2.1: "A routing instance MAY even have two or more RIBs of the same rib
family (e.g., IPv6)."  This use of "MAY" also seems to be stating a fact.

(2.3) "MAY be optionally", "MAY contain the following optional fields" are
redundant phrases as MAY already means optional.