Adrian, JP,
A few comments below, mostly typos.
Mike
General comment... sometimes the document refers to octets and sometimes
to bytes. It would be preferable to use a consistent term throughout.
Abstract
along with some of information that can be used for PCE selection.
some of THE information
or
some information
1. Terminology
ABR is not a commonly used term in the context of IS-IS and doesn't appear
to be referenced in the document.
domain. This definition is different from that commonly used for IS-IS. Is
there a reason for the difference? The document refers to IS-IS routing
domains. Is it intended that a domain is different from a routing domain?
top of page 5
This document does not define any new IS-IS elements of procedure.
The procedures defined in [IS-IS-CAP] should be used.
should that be ... MUST be used?
3.2 flooding scope
be limited to one or more IS-IS areas the PCE belongs to, or can be
one or more IS-IS areas to which the PCE belongs
would be better
4.1. The IS-IS PCED TLV
In the introduction this is referred to (correctly) as a sub-TLV, but here
and in subsequent text it is referred to as a TLV. This is confusing to
say the least.
The format of the IS-IS PCED TLV and its sub-TLVs is the identical to
is identical to
4.1.6. The CONGESTION sub-TLV
The CONGESTION sub-TLV is used to indicate a PCE's experiences a
to indicate THAT a PCE experiences
or
to indicate a PCE's experience of a
or
to indicate that a PCE is experiencing a
VALUE: This comprises a one-byte bit flags indicating the
this reads rather strangely
this comprises one byte of bit flags....
5. Elements of Procedure
typo
domain, itMUST be carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV having the S
When the PCE function is deactivated on a node, the node MUST
originate a new IS-IS LSP with no longer any PCED TLV. A PCC MUST be
able to detect that the PCED TLV has been removed from an IS-IS LSP.
are we assuming here that all this information will always fit within a
single LSP? That is probably reasonable
Are we also assuming that it will always fit within a single IS-IS CAP
TLV? That may not be so reasonable.
If it requires two IS-IS CAP TLVS, is there a requirement that they be
carried in the same LSP?
7.1. IS-IS sub-TLV
Once a registry for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV defined in
[IS-IS-CAP] will have been assigned, IANA will assign a new
"has been assigned" would be better
9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The IS-IS extensions defined in this documents does not imply any
requirement on other protocols.
do not imply (IS-IS extensions is plural)