[Gen-art] Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-stamp-pw-06 ietf last call Genart review

[Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Russ for the Gen-ART review and your suggestions.

We have posted rev-07 that addresses your comments.

Please see replies inline with <RG>...

On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 3:48 PM Russ Housley via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-stamp-pw
> Title: Encapsulation of Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol for
> LSPs and
> Pseudowires in MPLS Networks Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Almost
> Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
>
> Document:       draft-ietf-mpls-stamp-pw-06
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2026-08-02
> IETF LC End Date: 2026-08-11
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>
> Summary: Almost Ready
>
> Major Concerns:
>
> None
>
> Minor Concerns:
>
> Section 1: The text says:
>
>    PWs are bidirectional in nature.  They can be point-to-point or
>    point-to-multipoint.
>
> Then, a few paragraphs later it says:
>
>    The STAMP encapsulations for point-to-multipoint LSPs and PWs are
>    outside the scope of this document.
>
> It would help the reader to limit the scope at the earlier paragraph.
> Something like:
>
>    PWs are bidirectional in nature.  PWs can be point-to-point or
>    point-to-multipoint; however, STAMP encapsulations for
>    point-to-multipoint PWs are outside the scope of this document.
>

<RG> Updated.


>
> Similarly, this scope limitation could be raised earlier in the
> Introduction for LSPs.
>

<RG> Updated.


>
> Section 2.2: HMAC should expand to Hash-based Message Authentication Code.
>

<RG> Updated.


>
> Nits:
>
> Section 1: s/Section 3, "Generic PW MPLS Control Word" of [RFC4385]/
>             /Section 3 of [RFC4385]/  (two places)
>

<RG> Updated.


>
> Section 7: s/the 'Security Considerations' Section of [RFC5085]/
>             /the security considerations in Section 9 of [RFC5085]/
>

<RG> Updated.


>
> Note: These align with the xml2rfc syntax for cross document references.
>
> IDnits offers a suggestion:
>
>   == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6
> addresses
>      in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be
> changed.
>

<RG> This is a well defined address (not an example). Not sure what can be
done to address this.

Thanks,
Rakesh (for authors)




>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>