Subject: Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT)

From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 01:25:22 -0700

Lars Eggert 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No reference entries found for: [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

"Table of Contents", paragraph 2, nit:
>  manage policy configuration in a consistent way in environments with routers
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb "consistently" to avoid
wordiness.

Section 3. , paragraph 4, nit:
> ations, and similarly, actions may effect multiple changes to route attribut
>                                    ^^^^^^
Did you mean "affect" (have an effect upon)?

Section 4.2. , paragraph 10, nit:
>  a reject-route action returns false and the calling policy evaluation will
>                                     ^^^^
Use a comma before "and" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

Section 4.3. , paragraph 4, nit:
> eating policies nested beyond a small number of levels (e.g., 2-3) is discou
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Specify a number, remove phrase, use "a few", or use "some".

Section 4.3. , paragraph 4, nit:
> o ensure that there is no recursion amongst nested routing policies. 5. Polic
>                                     ^^^^^^^
Do not mix variants of the same word ("amongst" and "among") within a single
text.

Section 4.4. , paragraph 2, nit:
> n is specified for the chain). Whether or not the route's pre-policy attribut
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider shortening this phrase to just "Whether". It is correct though if you
mean "regardless of whether".

Section 7.2. , paragraph 31, nit:
> existing metric. If the result would overflow the maximum metric (0xffffffff
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider removing "would". (Usually, "would" does not occur in a conditional
clause, unless to make a request or give a polite order.).

Section 7.2. , paragraph 33, nit:
> he existing metric. If the result would be less than 0, set the metric to 0.
>                                   ^^^^^^^^
Consider removing "would". (Usually, "would" does not occur in a conditional
clause, unless to make a request or give a polite order.).