I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for . These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ . The document deprecates the use of the Router Alert Option in both IPv4 and IPv6 encapsulated LSP ping (aka MPLS echo request and echo response messages) and recommends use of the IPv6 loopback address with IPv6 encapsulation rather than an IPv6 mapped IPv4 loopback address. Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO OBJECTION. I have the following DISCUSS/ABSTAIN level issues: None. The following are other issues that SHOULD be corrected before publication: Section 3's header and one paragraph body don't quite seem right/consistent. Is it normal for a Proposed Standard document to declare an RFC as Historic? Obsolete, sure, but Historic? Furthermore, it just seems odd for this declaration to exist only in the Section 3 header line and not to appear anywhere in the text body of the document. Four times in the body text it says that the document explains why 7506 has been reclassified as Historic but only once and only in the Section 3 subject line does it claim to actually do that. If this document is approved and actually causes RFC 7506 to be Historic, isn't it more important to mention in the abstract and the introduction than that it actually performs that reclassification rather than just saying in those places that it provides reasons for the reclassification... Very odd. I don't like that this draft says it "changes" RFC 8029. RFCs are immutable and do not change. Those instances should be changed to say that it "updates" RFC 8029. "updates", of course, being the term of art in the IETF not implying any actual textural change to the "updated" RFC. The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements) with the document: I found the typography in Section 4 just a little hard to parse. In particular, towards the end of that section, there are two instances where there are two successive paragraphs, the first of which says a section is replaced by "the following text:" and the second paragraph is the new text. It would be much more obvious at a glance what was going on if the second paragraph of new text were indented. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com