[ippm] Fwd: New I-D -> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"

[Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>]

Hi, IPPM,

As this is relevant to IPPM, please see the note below regarding a new
draft on Guidelines for Charactering "OAM", and invite all feedback and
comments on the Ops AWG mailing list.

Thanks!

Adrian & Carlos.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:38 PM
Subject: New I-D -> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"
To: Ops Area WG <[e-mail]>, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>


Hi, Ops Area WG,

Every now and again, there are discussions on how to best characterize or
qualify a particular kind of "OAM", as well as misunderstandings due to
having different definitions and contexts for a given term. A case in point
is "in-band" or "out-of-band" OAM, as recently surfaced at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/jREEH1sFOZ-uxZNky-RTggpxkuk/.

To alleviate this issue, Adrian and I wrote a short I-D to provide
forward-looking guidance on "foobar OAM".

We would appreciate feedback and input on this position, which aims at
updating the guidelines for the "OAM" acronym, with unambiguous guidelines
for their modifiers.

Guidelines for Charactering "OAM":
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark/

Look forward to input and comments to make this more clear and effective!

Adrian & Carlos.