[mpls] Re: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam-11 early Opsdir review

[Sheng JIANG <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Rakesh,


Thanks for addressing my comments. I hope my review helps to improve the quality of this document.


Cheers,


Sheng




                    Rakesh Gandhi<[e-mail]&gt;&nbsp;On Thursday,  Aug 27, 2026, 6:31 wrote:

Hi Sheng,


Thank you for the review and suggestions.


We have posted rev-12 that addresses your comments.


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam/


Please see replies inline with <RG&gt;...




On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 4:36 AM Sheng Jiang via Datatracker <[e-mail]&gt; wrote:

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam
 Title: Supporting In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Using
 MPLS Network Actions Reviewer: Sheng Jiang Review result: Has Issues
 
 Hi,
 
 I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this
 Internet-Draft.
 
 The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related
 Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that
 adequate operational considerations are covered. While these comments are
 primarily for the Operations and Management Area Directors (Ops ADs), the
 authors should consider them alongside other feedback received.
 
 - Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam-11
 - Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
 - Review Date: 2026-08-25
 - Intended Status: [Standards Track]
 
 ## Summary
 - Has Issues: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think
 should be resolved before publication.
 
 ## General Comments
 
 Firstly, it is slightly strange for a standard-track document have its main
 focus on word "supporting". Normally, a standard track-should DEFINE some
 procedures, or some new messages/fields/options. 

<RG&gt; Updated the document using encapsulation and transport wording.
&nbsp;
This document gives many
 examples instead of descriptions of formal rules or policies. It makes this
 documents looks like INFORMATIONAL rather and standard-track, even though this
 document introduces two new Opcode. Furthermore, do these examples covers all
 supported scenarios? If not, what are the instructions for the remaining
 scenarios.
 


<RG&gt; Opcode can be in Format B and Format C LSE, figures show Format B only as an example.
<RG&gt; Not aware of other missing scenarios.
<RG&gt; We have updated the text in various sections to elaborate procedures and use normative language&nbsp;as needed.
&nbsp;
 Secondly, there are several minor issues:
 - many fields in examples are not described, neither their definitions nor how
 to be processed. - Opcode TBA3 appears in appendix A, but not any other places.
 Should it be covered in IANA section or not? - 

<RG&gt; Added description for all opcodes in the example in appendix.&nbsp;


<RG&gt; TBA3 will be allocated in a different draft that is a normative reference and this draft is just using the opcode. Added text for it.


there is no subsection 8.2.
 Subsection 8.1 is therefore unnecessary, should be removed. - 

<RG&gt; Fixed.


&nbsp;
Appendix A gives
 an example for the processing order, but provides no explanation for why. This
 makes it hard for readers and implementors to follow.


<RG&gt; We have added additional&nbsp;details in the example to explain the ordering.


Thanks,
Rakesh (for authors)






&nbsp;
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
 To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]