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-gmpls-signaling-smp-07
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2021-10-08
IETF LC End Date: 2021-10-08
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document updates RFC 4872 to provide the extensions to the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling to support the control of the Shared Mesh Protection.

I did not find major issues, I have some questions/comments. 

Major Issues: Not found
Minor Issues: Not found
Nits:

1- Section 1: Which are the generic aspects of SMP signaling? Maybe it would be nice to add "Only the generic aspects (such as....) for signaling SMP..."

2- Section 4: "...resource sharing along nodes E, F and G..." Maybe it would be nice to add examples of resources that can be shared between the nodes E, F and G. 

3- Section 4, page 5: Maybe? the intermediate node MUST send.... => the intermediate node (node E) MUST send...

4- Section 4, page 6: ... with a new sub-code "Shared resources unavailable"=>... with a new sub-code "Shared resources unavailable"(TBD1)...
	              ... with a new sub-code "Shared resources available" => ... with a new sub-code "Shared resources available" (TBD2)...

4- Section 4, page 6: Maybe it would be nice to associate with an example the five points outlined on how LSPs using SMP can be signaled in an interoperable fashion, e.g. 
 ..(1) the ability to identify a "secondary protecting LSP", from Figure 1, which would be the secondary LSP "E,F,G"?

5- Section 7: The Security considerations do not explain clearly how the RFC4872-security-considerations applies to the Shared Mesh Protection and to the preemption priority.

Thanks for this document,

Ines.