[ippm] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-11

Gyan Mishra via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 22 May 2023 06:06 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C940C17B345; Sun, 21 May 2023 23:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Gyan Mishra via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm.all@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 10.4.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <168473557729.5776.11138718424347986366@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2023 23:06:17 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/omJhxW4Tr5jmAESj1vkmXQfy28U>
Subject: [ippm] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-11
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 06:06:17 -0000

Reviewer: Gyan Mishra
Review result: Ready

I have been following the draft through its development on ML discussions with
the authors and all issues brought up on ML have been resolved.  One question
brought up on ML related to this draft being Standards Track or Informational. 
As this draft uses existing mechanisms from STAMP RFC 8762, there were
discussions that this draft should be informational.  As this draft introduces
new procedures for Segment Routing Networks for Performance Measurement SR-PM I
believe this draft should be Standards Track.

I don’t see any technical issues with this draft.

This draft is well written and is ready for publication.