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

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-07-21
Requested 2020-07-07
Authors Stephane Litkowski, Swadesh Agrawal, krishnaswamy ananthamurthy, Keyur Patel
Draft last updated 2020-07-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -06 by Tim Chown
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2020-07-09
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/3OrweC9SRvQGTqWTxC5BnXZhIjg
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2020-07-09

Review
review-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2020-07-09

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.