Thank you Russ for the Gen-ART review and your suggestions. We have posted rev-07 that addresses your comments.
Please see replies inline with <RG>... On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 3:48 PM Russ Housley via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > 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. > <RG> Updated. > > Similarly, this scope limitation could be raised earlier in the > Introduction for LSPs. > <RG> Updated. > > Section 2.2: HMAC should expand to Hash-based Message Authentication Code. > <RG> Updated. > > Nits: > > Section 1: s/Section 3, "Generic PW MPLS Control Word" of [RFC4385]/ > /Section 3 of [RFC4385]/ (two places) > <RG> Updated. > > Section 7: s/the 'Security Considerations' Section of [RFC5085]/ > /the security considerations in Section 9 of [RFC5085]/ > <RG> Updated. > > 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. > <RG> This is a well defined address (not an example). Not sure what can be done to address this. Thanks, Rakesh (for authors) > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
