Dear authors, intarea community,
as assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh my comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as YES.

The content of vers. 11 has improved  and the additional IE specifications as well the data type specification seem to me useful and reasonable. I couldn't detect any minor nits.

Regarding sect. 8.4 I am not sure whether the term 'mirror' shouldn't be replaced by 'correspond' since only the protocol numbers are represented by identical values while 'Label' and 'Keyword' sometimes differ in this document and [IANA-Protocol]? So I would suggest to say:  
The "Label" corresponds to the "keyword" of an EH as indicated in [IANA-Protocols], while the	
"Protocol Number" mirrors the "Protocol Number" in [IANA-EH] and [IANA-Protocols].

In addition I would like to clarify whether the term 'otherwise' in sect. 8.4 means 'in all other cases when not a new code is assigned to an IPv6 EH in [IANA-EH] but an existing code in the registry is proposed to be modified'?

Thanks a lot and best regards
Dirk