Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-12-30
Requested 2015-12-14
Authors Stefano Previdi , Spencer Giacalone , David Ward , John Drake , Qin Wu
I-D last updated 2015-12-30
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Brian Weis (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Brian Weis (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Mahalingam Mani (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-12-30
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2015-12-30

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <>


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

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial Issues:




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.


Sometimes the text says “sub-TLV”, sometimes “SubTLV”, and sometimes “Sub TLV”.
Please use consistent terminology.




I suggest to rewrite:

“This document describes extensions to IS-IS Extended Reachability TLV

defined in [RFC5305] (hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions"),…”


“This document describes extensions (hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric

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.




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.”