Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
review-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2020-07-09-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2020-07-09
IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-21
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I only
have a couple of editorial nits.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:

Q1. In the Abstract, I suggest the split the text into 2 paragrahps, where the
"This document specifies..." sentence is the beginning of the second paragraph.

Q2. In the Introduction section, in the last paragraph, instead of saying "This
document specifies the extensions necessary to do so." I suggest to be explicit
about what the document specifies - similar to the Abstract.

Q3. The document uses "IPvX Network Layer Protocol" and "IPvX Protocol"
terminology. Similarly, the document uses "IPvX" and "IPvX Address"
terminology. Unless there is a good reason, I suggest do double check whether
the terminology can be more consistent.

Q4. In the IANA Considerations section, I suggest to use the IANA registry
table format, where the different values (Value, Description and Reference) are
indicated, e.g., as in Section 7 of RFC 8654. Also similar to 8654, please
indicate the IANA registry name.