[Teas] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: No Objection

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document especially about `This document
builds on RFC 5316 by adding support for IPv6-only operation.`

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Christian Hopp for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Section 3.1

```
   The Router ID field of the inter-AS reachability TLV is 4 octets in
   length, which contains the IPv4 Router ID of the router who generates
   the inter-AS reachability TLV.  The Router ID SHOULD be identical to
   the value advertised in the Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV
   [RFC5305].  If no Traffic Engineering Router ID is assigned, the
   Router ID SHOULD be identical to an IP Interface Address [RFC1195]
   advertised by the originating IS.
```

AFAIK, the router ID is 'just' a 32-bit value that it is protocol version
agnostic. So, s/IPv4 Router ID/Router ID/ ?

Suggest: s/IP Interface Address [RFC1195]/IPv4 Interface Address [RFC1195]/ ?

### Section 6.1 & 6.2

`This document defines the following new IS-IS TLV type` but this type is
already defined in RFC 5316, so does it still qualify as "new" ? Propose to
rewrite the IANA section to simply request IANA to update the registries to
point to this I-D rather than to RFC 5316.

### Section 7

While Les was not an author of RFC 5316, he is an author of this I-D, so no
more need to acknowledge him ;-)

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments