Early Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam-11
review-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam-11-opsdir-early-jiang-2026-08-25-00

Hi,

I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this
Internet-Draft.

The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related
Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that
adequate operational considerations are covered. While these comments are
primarily for the Operations and Management Area Directors (Ops ADs), the
authors should consider them alongside other feedback received.

- Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam-11
- Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
- Review Date: 2026-08-25
- Intended Status: [Standards Track]

## Summary
- Has Issues: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think
should be resolved before publication.

## General Comments

Firstly, it is slightly strange for a standard-track document have its main
focus on word "supporting". Normally, a standard track-should DEFINE some
procedures, or some new messages/fields/options. This document gives many
examples instead of descriptions of formal rules or policies. It makes this
documents looks like INFORMATIONAL rather and standard-track, even though this
document introduces two new Opcode. Furthermore, do these examples covers all
supported scenarios? If not, what are the instructions for the remaining
scenarios.

Secondly, there are several minor issues:
- many fields in examples are not described, neither their definitions nor how
to be processed. - Opcode TBA3 appears in appendix A, but not any other places.
Should it be covered in IANA section or not? - there is no subsection 8.2.
Subsection 8.1 is therefore unnecessary, should be removed. - Appendix A gives
an example for the processing order, but provides no explanation for why. This
makes it hard for readers and implementors to follow.