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 . Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 2020-08-18 IETF LC End Date: 2020-08-28 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC but with nits to address before publication The protocol being defined seems fine, and the IANA considerations are well constructed. I have a nagging feeling that there are new security concerns this introduces, but haven't been able to identify anything specific. I appreciate that the document discusses what happens when a bad-actor introduces intentionally mis-configured flags. Editorial Issues: The Abstract is full of acronyms that are not universally understood, and it buries the point of the document. Please consider rewriting to focus more specifically on the goal of the draft (see the introduction in the shepherd's writeup), keeping in mind that the abstract should make sense to people who don't know yet what PE stands for. Much of what you currently have in the Abstract can be left to the Introduction. I expect a shorter (two or three sentence) abstract will suit the document better. In section 3.2: The list of three things in the list under "R and O Flags processing" are all processing steps. But the list of 6 things under "I Flag processing" are not all processing steps. Please change the list to only include processing steps, and move the examples and commentary to regular paragraphs after the processing has been specified. Consider moving the third top-level bullet in 3.2 ("MUST be ignored") to be the first bullet, and after that bullet say "otherwise". Editorial Nits: I suggest deleting "refers to" in the terminology sentences. In all cases you mean "is" and you don't need to say "is". The last phrase in the description of Bit 4 at the end of section 2 was difficult to read. Consider breaking the sentence into two or more. At the end of section 3.1, "does not have any impact on" is confusing. I think you mean "does not change"? At ", including" the sentence becomes awkward. I suggest breaking that into a separate sentence. Perhaps "Specifically the procedures for advertising ... are not changed."