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, and sometimes on special request. 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-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-07.txt Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 23-November-2016 IETF LC End Date: N/A Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I have some moderate concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication is approved. Comments: Major: The use of SHOULD and MAY in section 4.1 seems to lead to a device which ostensibly supports this document, but does the wrong things. First, with regard to the SHOULDs, in the absence of any indication as to why it would not do this, it appears that the SHOULD is really "MUST if the device supports this document" which is what MUST in a document actually means. Section 4.2 first bullet says that a mid-point LSR "SHOULD" check for a preferable P2MP-TE LSP Tree. But if it doesn't, it is not supporting this document. As written, it could decide to ignore the message, even though it claims to support this RFC. Looking at the handling when a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree is found, according to the document, the LSR MAY send the PathErr response. My assumption is that if it does not send the PathErr, it MUST propagate the request. If it does not do either one, the protocol does not function. It seems likely that if this is really intended to be optional (MAY), the document would be improved my giving implementors some hint as to when it is desirable or undesirable to send the message. Then in the third bullet, it is only a SHOULD to pass on the request. Thus, a device which supports this mechanism, but chooses not to pass on the request, is compliant to this document while preventing other devices from properly supporting the mechanism. Minor: The abstract is much too long. Much of the content of the abstract belongs in the introduction. Even teh second paragraph has too much detail for an abstract. Editorial: In the last paragraph of the introduction, it says that this document "proposes" solutions. Given we are now in the position of evaluating publication as a Proposed Standard, I would say that this document "defines" solutions.