Hello,

I support Haoyu's suggestion. This document defines two STAMP TSF Network 
Actions.

Best Regards,

Zhenqiang Li

China Mobile



----邮件原文----

发件人:"Zafar Ali (zali)" <[email protected]>

收件人:Alvaro Retana  <[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>

抄 送: "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]>,spring-chairs  
<[email protected]>,IETF MPLS List  <[email protected]>,"Zafar Ali (zali)" 
<[email protected]>

发送时间:2026-10-03 03:10:54

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



 
 Dear chairs and the WG, 
 
 
 
 
I agree with assessment of Haoyu Song (in his Shepherd role). I also think that 
the document should progress as "Standards Track”. 
 

 
 
 
 Thanks
 
 
 
 
 Regards … Zafar
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 From: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>
 Date: Friday, October 2, 2026 at 2:40AM
 To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
 Cc: [email protected] 
<[email protected]> spring-chairs 
<[email protected]> IETF MPLS List <[email protected]>
 Subject: [mpls] Intended Status of draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to