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

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hello Loa,

Thanks for the review.

Jumping in as Shepherd.

> 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.

I think IOAM is expanded on the first line of the Abstract.

Anyone can approach the RFC Editor and suggest that an abbreviation is included in the list if they believe it is well-known and widely used.

> 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.

When I run idnits, I see only one Downref listed: RFC 9789.
As noted in the Shepherd Write-Up, that document already appears in the Downref Registry. I believe that means it does not need to be called out in the IETF Last Call.

But it is true that draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr is a normative reference.
That document has not yet advanced to be an RFC, but it is in the RFC Editor Queue 
It is also a Standards Track document, so it:
- will become an RFC before this document
- is not going to be a Downref
This is remarked upon in point 18 of the Shepherd Writeup.

Best,
Adrian