Subject: [i2rs] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 14:10:58 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[I do not expect a change this late in the process due to the following
comment; I make more in hopes it will be helpful in the future]

I don't think the use of 2119/8174 in this draft adds value, and may even be
counterproductive. Many of the instances use keywords to make definitions
rather than normative requirements. For example, a statement of the form "Foo
MUST contain these mandatory fields" is equivalent to "Foo contains these
mandatory fields". In most cases, a draft of this nature is better off just
using descriptive language.