[mpls] Re: draft-ietf-mpls-stamp-pw-06 ietf last call Opsdir review

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Rakesh for addressing my comments!
Regards,

Giuseppe

From: Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 2:09 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-stamp-pw-06 ietf last call Opsdir review

Hi Giuseppe,

Thank you for the opsdir review and suggestions.

We have posted rev-07 that addresses your comments.

Please see replies inline with <RG>...

On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 11:47 AM Giuseppe Fioccola via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-stamp-pw
Title: Encapsulation of Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol for LSPs and
Pseudowires in MPLS Networks Reviewer: Giuseppe Fioccola Review result: Has Nits

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.

A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in
IETF Specifications"_ can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/.

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-stamp-pw-06

- Reviewer: Giuseppe Fioccola

- Review Date: 2026-08-04

- Intended Status: Standards Track

---

## Summary

- Has Nits: This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.

## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis

> This document defines the encapsulation of STAMP (RFC8762) and its optional
extensions (RFC8972) for LSPs and PWs in MPLS networks. The procedure is also
described for encapsulating STAMP with or without the use of an IP/UDP header
or CW for the LSPs and PWs.

> While the overall scope is clear, from an OPSDIR point of view, the
Operational Considerations section (Section 6) can be revised.

>> Section 6 should also describe how to manage a STAMP session and how to
configure this feature in an MPLS network. I know that the STAMP Data Model
is currently expired, but some general considerations can be added. You can
also simply refer to section 3 of RFC 8762.

<RG> Added.


>> In addition, Section 6 could describe the application of STAMP in the case
of multi-domain LSPs and PWs. It is needed a sort of agreement between the
different entities to enable the end-to-end STAMP session. Some examples may
also be included.

<RG> In this document, STAMP is used in MPLS networks in a single administrative domain (as in Section 10)


## Major Issues

> No major issues found.

---

## Minor Issues

> In section 4.1 it is mentioned that an implementation might select a routable
IP address as the destination address before the STAMP test packet gets
forwarded into the MPLS LSP or PW, otherwise the implementation might select a
non-routable IP address as the destination address while adding both an IP
header and an MPLS encapsulation in the same forwarding step. I'm wondering
whether it is better to give more guidance, for example by replacing "might"
with "SHOULD".

<RG> These are some examples. Updated them in a list form and made that explicit


---

## Nits

> Since the abbreviations are included in Section 2.2, there are many other
acronyms that could also be added to this dedicated section, like LSP, CW,
MPLS-TP, L2SS, L2TP, etc.

<RG> Added in a new table.

Thanks,
Rakesh (for authors)




---



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