Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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 ?