Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-11

From: Susan Hares via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 02:15:01 -0700

Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Has Nits

Authors: Thank you for continuing to refine this document.  
Status: editorial nits:  

#1 - Section 3.3 paragraph 1, last sentence 
old/RMR is primarly intended for operation at the packet layer; 
       however, parallel links at hte lambda or fiber layer result in 
      parallel links at the packet layer./

question:  Did you want to say /may result/ intead of /result/

#2 - Section 3.7 - Would be easier to read if you included a diagram.
#3 - Section 4.4 - Would be easier to read if you included a diagram

Rational for requesting diagram: You are explaining the technology
that requires additional TLVs in other protocols (IGPS)

#4 - Section 5 - (editorial only)  This one section jars the reader 
to ask "why am I bothered with this section."   

I understand why you want to make this clear that this point. 
However, in section 1 you lay out the protocols. Do you also want to 
do this here?   Either choice works technically.  However this 
document is dually focused: summary of RMR concepts to 
those writing future specifications and RMR to those
desiring to install these solutions.   Does this section help 
those desiring to install these solutions to find the other document?