John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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?