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

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi John, 

> On May 22, 2023, at 19:38, John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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?

I guess this comes from too much protocol-specific bias. Some OSPF/IS-IS implementations allow the external metric to be the redistributed route’s metric. In this case, metrics from different protocols are indirectly compared. However, I can remove “directly”. 

Thanks,
Acee


> 
> 
>