Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-02.txt ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 7-July-2008 IETF LC End Date: 14-July-2008 IESG Telechat date: N / A Summary: This document appears ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. When other document editing is being done, the minor comments below should be considered. Minor Comments: 1) (comment on abstract based on problem found when reading OSPF document.) The last sentence of the Abstract is somewhat confusing. Would it be accurate to replace "No support for flooding TE information from outside the AS is proposed or defined in this document." with "No support for flooding information from within one AS to another AS is proposed or defined in this document." The reason I ask is that what the document is about is flooding information about inter-AS links. Such links are actually outside of the AS, and so the current phrasing is slightly confusing. As a less informative, but still meaningful last sentence if the above does not work, would adding the following before the existing sentence work for you?: "All information described in this document is originated by the site AS Border Router (ASBR)." 2) It is probably the correct decision to carry the AS number of neighbors in this mechanism, rather than relying on other protocols which may or may not have such information. I would suggest adding a note to the introductory material in section 3 making this point. The text should simply say something like "while some of this information may be available within the AS from other protocols, in order to avoid any dependency on where such protocols are processed, this mechanism carries all the information needed for the required TE operations." 3) Is there a reason that the OSPF and ISIS document differ as to the strength of recommending a specific setting of the flooding scope? The OSPF documents say that it SHOULD be area specific. The ISIS document merely describes the two settings (level specific and inter-layer flooding allowed) without making either one a SHOULD.