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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Italo,

I wish that were true

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-opsawg-8.pdf" dir="ltr" role="button" width="300">

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-opsawg-8.pdf">slides-96-opsawg-8 https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-opsawg-8.pdf">PDF Document · 928 KB

Looking across the industry there are several examples of in-band OAM being abbreviated both as iOAM and IOAM. 

And that In-situ OAM is abbreviated as iOAM. 

Greg’s and my aim is to just to make sure that we have a consistent use of the abbreviations.

I can live with almost anything that is clear enough to distinguish one from the other.  This is most a heads up to authors the write documents there there is a need for any abbreviation to make sure they use existing abbreviations when that is possible, and if a new abbreviation is created it is easy to distinguish from existing once.

It is also a heads up to wg chairs that there is documents where this should be considered. 

/Loa

Sent from my iPad

On 14 Dec 2023, at 23:10, Italo Busi <Italo.Busi=[e-mail]> wrote:



Loa, Greg,

 

I am not sure we really need abbreviations for in-band and out-of-band OAM since we have lived without these abbreviations for quite a long time. However, it does not harm to define those acronyms

 

While OOB is quite commonly used as an abbreviation for out-of-band, I do not recall to have ever seen an abbreviation for in-band ☹

 

My suggestion would be to use IB for in-band to have a consistent rule with the OOB acronym (i.e. ib-OAM and oob-OAM)

 

My 2 cents

 

Italo

 

From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
Sent: mercoledì 13 dicembre 2023 04:13
To: DetNet WG <[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]>; 6man WG <[e-mail]>; IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>; opsawg <[e-mail]>; Pascal Thubert <[e-mail]>; Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [mpls] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations

 

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 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9197/" rel="nofollow">RFC 9197)
• iOAM - in-band OAM (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-architecture-13" rel="nofollow">RAW architecture)
• oOAM - out-of-band OAM (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-architecture-13" rel="nofollow">RAW architecture)

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 https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt" rel="nofollow">RFC Editor Abbreviation List. 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

 

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls