Document: draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-04.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date:  2009-01-24
IESG Telechat date: 29 January 2009

Summary: Almost ready

Comments: My Last Call comments were addressed, thanks.
I did notice one more minor point:

> 11.  IANA Considerations
...
>   The "Traffic-action" extended community defined in this document has
>   6 unused bits which can be used to convey additional meaning.
>   Authors would like to ask IANA to create and maintain a new registry
>   entitled: "Traffic Action Fields".  These values should be assigned
>   via IETF Consensus rules only.  

RFC5226 doesn't describe a policy called "IETF Consensus".
It has been replaced by "IETF Review". This could be fixed by
a note to the RFC Editor.


================================================================================


Document: draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-03.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2009-01-08
IETF LC End Date: 2009-01-20
IESG Telechat date: 2009-01-29

Summary: Almost ready, clarifications requested

Comments: 

It isn't stated that this applies only to IPv4, but it appears to be the case.
The fields covered do not include the Flow Label, and IPv4 terminology is
used exclusively ("IP Protocol" instead of "Next Header", and "TOS" instead
of "Traffic Class"). Is there a reason that IPv6 is not considered? It doesn't
seem hard; apart from terminology, all that seems to be needed is a component type
for the flow label. If IPv6 is not covered, this should be stated explicitly.

There is explicit reference to 2 byte AS numbers in section 6. What will happen with
4 byte AS numbers?

Should cite RFC5226 instead of RFC2434.