Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-05-24
Requested 2018-05-10
Authors Ahmed Bashandy, Clarence Filsfils, Stefano Previdi, Bruno Decraene, Stephane Litkowski
Draft last updated 2018-05-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -11 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Takeshi Takahashi
State Completed
Review review-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11-secdir-lc-takahashi-2018-05-24
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 15)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2018-05-24


I have only minor comments.

The section said that security issues in this document are mostly inherited from the underlying techniques/specs.
Some pointers to RFC documents describing the security issues of MPLS dataplane, routing protocols, and so on (if any) could help readers.
Having these pointers in this section will not harm readers.

Some typo:
In Section 1: "co- exist" (unnecessary space)-> "co-exist"
In Section 2.1: "switches it our" -> "switches it out"

Spelling out is appreciated: LDP and FEC 

Clarification question:
Regarding the paragraph "P6 does not have an LDP binding from its next-hop P5 for the FEC "PE1". However P6 has an SR node segment to the IGP route "PE1". Hence, P6 forwards the packet to P5 and swaps its local LDP-label for FEC "PE1" by the equivalent node segment (i.e. 101)."(in Section 4.1), I have got the impression that the behavior of P6 is not defined by any other specs (incl, LDP) and is a behavior this document newly defines, correct?  If it is correct, must P6 support this behavior? or is it just optional? I am not familiar with these routing protocols, thus clarification is appreciated.