Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-19: (with COMMENT)

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

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-19: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Jeff Tantsura for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus **but** it lacks the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS

## Abstract

Should "data model" appear in `RFC 8349 defines the basic building blocks for
RIB` ?

## Section 3.2

Isn't the use of inet:ip-address (i.e., including the zone) redundant with
outgoing-interface ? Strongly suggest using inet:ip-address-no-zone