Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-15
review-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-15-genart-lc-palombini-2020-06-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-03
Requested revision 03 (document currently at 31)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-06-20
Requested 2020-05-29
Requested by Jeff Tantsura
Authors Yingzhen Qu , Jeff Tantsura , Acee Lindem , Xufeng Liu
I-D last updated 2020-06-16
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -12 by Mahesh Jethanandani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -27 by Dan Harkins (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Francesca Palombini (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -16 by John Scudder (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -15 by Tommy Pauly (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -29 by Mahesh Jethanandani (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -29 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff)
Comments 
Dear colleagues,

Hope everyone is safe and well!
As RTGWG is preparing for the WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model we'd like to ask you to review the draft.

Many thanks!
Jeff & Chris
Assignment Reviewer Francesca Palombini
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/LEpajSXt_jZ7dRfpRhl7xQxrnbM
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 31)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2020-06-16
review-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-15-genart-lc-palombini-2020-06-16-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-15
Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
Review Date: 2020-06-16
IETF LC End Date: None
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This draft is basically ready but has one minor issue, described in
the review.

Minor issues:

In the last paragraph of Section 4 there are a number of non-normative may,
should, must. I believe the last "should" at least could be normative:

>  Also, implementations should have validation to assure
>  that there is no recursion amongst nested routing policies.

(More of a question than an issue) I was surprised that all but one references
were considered normative. Is that common to consider the RFC that appear in
the model as normative references for the document?

Note that for the version reviewed, the Yang Validation for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-15 failed: err : Data model "ietf-if-extensions"
not found.