Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00.txt The Routing Directorate QA reviews are intended to be a support to improve the quality of RTG Area documents as they pass through the IETF process. This is the QA review at the time of wg document adoption poll. Summary This document serves a useful purpose in clarifying the existing confusion, and potential interoperability issues, caused by the piecemeal introduction over a period of time, with varying degrees of rigour, of various uses for route preferences. As such it seems a good candidate for adoption as a WG document. My slight concern is how we manage the process of ensuring that people referencing RFC5302, 5 and 8 are correctly directed to this document and understand where this document overrides requirements in the earlier documents and where it merely clarifies,  given the mixture of clarifications and correction that it contains. Comments From a technical point of view I find the document ready to be adopted as a working group document. I'm wondering whether a tabular form of presentation might be easier to assimilate than the rather verbose and repetitive textual descriptions. e.g. type | L1/L2 LSP | TLV |up/down bit | Extern bit | comments L1 intra-area routes | 236/237 | L1 | 0 | 0 | These IPv6 prefixes are directly connected to the advertising router. Major Issues No major issues found. Minor Issues Route preferences. Does it need to be specified that the route preferences are listed in order of most preferred first, just to be absolutely clear? Nits There is inconsistency between the use of "zero" and "0" and between "one" and "1". Is there a reason why the external bit is spelled with an upper case X as  eXternal?