Hello,

I have reviewed this document on behalf of the Internet Area Directorate.

While I have no major technical concerns, I have several editorial comments that I believe would improve the document's readability and help prevent potential misunderstandings during implementation. These comments specifically pertain to Sections 2.1 through 2.3.

As a reader approaching this for the first time, I found these sections somewhat difficult to process. The primary source of confusion is the structure: typically, when an ASCII diagram shows an option format, the list immediately following it describes the individual fields. Currently, the text in these sections mixes field-specific descriptions with more general architectural information.

I suggest separating these elements for clarity. For example, Section 2.1 could be restructured as follows:

The 13-bit NRP Selector (NRPS13) Action uses LSE format B and is encoded in the second label stack entry in the Network Action Sub-Stack. The format of the NRPS13 Action is shown below:

[ASCII diagram]

* Opcode: The Network Action Indicator (TBA).
* NRPS: The NRP Selector; 13 bits of in-stack ancillary data. The packet carrying the NRPS13 action should be given the forwarding treatment specified by the associated NRP policy. 
* S (Scope): The NRPS20 Action is valid in all scopes.
* NAL (Network Action Length): This field MUST be transmitted as zero. (Perhaps it should be made explicit what the receiver should do if a non-zero value is received?)

Also, I have a question about the ASCII diagram in Section 2.1:
it shows NRPS twice: after the Optcode (13 bits) and after the S bit, where draft-ietf-mpls-mna-nrp-selector-04 shows NASL. Maybe it's worth explaining?

Additionally, I have a few other minor points:

* Post-Stack Data: Since these actions are not intended to have post-stack data, it might be helpful to include a dedicated section (similar to Section 2.4) explicitly stating that no post-stack data is associated with these formats.

* Normative Language: In Sections 2.1–2.3, the phrase "the packet... should be given" uses lowercase. Is this intentional, or should it use RFC 2119/8174 normative language (e.g., SHOULD)?

Cross-references: It may be useful to include a reference to Section 2.4 when saying that "The packet carrying the ENRPS13/20 action should be given the forwarding treatment specified by the associated NRP policy" as, if I understand it correctly, the action still can be ignored if it's not the top-most?

Cheers, Jen Linkova