Document: draft-ietf-mpls-stamp-pw Title: Encapsulation of Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol for LSPs and Pseudowires in MPLS Networks Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Almost Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-stamp-pw-06 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2026-08-02 IETF LC End Date: 2026-08-11 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Major Concerns: None Minor Concerns: Section 1: The text says: PWs are bidirectional in nature. They can be point-to-point or point-to-multipoint. Then, a few paragraphs later it says: The STAMP encapsulations for point-to-multipoint LSPs and PWs are outside the scope of this document. It would help the reader to limit the scope at the earlier paragraph. Something like: PWs are bidirectional in nature. PWs can be point-to-point or point-to-multipoint; however, STAMP encapsulations for point-to-multipoint PWs are outside the scope of this document. Similarly, this scope limitation could be raised earlier in the Introduction for LSPs. Section 2.2: HMAC should expand to Hash-based Message Authentication Code. Nits: Section 1: s/Section 3, "Generic PW MPLS Control Word" of [RFC4385]/ /Section 3 of [RFC4385]/ (two places) Section 7: s/the 'Security Considerations' Section of [RFC5085]/ /the security considerations in Section 9 of [RFC5085]/ Note: These align with the xml2rfc syntax for cross document references. IDnits offers a suggestion: == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
