I agree with Zafar Ali and Haoyu Song that this draft should be standards track.
There are many standards drafts that have been published over the years across the routing area that although they don’t require any IANA codepoint allocation, the process and procedures followed by the specification as in this case with the use of existing technology IPPM WG Stamp protocol to provide the exact standard based process for session sender and receiver to send test probe packets to achieve the desired latency characteristics of a link. So in my mind it is importance to have this draft be standards track for interoperability between SR PM session sender and session reflector which could be two different vendors. Some vendor implementations use S-BFD for tracking SR policy or Flex algo for latency detection and other vendors use SR-PM. These are two very distinct and different techniques and both have their use cases for operators choice on deployment considerations. Kind Regards Gyan On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 2:41 AM Alvaro Retana <[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. > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
