Early Review of draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08
review-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08-rtgdir-early-malis-2016-04-25-00

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08.txt

Reviewer: Andy Malis

Review Date: April 20, 2016

IETF LC End Date: April 29, 2016

Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication, if the AD agrees (see below for details).

Comments and minor concerns:

I have no technical concerns with this draft.

I have noted the two comments in the AD review of this draft, and agree with
them.

Given the similarity in functionality to RFC 7777 and the overlap in
authorship, I expected the draft to be more or less identical to the RFC,
except for the technical differences between OSPF and ISIS. However, there are
parts of the RFC that are editorially better (easier to read or understand)
than the equivalent text in the draft, starting with the title, Abstract, and
Introduction. In particular, the Introduction in the RFC looks like the result
of cleanup by the RFC Editor, but which still needs to be done in the draft.
Why not take advantage of the work already done by the RFC Editor? Also, the
Introduction in the draft doesn't include the usual reference to RFC 2119
terms, which is in the RFC. The Abstract in the RFC also includes more useful
detail than the Abstract in the draft.

As another example, these differences are also true in Section 4.1 of the
draft, when compared to the mostly equivalent Section 2.2.1 of the RFC. For
example, from an editorial standpoint there is a missing "The" in the first
line of the section, and there are other improvements as well. I also see
editorial corrections in Section 3 of the RFC when compared to Section 5 in the
draft.

I would recommend an editorial pass where the text is compared with the RFC,
and when obvious, editorially improved to take advantage of work already done.
This will make the RFC Editor's job easier. Alternatively, the AD could choose
to include a note to the RFC Editor, noting the similarity and asking the RFC
Editor to take advantage of the work that they already did for the RFC.
However, having this done by the document editor would take advantage of the
editor's knowledge of when differences between the two are deliberate.

Thanks,

Andy