Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10
review-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10-opsdir-early-banks-2018-04-04-00

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Upon review, I think the document is in decent shape, but needs work in the WG
first. There are 3 things I'd like to point out:

1. There are areas in the document where we assume the reader knows <x>, but
the document text could be helped if the authors were more concise in their
wording. For example:

"At the same time, nexthop chains can be used to specify multiple  headers over
a packet, before that particular packet is forwarded. Not every network device
will be able to support all kinds of nexthop chains along with the arbitrary
number of headers which are chained together."

I would think that while this might often be true, it doesn't have to always be
true, and depending on how wide the domain is, it might not be true. I realize
this isn't written with normative language, and it's a minor point, but it
lacks precision.

2. Nits has issues. Yup, a lot of authors think we'll just toss it in the queue
and let the RFC Editors fix this, but I think it's our job to be sending clean
docs into the queue. We pay for the RFC Editors service, why have them spending
time on things we have a tool that allows the authors to do this for
themselves? Fix your nits. :)

3. The document violates the number of named authors at the top - another
expense of RFC Editors time and effort I don't think we should be doing. I'd
prefer to see the authors/WG/WG Chairs address these items before they go into
the queue.

Thanks
Sarah