Re: [ippm] [mpls] [Detnet] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

<My hats are off>

 

I suppose that I don’t object to the definition of new abbreviations if people are keen.

 

Personally, I don’t get the value of “inb-OAM” compared with “in-band OAM”. It’s not like it can be said faster (one additional syllable to say it) and it only saves four characters in typing.

“oob-OAM” is also marginal. Same number of syllables to say (I don’t think anyone pronounces “oob” as a single syllable), and a little more saving in typing.

 

Are the abbreviations worth it for the loss of clarity resulting from not using real words?

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: 14 December 2023 02:56
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Detnet] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations

 

 

Hi Greg,

 

Thanks for bringing this problem up!

I support to define the new abbreviations to help with the in-band OAM and out-of-band OAM. 

And I prefer the inb-OAM and oob-OAM to precisely indicate the two original OAM and to distinguish from IOAM.

 

Best Regards,

Quan

  

 

 

<<Dear All,
<<Loa and I have discussed these abbreviations to help us find a solution
<<that avoids the confusion we found when we came across them. Firstly, what
<<they stand for:
 
   - IOAM - In-situ OAM (RFC 9197
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9197/>)
   - iOAM - in-band OAM (RAW architecture
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-architecture-13>)
   - oOAM - out-of-band OAM (RAW architecture
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-architecture-13>)
 
<<We discussed the issue with Pascal and came to slightly different
<<abbreviations for the last two:
 
   - inb-OAM
   - oob-OAM
 
<<We also discord these abbreviations with the RFC Editor. Resulting from
<<that, RFC Editor agreed to add IOAM to the RFC Editor Abbreviation List
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt>. The other two
abbreviations cannot be added at this time. If that is needed, we can ask
the RFC Editor to add them once the respective RFC is published.
We are seeking your feedback on the following:
 
   - Do you see the benefit of introducing two new abbreviations for
   in-band OAM and out-of-band OAM?
   - Which set of abbreviations (iOAM/oOAM vs. inb-OAM/oob-OAM) do you
   prefer for being used in IETF?
   - Or would you propose another set of abbreviations?
 
Regards,
Loa and Greg