I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. 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.