Thanks for preparing this draft. Providing transition methods is very welcome to Operations. These comments are best viewed with a monospace font, and should be treated as any Last Call comments (and optional). There seem to be a few more opportunities to employ Requirements Language in this draft (currently only 3 MUSTs and 2 MAYs), to improve the consistency of implementations and subsequent adoption in operations. For example: Section 2: o Incremental deployment of the SR-MPLS technology may be facilitated by tunneling SR-MPLS packets across parts of a network that are not SR-MPLS enabled using an IP tunneling mechanism such as MPLS-in-UDP [RFC7510]. The tunnel destination address is the ^^^^ address of the next SR-MPLS capable node along the path (i.e., the egress of the active node segment). This is shown in Figure 1. Setting the Dst address correctly seems to be a requirement, because this material in Section 2 is referenced later, in 3.2.3. This seems a reasonable spot for s/is/SHOULD be/ at least. Section 3.1 FIB construction relies on about 5 drafts: much work in progress, just noting dependencies (no action) SRGB - ?? spell-out at first use Section 3.2.3. Additional Forwarding Procedures ... IP Header Fields: When encapsulating an MPLS packet in UDP, the resulting packet is further encapsulated in IP for transmission. IPv4 or IPv6 may be used according to the capabilities of the network. The address fields are set as described in Section 2. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The other IP header fields (such as DSCP code point, or IPv6 Flow Label) on each UDP-encapsulated segment can be set according to ^^^^^^^^^^ the operator's policy: Suggest: s/can be set/SHOULD be configurable/