I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake, III Review Result: Ready with non-technical issues The draft looks good technically, but: Issues ----- Section 4: Does the IETF allow direct references into github in the main body of a standards track RFC? Looks like all the comparison code is in the Appendix. Can the github reference at least be moved to the Appendix? Section 11.2: As far as I know, there are only normative and informational references, not "URIs" references. Editorial --------- Section 1, 1st sentence: "to be also capable of supporting" -> "to also support" Section 1, 2nd sentence: OLD This document analyzes the differences of IPv6 [RFC8200] flows description from those of traditional IPv4 packets and propose a subset of new Border Gateway Protocol [RFC4271] encoding formats to enable Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] for IPv6. NEW This document analyzes the differences between describing IPv6 [RFC8200] flows and those of traditional IPv4 packets. It specifies new Border Gateway Protocol [RFC4271] encoding formats to enable Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] for IPv6. There are some other minor editorial things like plural/singular forms but I assume the RFC Editor will fix those. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com