Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-18
review-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-18-tsvart-telechat-trammell-2026-02-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 21)
Type Telechat Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2026-02-03
Requested 2026-01-20
Authors Jaganbabu Rajamanickam , Rakesh Gandhi , Royi Zigler , Haoyu Song , Kireeti Kompella
I-D last updated 2026-03-06 (Latest revision 2026-02-24)
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Acee Lindem (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -17 by Tianran Zhou (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -17 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -17 by Brian Trammell (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -17 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -17 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -17 by Derrell Piper (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -18 by Brian Trammell (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Trammell
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/xlGfa6r_3zsiag0VmFpDTi70TLY
Reviewed revision 18 (document currently at 21)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2026-02-02
review-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-18-tsvart-telechat-trammell-2026-02-02-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

Thank you for the revised version of this document; the edits seem mostly
editorial but appear to point at clarifying my first concern. I'll defer
to the routing reviewers as to whether MNA/ECMP interactions remain an
issue.

I'm a little perplexed that the secdir review marked a doc ready where the
security concept is "we trust the IETF to only define secure usages of this
extension"; however, if the Security ADs are OK with this then I guess I am
too.