Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information
RFC 4971

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Bill Fenner) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2007-02-02 for -)
No email
send info
Header line:
 Proposed status: Standard 
should be
 Intended status: Standards Track

Editorial points from Gen-Art review by Francis Dupont:

 - 1 page 2: I know what is IS-IS but a random reader likely doesn't:
  add a reference to the ISO IS (i.e., [IS-IS]) in the first sentence.
  (and perhaps add IS-IS-IP too, cf last comment).
 - 1 page 2: "two" examples numbered from 1 to 3 (:-)!
 - 2 page 3: I don't understand the "to prevent TLV looping" but
  perhaps it is not "TLV" looping?
 - 3 page 3: I don't like the term "domain flooding scope", it seems a
  bit redundant to me.
 - 3 page 4: "stale capabilities information A system"
                                            ^^ ", a "?
 - 9.1 page 6: is ISIS-TE really a normative reference? BTW there is no
   reference in the text (same for the previous item, there is a nice
   checker for this: I suggest to use it...)

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2007-02-05)
No email
send info
Section 1., paragraph 5:
>    The use of IS-IS for Path Computation Element (PCE) discovery may
>    also be considered and will be discussed in the PCE WG.

  RFCs shouldn't typically discuss what WGs at the time did or didn't
  do. Remove paragraph.

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection