MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <178764699573.522073.10138533045533352439@dt-datatracker-786f84c586-vck88>
In-Reply-To: 
 <178764699573.522073.10138533045533352439@dt-datatracker-786f84c586-vck88>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 18:31:40 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAMZsk6cBpy06h5gggC=j1NHZ8xVU6iqNkrVrL5SevLTKWN2siA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000022ac7b0659fac925"
Message-ID-Hash: KFG3TBAWZY3NTW6IR6PMPDT6USO4RHF3
CC: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam.all@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bmpls=5D_Re=3A_draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam-11_early_Opsdir_review?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/GRLAMxr5xvs9HHZ-SVLRyqDyf8E>

--00000000000022ac7b0659fac925
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=E2=80=AFAM Sheng Jiang via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam
> Title: Supporting In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Usi=
ng
> 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-relate=
d
> 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 ma=
in
> 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 th=
is
> 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 no=
r
> 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 -- mpls@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to mpls-leave@ietf.org
>

--00000000000022ac7b0659fac925
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Sheng,</div><div><br></div><div>T=
hank you for the review and suggestions.</div><div><br></div><div>We have p=
osted rev-12 that addresses your comments.</div><div><br></div><div><a href=
=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam/">https://dat=
atracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam/</a></div><div><br></div><di=
v>Please see replies inline with &lt;RG&gt;...</div><div><br></div></div><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=
=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 4:36=E2=80=AFAM Sheng Jiang via Dat=
atracker &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:noreply@ietf.org">noreply@ietf.org</a>&gt; w=
rote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Document: =
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam<br>
Title: Supporting In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Using=
<br>
MPLS Network Actions Reviewer: Sheng Jiang Review result: Has Issues<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for t=
his<br>
Internet-Draft.<br>
<br>
The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related<=
br>
Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and tha=
t<br>
adequate operational considerations are covered. While these comments are<b=
r>
primarily for the Operations and Management Area Directors (Ops ADs), the<b=
r>
authors should consider them alongside other feedback received.<br>
<br>
- Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam-11<br>
- Reviewer: Sheng Jiang<br>
- Review Date: 2026-08-25<br>
- Intended Status: [Standards Track]<br>
<br>
## Summary<br>
- Has Issues: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think<b=
r>
should be resolved before publication.<br>
<br>
## General Comments<br>
<br>
Firstly, it is slightly strange for a standard-track document have its main=
<br>
focus on word &quot;supporting&quot;. Normally, a standard track-should DEF=
INE some<br>
procedures, or some new messages/fields/options. </blockquote><div><br></di=
v><div>&lt;RG&gt; Updated the document using encapsulation and transport wo=
rding.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1=
ex">This document gives many<br>
examples instead of descriptions of formal rules or policies. It makes this=
<br>
documents looks like INFORMATIONAL rather and standard-track, even though t=
his<br>
document introduces two new Opcode. Furthermore, do these examples covers a=
ll<br>
supported scenarios? If not, what are the instructions for the remaining<br=
>
scenarios.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>&lt;RG&gt; Opcode can be in Format B a=
nd Format C LSE, figures show Format B only as an example.</div><div>&lt;RG=
&gt; Not aware of other missing scenarios.</div><div>&lt;RG&gt; We have upd=
ated the text in various sections to elaborate procedures and use normative=
 language=C2=A0as needed.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,=
204);padding-left:1ex">
Secondly, there are several minor issues:<br>
- many fields in examples are not described, neither their definitions nor =
how<br>
to be processed. - Opcode TBA3 appears in appendix A, but not any other pla=
ces.<br>
Should it be covered in IANA section or not? - </blockquote><div><br></div>=
<div>&lt;RG&gt; Added description for all opcodes in the example in appendi=
x.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>&lt;RG&gt; TBA3 will be allocated in a di=
fferent draft that is a normative reference and this draft is just using th=
e opcode. Added text for it.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204=
,204);padding-left:1ex">there is no subsection 8.2.<br>
Subsection 8.1 is therefore unnecessary, should be removed. - </blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>&lt;RG&gt; Fixed.</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Appendix A gives<br>
an example for the processing order, but provides no explanation for why. T=
his<br>
makes it hard for readers and implementors to follow.<br></blockquote><div>=
<br></div><div>&lt;RG&gt; We have added additional=C2=A0details in the exam=
ple to explain the ordering.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Rak=
esh (for authors)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>=
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
mpls mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:mpls@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">mpl=
s@ietf.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:mpls-leave@ietf.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">mpls-leave@ietf.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--00000000000022ac7b0659fac925--