Hi, >thanks for your comments. I fixed most of them however, regarding the last >comment (Q_2_1), we tried to keep both OSPF (now RFC7471) and IS-IS drafts >aligned even in the descriptions. > >The text you pointed out is in fact the same in RFC7471. I’d like to keep both >protocols completely aligned and would prefer to keep the text as is.
That's ok. If nobody else has had any issues, I can live with the existing text :) Thanks! Regards, Christer > On Jan 19, 2016, at 2:54 PM, Christer Holmberg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, > please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> > Document: > draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07.txt > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review Date: 19 January 2016 > IETF LC End Date: 30 December 2015 > IETF Telechat Date: 21 January 2016 > Summary: The document is well written, and is almost ready for > publication. However, there are some editorial issues that I ask the authors > to address. > Major Issues: None > Minor Issues: None > Editorial Issues: > > GENERAL: > -------------- > > Q_GEN_1: > > In section 1, you say that the extension is hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric > Extensions". > > However, you then refer to it as e.g. "TE Metric Extensions" and "ISIS TE > Metric Extensions". > > Please use consistent terminology. > > > Q_GEN_2: > > Sometimes the text says “sub-TLV”, sometimes “SubTLV”, and sometimes “Sub > TLV”. Please use consistent terminology. > > > SECTION 1: > -------------- > > Q_1_1: > > I suggest to rewrite: > > “This document describes extensions to IS-IS Extended Reachability TLV > defined in [RFC5305] (hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions"),…” > > …to: > > “This document describes extensions (hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric > Extensions") to IS-IS Extended Reachability TLV defined in [RFC5305],…” > > … to make it more clear that "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions" refers to the > extensions, and not to the TLV. > > > SECTION 2: > -------------- > > Q_2_1: > > I have some difficulties to follow the A,B,C bullet list logic. > > I think it would be more clear to structure it e.g. like: > > “From an MPLS perspective, the intent of the A bit is to permit LSP > ingress nodes to determine whether the link referenced in the sub-TLV > affects any of the LSPs for which it is ingress. > > If any of the LSPs are affected, the receiving node shall determine > whether those LSPs still meet end-to-end performance objectives. If > the objectives are not met the receiving node could conceivably move > affected traffic to a pre- established protection LSP or establish a new LSP > and place the traffic in it.” _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
