Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-07.txt Reviewer: Mach Chen Review Date: 12 May 2017 Intended Status: Informational Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: This document is clearly written and easy to understand. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: 1. Section 5. The behavior of Path and Resv messages process "After Link Failure" is different from the behavior of " Revertive Behavior After Fast Reroute". For example, for "After Link Failure" case, which link the Resv messages will send over depends on the link over which the Path messages are received, but for " Revertive Behavior After Fast Reroute" case, the Path and Resv messages are sent independently. Is this the intention, or is it necessary to unify the behavior? 2. Section 7.1. BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject Two subobjects are defined in this section, the authors try to use unified text to explain the two subobjects, but IMHO, this is not a good way to describe multiple different subobject. Based on the current text, I think the authors are trying to use a single Type for both subobjects, but after reading the IANA section, obviously it's not. So, I'd suggest to use dedicated describe test for specific subject, and for the type, it's better to use TBA1, TBA2... 3. Section 8 "As described in Section 7 of this document, this subobject is not carried in the RSVP Resv message. A new Notify message for FRR Bypass Assignment Error is defined in this document." What's sub-code will be sent when BYPASS_ ASSIGNMENT subobject is carried in the RSVP message? Nits: Section 5.1.1. s/bypass tunnels T3/ bypass tunnel T3/ Best regards, Mach