Area Proxy for IS-IS
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-12

Section 7 creates a registry whose policy is partly Expert Review, but doesn't give any particular guidance to the Designated Experts about what qualifying criteria might be.  Are there any that should be included?  I also suggest removing the names of proposed designated experts; that's appropriate for the shepherd writeup or an email and doesn't need to be in the document directly.

The SHOULD in Section 4.2 is bare.  When might an implementer or operator deviate from that advice?  If there's no legitimate condition, maybe it should be a MUST, or if it really doesn't matter, a MAY.

I actually have the same question about most of the 30+ SHOULDs in this document.  I wasn't able to tell just from the text in many cases what damage to interoperability I might trigger if I deviate from the advice.  And in the aggregate, as an implementer, I could do none of them and still claim I'm implementing this specification.  Is that intentional?

Thanks for addressing and/or explaining my concerns. I've updated my ballot to No Objection.

Thank you for addressing my COMMENT and DISCUSS feedback.

Hi,

Thanks for this document.

I'm not a routing expert, but it does feel that this is somewhat pushing IS-IS beyond its core competency.  However, this is obviously just an experimental draft and may be a pragmatic engineering solution to the problem, hence the no obj ballot.

Regards,
Rob