Hi WG, I agree with Haoyu and the authors. I think this document should be standard track. And I support the progress of this draft.
Cheers, Tianran ________________________________ Sent from WeLink 发件人：Rakesh Gandhi <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 收件人：Alvaro Retana <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 抄 送：[email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;spring-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;IETF MPLS List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 时 间：2026-10-07 21:12:49 主 题：[mpls] Re: [spring] 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
