Subject: [Idr] Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:09:09 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: Yes

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-idr-rfc5575bis/

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

Thank you, this is a useful document.

I have two minor comments:
“ Modern IP routers contain both the capability to forward traffic according to
IP prefixes ...” For some reason the “according to IP prefixes” scans oddly to
me - the rest of the actions are also (largely) “according to ip prefixes” -
this is more of a nit / preference, but I think it would be better to just drop
that phrase.

“ This      specification has removed all references to a opaque-key property. 
    BGP is able to understand the NLRI encoding.” 2 nits: 1: a opaque-key -> an
opaque-key (or the opaque-key) 2: BGP is able to... seems a bit odd - BGP is
just a protocol, it doesn’t really understand *anything*. I think that a better
option would be best “BGP implementations are”. Again this is just a nit, feel
free to address it or not...