[Lsr] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-te-app/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

An easy one:

Sections 7.3 and 7.5 create new IANA registries with "Expert Review" rules, but
Section 7.5 provides no particular guidance to the Designated Expert about how
to review applications, as required by Section 4.5 of BCP 26.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since this document is in many parts a copy of
draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse, I'm only reviewing this delta between them
here:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14&url2=draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14

Section 2:
* "... expected to continue - so any discussion ..." -- change to "... expected
to continue.  Therefore, any discussion ..." * "... key points identified in
the introduction - which are:" -- change hyphen to a comma

Section 3:
* "... advertisements include sub-TLVs for TLVs ..." -- Please define or expand
"TLV" on first use. * Please just name the registries, rather than giving
multi-line URLs to them.

Section 3.1:
* As with the matching OSPF document, I don't see the benefit of citing current
registry contents rather than just referencing the registry.

Section 4.3:
* Interestingly, the entries for IPv4 are not capitalized (e.g., "interface
address"), but they are for IPv6 (e.g., "Interface Address").

Section 6.3.2:
* These two paragraphs read like they're in the wrong order.

Sections 7.1 and 7.2:
* These should refer back to Sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively, where the new
values are fully described.