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

Hi Florian,
I probably confused the matter more than necessary by mapping out-of-band
OAM to be a passive measurement method. Let me correct myself. We know
active OAM protocols, e.g., CFM and STAMP, that support the direct loss
measurement functionality. Because the test frame/packet that is used to
collect the counters is specifically constructed, that would be an example
of active OAM. However, because the frame/packet is not used to perform the
measurement, it can be out-of-band relative to the monitored flow. Sorry
for the confusion I've caused.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:41 PM Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@linutronix.de>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
> thanks a lot for the explanation, find my comments under FK>>
>
> On 13.12.23 21:14, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > Hi Florian,
> > thank you for your questions. I added my notes below under the GIM>> tag.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 3:06 AM Florian Kauer <
> florian.kauer@linutronix.de <mailto:florian.kauer@linutronix.de>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi,
> >     so does in-band OAM (RAW architecture) actually mean exactly the
> same as In-situ OAM (RFC 9197)?
> >     If yes, both should be named and abbreviated exactly the same way
> and since RFC 9197 is already published, it should probably be In-situ OAM
> (IOAM). (But the question then is what is out-of-band OAM? Out-situ OAM?
> ;-) )
> >
> > GIM>> The intention of introducing "in-band OAM" and "out-of-band OAM"
> terms is to stress that some performance measurements can be performed
> without traversing the same set of links and nodes as the monitored flow.
> For example, direct loss measurement, which is collecting counters of
> in-profile frames/packets, can be out-of-band. These measurement methods
> are classified as passive per RFC 7799. Examples of in-band OAM, in our
> view, can be found among active and hybrid (per RFC 7799) measurement
> methods.
>
> Fk>> I am a little confused: After reading this explanation I thought
> "out-of-band OAM == passive OAM" and "in-band OAM == active and hybrid
> OAM". But draft-ietf-raw-architecture-16 explicitly writes "Out-of-band OAM
> is an active OAM". What do I get wrong here?
>
> >
> >     If no, PLEASE don't use the same abbreviation for slightly different
> things, even in slightly different contexts. I acknowledge the preference
> of those working on a very specific topic to keep their daily used
> terminology as concise as possible, but as someone who tries to get into
> all those topics to understand the bigger picture or to actually implement
> something, specific abbreviations are always a hurdle, especially when they
> have different meanings in slightly different contexts.
> >
> >     So I really like inb-OAM and oob-OAM, because you can really "see"
> the origin in it without repeatedly asking yourself if "i" stands for
> in-situ, in-band, internet, industrial, intelligent...
> >
> > GIM>> Thank you.
> >
> >
> >     If you need a whole new section in an RFC just to explain the
> different uses of I in an abbreviation, you will likely spend more key
> strokes on that section, than on the additional "nb-"s ;-)
> >
> >     Just my two cents.
> >
> >     Greetings,
> >     Florian
> >
> >
> >     On 13.12.23 11:54, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > When IPPM started working on IOAM, there was a long discussion on
> naming – and the conclusion was that “in-band” as not appropriate for OAM
> information being piggybacked on top of user traffic. This is why the IPPM
> WG concluded to use “In-situ OAM” – or “IOAM” for short, which is what is
> used in RFC9197 and all related documents.
> >     >
> >     > Frank
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > *From:*ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org>>
> *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky
> >     > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2023 04:13
> >     > *To:* DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>>; mpls <
> mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:
> ipv6@ietf.org>>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>;
> opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>; Pascal Thubert <
> pascal.thubert@gmail.com <mailto:pascal.thubert@gmail.com>>; Loa
> Andersson <loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>
> >     > *Subject:* [ippm] 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 <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9197/ <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9197/>>)
> >     >   * iOAM - in-band OAM (RAW architecture <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-architecture-13 <
> 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 <
> 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 <
> 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
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > detnet mailing list
> >     > detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
> >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet <
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>
> >
>