I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Document:                                                  draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07.txt Reviewer:                                                   Christer Holmberg Review Date:                                               19 January 2016 IETF LC End Date:                                          30 December 2015 IETF Telechat Date:                                       21 January 2016 Summary:           The document is well written, and is almost ready for publication. However, there are some editorial issues that I ask the authors to address. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Editorial Issues:   GENERAL: --------------   Q_GEN_1:   In section 1, you say that the extension is hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions".   However, you then refer to it as e.g. "TE Metric Extensions" and "ISIS TE Metric Extensions".   Please use consistent terminology.     Q_GEN_2:   Sometimes the text says “sub-TLV”, sometimes “SubTLV”, and sometimes “Sub TLV”. Please use consistent terminology.     SECTION 1: --------------   Q_1_1:   I suggest to rewrite:   “This document describes extensions to IS-IS Extended Reachability TLV defined in [RFC5305] (hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions"),…”   …to:   “This document describes extensions (hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions") to IS-IS Extended Reachability TLV defined in [RFC5305],…”   … to make it more clear that "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions" refers to the extensions, and not to the TLV.     SECTION 2: --------------   Q_2_1:   I have some difficulties to follow the A,B,C bullet list logic.   I think it would be more clear to structure it e.g. like:   “From an  MPLS perspective, the intent of the A bit is to permit LSP ingress nodes to determine whether the link referenced in the sub-TLV affects any of the LSPs for which it is ingress.   If any of the LSPs are affected, the receiving node shall determine whether those LSPs still meet end-to-end performance objectives. If the objectives are not met the receiving node could conceivably move affected traffic to a pre- established protection LSP or establish a new LSP and place the traffic in it.”