Re: draft-ietf-isis-traffic

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

>From a quick review,

non-derivative rights clause needs discussion.

Remind me why the WG is doing what IANA should be doing...

nit: 2119 ref and definitions pointer needs to be in the document
proper (it's in the boilerplate).

ipv6 is not included. Should it?

>    This sub-TLV is OPTIONAL. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear at most once in
>    each extended IS reachability TLV.

There are  number of sub-options  that say "SHOULD appear at most
once". But it is not a protocol violation to send more than one (since
it is not MUST). What is the correct behavior for the receiver?
Specifying this would seem to be necessary to get good
interoperability predictability

> Security Considerations
> 
>    This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS.

Oh? None of the new information that is included adds anything new?

>            250-254                     Reserved for cisco specific extensions

Excuse me?