Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-14

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2024-05-17
Requested 2024-05-03
Authors Shraddha Hegde , Kapil Arora , Mukul Srivastava , Samson Ninan , Nagendra Kumar Nainar
I-D last updated 2024-05-18
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -16 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Stig Venaas (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -14 by Qin Wu (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -17 by Qin Wu
Tsvart Last Call review of -14 by Michael Tüxen (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Michael Richardson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Michael Tüxen
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-05-18
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 if you reply to or forward this review.

If I understand things correctly, an LSP ping packet is a UDP/IPv4 or
UDP/IPv6 packet and the processing described in this document can increase
the size of such a packet. I am wondering how IP level fragmentation is
avoided, in case the packet gets larger than the MTU.

Section 3:
Reply Path (RP) TLv -> Reply Path (RP) TLV