IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] [IPv6] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Wed, 13 December 2023 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF92C14F60E; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 23:28:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EQZzuLiY3kKK; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 23:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A29DC14F5F0; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 23:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4SqnBR470Fz67lWw; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 15:27:43 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml100004.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.188.51.133]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FE5E140CF4; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 15:28:02 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.250) by mscpeml100004.china.huawei.com (7.188.51.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.28; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:28:01 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.250]) by mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.250]) with mapi id 15.02.1258.028; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:28:01 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, Pascal Thubert <pascal.thubert@gmail.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Thread-Topic: [IPv6] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations
Thread-Index: AQHaLXKGOZpT93AVoEGGWtRw7fOJ3rCmzwWg
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 07:28:01 +0000
Message-ID: <858d6609739c45cd910aa5f2f1ab65b0@huawei.com>
References: <CA+RyBmU=CKb+oieBwqwn=QkprayA_8KWeTL3XTgioNqw8KTZ+g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmU=CKb+oieBwqwn=QkprayA_8KWeTL3XTgioNqw8KTZ+g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.199.56.242]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/kIaAj5rf3SEWOM2Z7y5IgINHCWo>
Subject: Re: [ippm] [IPv6] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 07:28:07 -0000

IMHO: It is much better when name gives some additional information about the object. Like OAM=Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.
When I saw initially iOAM, I believed that “i” was strictly for marketing: mimicking “i” in iPhone or iPad (Cargo cult).
Actually, I still suspect that this is the case.
Ed/
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 6:13 AM
To: DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>; opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>; Pascal Thubert <pascal.thubert@gmail.com>; Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Subject: [IPv6] 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 (RFC 9197)
• iOAM - in-band OAM (RAW architecture)
• oOAM - out-of-band OAM (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 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

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status