IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Thu, 14 December 2023 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@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 BBA79C14F5F6; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 07:09:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.204
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 thNCw5QBz0xx; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 07:09:37 -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 C3C8FC14F5E4; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 07:09:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4SrbNR1yY8z6K61c; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 23:09:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.131]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FE3B1400C8; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 23:09:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500007.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.172) by frapeml100008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 16:09:33 +0100
Received: from frapeml500007.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.172]) by frapeml500007.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.172]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 16:09:33 +0100
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@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: [mpls] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations
Thread-Index: AQHaLa97Q7YN9m9js0S0mTp+koLt0rCo4h9w
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:09:33 +0000
Message-ID: <a10b57b4b03f4d91964338ff8cc110ec@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: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.203.246.111]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a10b57b4b03f4d91964338ff8cc110echuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/uj74MxL8OUKONx9z4d9JZOvStv8>
Subject: Re: [ippm] [mpls] 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: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:09:40 -0000

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 <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Sent: mercoledì 13 dicembre 2023 04:13
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: [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 (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

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