Last Call Review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-08-16
Requested 2016-08-08
Authors Les Ginsberg, Paul Wells, Bruno Decraene, Tony Przygienda, Hannes Gredler
Draft last updated 2016-08-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Rich Salz (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Wicinski 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-01-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2016-08-16
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 04)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-08-16



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.

Document Reviewed:   draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02

Status: Ready with nits

Spelling Nits:

   "Corruption of the Remainining Lifetime Field"


2 (vi):

   not result in LSPDB inconsistency among routers in the newtork.


   vi.  If the RemainingLifetime of the new LSP is less than MaxAge it
   is set to MaxAge

Period at end of sentence

It appears that you interchange 'Remaining Lifetime' and 

'RemainingLifetime' (14 for the former, 19 for the latter).

I could not understand the pattern.  Was this intentional?