I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-isis-wg-extlsp-03.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2008-10-28
IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-04
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues

Comments: 

Do you want the IESG to also reclassify RFC3786 as Historic?
If so, I suggest saying this explicitly in the Introduction.

RFC3786 should surely not be a normative reference, since it's
Informational and the idea is to replace it. It seems to me that
any material from 3786 that is needed should simply be cut and
pasted; in any case there's no specification text in the draft 
that seems to depend on 3786.

The draft uses the phrase "Virtual IS" without defining it. I see
that RFC3786 defines and uses "Virtual System". 

Is it "IS-Alias" or "IS Alias ID"? I don't see a reason for having
two names for the same TLV.

What happens when a legacy implementation receives an IS Alias ID,
IS Neighbor Attribute, or MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLV?
Is silent discard specified in the IS-IS standard?

IDnits finds many reference anomalies (see list below).

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'ISO 10589' is mentioned on line 43, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'IS- IS' is mentioned on line 80, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC 2119' is mentioned on line 106, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC 3784' is defined on line 457, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC 4205' is defined on line 465, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'BCP9' is defined on line 469, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'BCP14' is defined on line 472, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'BCP26' is defined on line 475, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'BCP79' is defined on line 478, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IS-IS'

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3784

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3786

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4205

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (ref. 'BCP26')

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology has been published
     as RFC 5120