[Last-Call] draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam-15 ietf last call Rtgdir review

[Loa Andersson via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam
Title: MPLS Network Actions for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
Reviewer: Loa Andersson
Review result: Ready

Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam


Reviewer: Loa Andersson
Review result: Ready

Background
==========

   I have done an early rtgdir review of one of the documents that
   was merged into this document.

   I have also reviewed the document shortly after it became a WG
   draft, comments sent to the authors.

   I had a few addtional comments as Matthew made his rtgdir review
   at the WGLC.

RTG-DIR Early review draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam
===========================================

   To: [e-mail];

   [e-mail];

   Cc:

   [e-mail];

   [e-mail];

   [e-mail];

   Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam.txt

   Hello

   I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of
   this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam
   (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam)

   The routing directorate will, on request from the working group
   chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted
   for publication to the IESG.  The early review can be performed at
   any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document.
   The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the
   document has reached.

   This review is done while the document is in the IETF Last Call
   stage

   For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
   https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir
   (https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir)

   Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam

   Reviewer: Loa Andersson

   Review Date: 2026-10-27 Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary
=======

   All the comments listed above has been addressed and I think the 
   document is ready to be published as an RFC on the Standards 
   Track.

   However there are two additional comments listed below that think
   should be looked at before IESG takes it decision.

Comments
========

Abbreviations in the Abstract
-----------------------------

    The abstract is intended to be a stand alone text, the could be
    read without direct acces to the rest of the document. Certain 
    rules therefore applies to abstracts, including expansion of 
    abbreviations.

    IOAM is not a well-known abbreviation and should be expanded in
    the abstract, as well as the body of the document.

    I know that the RFC Editor will take care of this, so it does
    not motivate a new version of the document on its own.

    This said I wonder if someone (intentionally vague) should take 
    action to make the abbreviation IOAM well-known.

Downrefs
--------

    The IDnits list two downrefs, to RFC 9789 and to 
    draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr. AS far as I can see the IDnits is
    correctly identifies the downrefs.

    I am a bit uncertain about the shepherds write-up (SWU) addresses
    the downrefs. My understanding is that the shepherd needs to
    identify downrefs so they can be mentioned in the IETF Last Call.

    The SWU says that RFC 9789 is already in the registry, but the 
    problem is not a missing document, but that the existing RFC has
    a lower status (Informational) than the intended Standards Track
    status of this document

    The SWU also says that draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdris in the 
    RFC Editors queue, which I think is OK since the IESG decision on
    the status on the upcoming RFC is taken, however the reference
    should be changed before publishing this document.

    I also think that the downrefs should have been mentioned in the
    IETF last call of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam.