Two editorial nits:
** Section 3.  Editorial.  s/ When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels ([RFC5302],/When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels [RFC5302],/

** Section 4.  Figure 2.  The text says that “A MSD-Type Code 2 has been assigned by IANA”, but Figure 2 says “MSD-Type=TBD2”.

Thank you for educating me, and addressing the minor residual remains of my discuss point
that were left after that, as well as my comments.

[[ nits ]]

[ section 1 ]
* "(e.g., SR-MPLS [...]," appears to lack a closing parenthesis.

What Barry said.

Also, I presume your AD has approved going over the usual limit of five authors.

I had the weirdest sense of deja vu when reviewing this document -- enough that I went back to see if it had been on a previous telechat -- and then realized that it was the IS-IS version of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc :-)

Just a few editorial nits:

— Section 1 —

   In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be

Nit: you need a closing parenthesis instead of the second comma.

   This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label
   Depth (ERLD) as defined in [RFC8662] may be used by ingress LSRs to

Nit: this needs a comma after the citation.

— Section 3 —

   originator.  Similarly in a multi-domain network, the identity of the

Nit: “Similarly” needs a comma after it.

   When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels ([RFC5302], it

Nit: remove the open parenthesis.

   an Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) is outside of the scope

Nit: the abbreviation “ASBR” is not used elsewhere in the document, so there’s no reason to include it.

— Section 4 —

   A new MSD-type [RFC8491], called ERLD-MSD is defined to advertise the

Nit: 8491 capitalizes the “T” in “MSD-Type”.
Nit: there needs to be a comma after “ERLD-MSD”.

Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read.

Like other ADs, I wonder why the IS-IS and OSPF are separate documents.

Please find below one NIT.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== NIT ==

-- section 4 --
The "one" is ambiguous in "the router MUST advertise the smallest one." even if we can guess that it is not "interface" ;-)

Hi,

Same comment as for equivalent OSPF draft.

Is there any associated YANG module required to manage this protocol enhancement?  If so, is that already being worked or, or planned work for the WG?

Regards,
Rob