I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 17-Oct-2014 IETF LC End Date: 27-Oct-2014 IESG Telechat date: not currently scheduled for any telechat Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC but with nits that should be considered before publication Nits/editorial comments: There are 6 authors listed - please double-check the guidance in section 4.1.1 of RFC7322. If retaining all the authors still makes sense, please help Adrian by providing an argument that he can pass to the RFC Editor. The shepherd writeup indicates a solution ID is ready. I didn't check to see how the requirements listed here were reflected there. Would it make sense to provide a reference? (While I see no harm in publishing the document, it's not clear how doing so will be helpful if the requirements were uncontentious as the writeup implies. There are few enough of them that adding a short list in the mechanism document might be more effective.) Items 2 and 3 in section 3.4 are confusing as currently written. 2 seems to be talking about the case that the current path is still optimal. Is 3 trying to talk about the case where there is no path, not even the current path, that will work? If so the "(i.e., other than the current path)" in 3 doesn't make sense. Should you have captured a requirement that any mechanism implementing these requirements be extensible to allow for cases like polarization based multiplexing when they eventually come along? Please consider reordering the sentences in section 3.5 - the last sentence seems to be talking about the first paragraph? You say "mechanisms defined in this document" several times in section 4, but this document defines no mechanisms.