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-trill-rfc6439bis-04.txt Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 18.01.2017 IETF LC End Date: 10.01.2017 IESG Telechat date: (if known) 19.01.2017 Summary: The document is almost ready for publication, but there are some editorial nit that I'd like the authors to address. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: Q1: In the Abstract and Introduction, please expand "TRILL" on first occurrence. Also, in general, the document does expand some acronyms on first occurrence, while it does not expand others. Can the authors verify that all the acronyms NOT expanded so called "well known" acronyms? Q2: Related to Q1. In section 1.2, you do expand TRILL, but it is different than in RFC 6439. Is the intention really to change the meaning of "TRILL"? Q3: In the Abstract and Introduction, I think it would be good to have a reference to "Appointed Forwarder". Q4: The end of the introduction contains the following text: "This documents obsoletes [RFC6439], updates [RFC6325], and updates [RFC7177], as described in Appendix B." That's all good, but I think it would be good to have a few words also in the Introduction, explaining exactly what is obsoleted and updated. Q5: The end of the introduction contains the following text: "It also includes reference implementation details. Alternative implementations that interoperate on the wire are permitted." Is the last sentence really needed? I don't think an RFC can mandate the usage of one specific implementation of the RFC. Q6: In the Security Considerations, please use "This document" instead of "This memo", in order to have consistent terminology.