I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Document:                                     draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02.txt Reviewer:                                        Christer Holmberg Review Date:                                  6 September 2015 IETF LC End Date:                          18 August 2015 IETF Telechat Date:                       3 September 2015 Summary:          The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I do have a few editorial comments, however, that the authors may want to address.                               Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Editorial Issues:   General: -----------   QG_1:   There are a number of abbreviations which are not expanded on first occurrence, e.g. BGP and PIM. I guess there should also be a reference associated with them?     QG_2:   In a few places throughout the document the text says “The document [RFC7524] extends…”, “The document [RFC7524] also defines…” etc.   I suggest to remove “The document”.     QG_3:     In a few places throughout the document the text says “procedures of [RFCXXXX]”.   I suggest to say “procedures in [RFCXXXX]”.     QG_4:   Sometimes the text says “Section X of [RFCXXXX]”, and sometimes “[RFCXXX] section X”.   Please use consistent terminology.     Section 1: ------------   Q1_1:   In general, I think the Introduction section is very long and detailed. Would it be possible to move some of the stuff to dedicated sections (or, at least sub sections)?     Q1_2:   In the first sentence, should it be “an architecture” instead of “architecture”?     Q1_3:   In a few places the text says “This architecture”. Sometimes it is a little difficult to figure out whether that refers to an architecture somewhere else, or something defined in this document.   Would it be possible to say e.g. “The architecture defined in [REFERENCE]…”.