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

[Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>]

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>...


On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 4:36 AM Sheng Jiang via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> 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> Updated the document using encapsulation and transport wording.


> 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> Opcode can be in Format B and Format C LSE, figures show Format B only
as an example.
<RG> Not aware of other missing scenarios.
<RG> We have updated the text in various sections to elaborate procedures
and use normative language as needed.


> 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> Added description for all opcodes in the example in appendix.

<RG> 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> Fixed.



> 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> We have added additional details in the example to explain the
ordering.

Thanks,
Rakesh (for authors)





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