Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extensions for Reflecting STAMP Packet IP Headers
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr-17

Request for IETF Last Call review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Shwetha Bhandari. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions that we must complete.

First, in the STAMP TLV Types registry in the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) TLV Types registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/stamp-tlv-types

two new registrations are to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Reflected IPv6 Extension Header Data
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Reflected Fixed Header Data
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the STAMP Sub-TLV Types registry also in the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) TLV Types registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/stamp-tlv-types

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: IPv6 Extension Header Control
TLV Used: Reflected Test Packet Control
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-10-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extensions for Reflecting STAMP Packet IP Headers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Measurement WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
  'Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extensions for
  Reflecting STAMP Packet IP Headers'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision on this document in the coming weeks, and
solicits last-call comments. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing list, with ippm@ietf.org copied, no later than
2026-10-15.  Please retain the beginning of the Subject line to facilitate
automated sorting.

Abstract

  The Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) and its
  optional extensions can be used for Edge-to-Edge (E2E) active
  measurements.  In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
  (IOAM) data fields can be used for recording and collecting Hop-by-
  Hop (HBH) and E2E operational and telemetry information.  This
  document extends STAMP to reflect IPv4/IPv6 headers as well as IPv6
  extension headers for HBH and E2E active measurements, for example,
  using the IOAM data fields.



The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6640/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6409/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6530/

AD Review addressed in https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr-15

Pending point:

CURRENT:
  Both the
  Session-Sender and the Session-Reflector MUST NOT discard the
  received Session-Sender STAMP-Test packets when the TTL or IPv6 Hop
  Limit is not 255.

I think this should be reworded to say that the packet MUST NOT be discarded ** only because ** it has TTL/Hop Limit = 255.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing especially controversial, good technical discussions.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

no

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is one open source implementation mentioned in the draft.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This is document is very much in IPPM territory, there has been a Performance metric
directorate review that was very helpful in improving the document.
Relations to intarea are superficial since while it's about reflecting IP headers there
are no impacts on intermediate node behavior in terms of reading or processing headers.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

n/a

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

n/a

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

n/a

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd has found a possible wireformat issue in version 11 of the document. This issue
has been communicated to the authors and the WG. Once this issue is resolved the document
is ready to be handed off.

UPDATE on version 14:
The document has been updated based on shepherd and other reviews and now looks ready
to be handed off.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

This mechanism touches on possible MTU issues, and have solutions for it.
Could be something for a TSVART reviewer to look at.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. This is an extension to a mature and largely deployed protocol.
Datatracker state attributes reflect this intent correctly.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The WGLC includes a paragraph with an IPR disclosure reminder. No additional
disclosures were made after that.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

UPDATE on -14:
Nits on -11 have been addressed.

OLD:
No structural nits found. A few issues with clarity in -11 discovered and have been communicated
to the authors. Copied here for reference:

Section 3.1.1 states that “without the Control Sub-TLV .. the Session-Reflector does not add IPv6 extension headers”
Section 5.3 states: .. MAY not add new matching IPv6 extension headers .. This behaviour can be based on a local policy on the Session-Reflector.

I read the first sentence such that the reflector does not add them based on having seen them in the packet. And the second sentence as “the reflector might add headers that happen to match those in the TLVs for other reasons”.
But the first sentence could lead one to expect a MUST NOT in 5.3. I think some more text to clarify the intent here would be good.

Also, “MAY not add” sounds a bit strange as a normative phrase, perhaps “MAY omit” or similar is a bit clearer.

Section 7 discusses attack mitigation by performing timestamp validation, giving the example of comparing T2 and T1. This comparison requires clock synchronization, perhaps it’s good to mention that, or use other examples like T3 >= T2 or T1 < T4.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, the classifications look correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

n/a

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No, I-D.ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts is in RFC Editors queue.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The draft does not request creation of any new registries.
It asks for two TLV types in the "STAMP TLV Types registry and one Sub-TLV Type
in the STAMP TLV Type "Reflected Test Packet Control" (Type 12).
It should be noted that this TLV type is defined in ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts
which is currently in RFC Editors queue.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

n/a

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing especially controversial, good technical discussions.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

no

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is one open source implementation mentioned in the draft.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This is document is very much in IPPM territory, there has been a Performance metric
directorate review that was very helpful in improving the document.
Relations to intarea are superficial since while it's about reflecting IP headers there
are no impacts on intermediate node behavior in terms of reading or processing headers.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

n/a

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

n/a

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

n/a

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd has found a possible wireformat issue in version 11 of the document. This issue
has been communicated to the authors and the WG. Once this issue is resolved the document
is ready to be handed off.

UPDATE on version 14:
The document has been updated based on shepherd and other reviews and now looks ready
to be handed off.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

This mechanism touches on possible MTU issues, and have solutions for it.
Could be something for a TSVART reviewer to look at.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. This is an extension to a mature and largely deployed protocol.
Datatracker state attributes reflect this intent correctly.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The WGLC includes a paragraph with an IPR disclosure reminder. No additional
disclosures were made after that.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

UPDATE on -14:
Nits on -11 have been addressed.

OLD:
No structural nits found. A few issues with clarity in -11 discovered and have been communicated
to the authors. Copied here for reference:

Section 3.1.1 states that “without the Control Sub-TLV .. the Session-Reflector does not add IPv6 extension headers”
Section 5.3 states: .. MAY not add new matching IPv6 extension headers .. This behaviour can be based on a local policy on the Session-Reflector.

I read the first sentence such that the reflector does not add them based on having seen them in the packet. And the second sentence as “the reflector might add headers that happen to match those in the TLVs for other reasons”.
But the first sentence could lead one to expect a MUST NOT in 5.3. I think some more text to clarify the intent here would be good.

Also, “MAY not add” sounds a bit strange as a normative phrase, perhaps “MAY omit” or similar is a bit clearer.

Section 7 discusses attack mitigation by performing timestamp validation, giving the example of comparing T2 and T1. This comparison requires clock synchronization, perhaps it’s good to mention that, or use other examples like T3 >= T2 or T1 < T4.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, the classifications look correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

n/a

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No, I-D.ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts is in RFC Editors queue.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The draft does not request creation of any new registries.
It asks for two TLV types in the "STAMP TLV Types registry and one Sub-TLV Type
in the STAMP TLV Type "Reflected Test Packet Control" (Type 12).
It should be noted that this TLV type is defined in ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts
which is currently in RFC Editors queue.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

n/a

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing especially controversial, good technical discussions.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

no

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is one open source implementation mentioned in the draft.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This is document is very much in IPPM territory, there has been a Performance metric
directorate review that was very helpful in improving the document.
Relations to intarea are superficial since while it's about reflecting IP headers there
are no impacts on intermediate node behavior in terms of reading or processing headers.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

n/a

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

n/a

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

n/a

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd has found a possible wireformat issue in version 11 of the document. This issue
has been communicated to the authors and the WG. Once this issue is resolved the document
is ready to be handed off.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

This mechanism touches on possible MTU issues, and have solutions for it.
Could be something for a TSVART reviewer to look at.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. This is an extension to a mature and largely deployed protocol.
Datatracker state attributes reflect this intent correctly.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The WGLC includes a paragraph with an IPR disclosure reminder. No additional
disclosures were made after that.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

pending.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No structural nits found. A few issues with clarity in -11 discovered and have been communicated
to the authors. Copied here for reference:

Section 3.1.1 states that “without the Control Sub-TLV .. the Session-Reflector does not add IPv6 extension headers”
Section 5.3 states: .. MAY not add new matching IPv6 extension headers .. This behaviour can be based on a local policy on the Session-Reflector.

I read the first sentence such that the reflector does not add them based on having seen them in the packet. And the second sentence as “the reflector might add headers that happen to match those in the TLVs for other reasons”.
But the first sentence could lead one to expect a MUST NOT in 5.3. I think some more text to clarify the intent here would be good.

Also, “MAY not add” sounds a bit strange as a normative phrase, perhaps “MAY omit” or similar is a bit clearer.

Section 7 discusses attack mitigation by performing timestamp validation, giving the example of comparing T2 and T1. This comparison requires clock synchronization, perhaps it’s good to mention that, or use other examples like T3 >= T2 or T1 < T4.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, the classifications look correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

n/a

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No, I-D.ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts is in RFC Editors queue.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The draft does not request creation of any new registries.
It asks for two TLV types in the "STAMP TLV Types registry and one Sub-TLV Type
in the STAMP TLV Type "Reflected Test Packet Control" (Type 12).
It should be noted that this TLV type is defined in ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts
which is currently in RFC Editors queue.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

n/a

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/