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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-??
Reviewer: Behcet Sarikaya
Review Date: 2024-10-02
IETF LC End Date: 2024-10-03
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:The document presents BGP extensions for advertising the BIER information and methods for calculating BIER states based on the advertisement. Basically it interfaces BIER with BGP for realizing the multicast delivery.

Major issues:As security reviewer pointed out, Sec. 1 claims the BIER attributes leaking out of BIER domain avoidance is not realized.
It has excessive number of editorial issues.
It has 6 authors.

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
to coney -> to convey
the original draft name has idr extensions not BGP extensions. Of course draft name is very difficult to change after so many revisions.
Section 2 on terminology does not contain all the acronyms used
Some TLV figures have a figure number some don't, why?
All acronyms should be expanded in first use.
Sec. 5 second par. sub-TLV at all, The entry's BFR Neighbor -> sub-TLV at all, the entry's BFR Neighbor 
Sec.5 states that
BIER traffic is sent to the BFR-NBR either natively (BIER header
   directly follows a layer 2 header) if the BFR-NBR is directly
   connected, 

I think this is very important to emphasize that BIER supports/ realizes native multicast deliver as opposed to tunneling so the document should single out the cases of tunneling everywhere in the document.
Sec.6 
BFRer1 -> BFER1