I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp.
These 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/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

Summary: I previously reviewed this document, -09.  The diff between the document was fairly large so I just re-read the entire document. I think it's ready, I've asked a couple of questions below I think it might be worth thinking about and potentially answering in the document.

Comments:
Section 3.2.2
Has the following:
An egress PE MUST NOT install the SRv6 Multicast Service SID in its Forwarding Information Base (FIB) i.e. it MUST NOT forward packets based on the Locator portion of the SRv6 Multicast Service SID.

I would strongly recommend explaining why this is needed, I think I know, but it would be helpful in understanding the need when implementing this.

Section 3.3.2
"The SRv6 Multicast Service SID MUST be routable within the AS of the egress PE."

What happens if it's not?

NIT: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-16#section-4.1.1.1.2

Third paragraph "Tthe"  

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO
OBJECTION.