Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-10-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2020-10-21
Requested 2020-10-07
Authors Christoph Loibl, Robert Raszuk, Susan Hares
Draft last updated 2020-10-20
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -17 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -19 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -17 by Dale Worley (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -16 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Qin Wu (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -17 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -17 by Donald Eastlake (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Qin Wu 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-10-20
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/oAxjWklVs-a17EDSEZ-LBMu0w5k
Reviewed rev. 17 (document currently at 22)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-10-20

Review
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-10-20

I have reviewed this document on behalf of the Operations and Management Directorate. 
I believe this document is well written.
One clarification question I want to ask here is why not consolidate this document into I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis since rc5575bis has just begun.
Regarding Type 13 - Flow Label , I am wondering why Type 13 component values can not be be encoded as 8-byte quantities? why len=11 is not supported for IPv6 case?
Regarding "the Sub-Type always TBD" in section 6.1, I want to suggest to add reference to IANA section, i.e., section 8.2.