[spring] Re: Intended Status of draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls

["zhangli (CE)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi WG,

I have reviewed this document. It specifies packet encapsulations and defines two new opcodes for MNA, which requires consistency across different vendors. Therefore, I support changing the status this document to standards track.

Best regards
Li

发件人: Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>
发送时间: 2026年10月7日 21:12
收件人: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; spring-chairs <[e-mail]>; IETF MPLS List <[e-mail]>; Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>
主题: [spring] Re: Intended Status of draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls

Hi Alvaro,

I am in favor of changing status to Standards Track, as a co-author.

There is a precedence in RFC 9779 that defines various performance measurement modes (one-way/two-way/loopback) and SR-MPLS encapsulation, which is standards track.

  *   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9779/#section-4.2
This draft also requests IANA allocated codepoints (IETF review) typical for a standards track document.

Thank you Adrian, Tony, and Loa for suggesting to use standard code points for interop and Haoyu (as a shepherd) for raising this.

Thanks,
Rakesh (as a co-author)



On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 2:40 AM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Dear WG:

Haoyu Song is the Shepherd for this document.  During his review, he proposed changing the Intended Status of this work from Informational to Standards Track.  Here is his justification:

   Here’s the reason to support the standard type: the document describes
   standard procedures and protocol extensions for using STAMP over SR-MPLS
   networks. It specifies control and data plane interactions, encapsulation
   methods, and interoperability mechanisms that require standardization to
   ensure consistent implementations across different vendor hardware. Protocol
   extensions designed for widespread implementation and interoperability
   belong on the standards track.

    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/EzMtFTSXO572dfHiiNi07hC9v0M/

Although he sent the message to the list, we haven't heard any other opinions (besides Rakesh's, as a co-author).

We would like to hear opinions on Haoyu's proposed change.

Please explain why you might be in favor of, or against, a change in the Status.

We will take opinions until Oct/15, 2026.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

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