Hi

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's


ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 


 These comments were written with the intent of improving the 


operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed 


in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. 


Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments



just like any other last call comments.

Document Reviewed:   draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02

Status: Ready with nits

Spelling Nits:

Abstract:
   "Corruption of the Remainining Lifetime Field"

*Remaining*

2 (vi):

   not result in LSPDB inconsistency among routers in the newtork.

*network*

(vi):
   vi.  If the RemainingLifetime of the new LSP is less than MaxAge it
   is set to MaxAge

Period at end of sentence



It appears that you interchange 'Remaining Lifetime' and 


'RemainingLifetime' (14 for the former, 19 for the latter).



I could not understand the pattern.  Was this intentional?

tim