[Isis-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01.
First, I would like to thank the authors - Les, Stefano, and Wim - for
their work on this document.

I do have a few minor issues that need to be fixed ASAP.   I will, however,
go ahead and issue a 3 week IETF Last Call for it so that, if the authors
act promptly, it can be on the April 13 telechat.


1) This draft pretty clearly should obsolete RFC 6822, but the header
claims to merely
update it.

 2) Sec 2.6.2: " Point-to-point adjacency setup MUST be done through the
use of the
         three-way handshaking procedure as defined in [RFC5303] in order to
         prevent a non-MI capable neighbor from bringing up an adjacency
         prematurely based on reception of an IIH with an IID-TLV for a non-
         zero instance."
     While obviously the 3-way handshake in RFC5303 is fine, given that
different MAC addresses are used, I don't see how a non-MI capable neighbor
would receive and process an IIH with an IID-TLV where IID != 0.

3) In Appendix A:" Clarification that the IID-TLV is only included in Pt-Pt
IIHs
   associated with non-zero instances has been added.  This addresses
   Errata ID #4519."
   In Sec 2.6.2, it says "The presence or absence of the IID-TLV in an IIH
indicates that the
   neighbor does or does not support this extension, respectively.
   Therefore, all IIHs sent on a point-to-point circuit by an MI-RTR
   MUST include an IID-TLV.  This includes IIHs associated with IID #0."
which is a direct
   contradiction and needed since the IID-TLV is used as a capability
indication.  The
   simplest solution is to remove the claim from the Appendix.

4) In the IANA considerations, the references should be updated to point to
this document, and most particularly if it obsoletes RFC 6822.

Regards,
Alia