IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS
RFC 6119

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

Comment (2010-08-11 for -)
No email
send info
The following comments were made during Routing Directorate review.

The authors have agreed text with the reviewer that addresses these issues.

======
Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has some minor
issues to be considered before publication.


Comments:
This document is well written and easy to read. I have several nits and
one minor question.


Major Issues:
No major issues found.


Minor Issues:

Section 3.1.1:
Global, site-local and link-local addresses are mentioned. Have you
considered that site-local addresses have been deprecated by RFC 3879?
Have you considered unique local addresses in RFC 4139?


Nits:

- I would suggest to add RFC 2119 to normative references.

- Usually, the main body starts with Introduction section, followed by
Requirement Words. I would suggest that Section 2 (Overview) is moved up
to Section 1, followed by Requirement Words (or Requirement Words can be
a separate section).




======

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-08-11)
No email
send info
A number of acronyms are used without expansion.

---

It would probably be proper for Section 5 to include a pointer to RFC
5304 for general security considerations for IS-IS.

---

Are you sure the authors don't want to change their affiliation?

(David Harrington) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-08-10)
No email
send info
1) acronyms should be expanded on first use. CSPF, SPF, 
2) section 3 is very lightweight; mainly it is pointers to sub-sections in section 4 that correspond to IPv4 TLVs. I think section 3.2 could be eliminated by simply moving the reference to the IPv4 TLVs into each section 4 sub-section. (or even just providing a table of corresponding TLVs)
3) in 4.5, you should have a referendce for the Hello.

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

Comment (2010-08-10 for -)
No email
send info
Several acronyms are not expanded on first use (e.g., TLV, LSP, IIH, PDU). The RFC Editor will ask that you expand them, so you might as well start working on that task now. :)

(Sean Turner) No Objection