I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-09. 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/>.

Based on my review, the document IS ready to go to IETF Last Call and therefore CAN be forwarded to the IESG.

I reviewed version 9 of the document, and saw that version 10 was out right before submitting this review, so I reviewed it as well.  My comments below apply to both versions, but the line numbers are from draft 9.

Example 3.2 mentions the importance of P1 retaining the route to PE3 for a time as it is PLR.  Given the importance of this behavior, should it be mentioned in the normative text of section 3.1?  (I'm not sure if this is specified in another document, but if not, mentioning it in the normative section would be good.)

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements) with the document:

"will be one of the followings" should be "will be one of the following" on lines 288, 306, and 436.

On line 382, "retent" should be "retained".