IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Tue, 19 December 2023 02:40 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 D9DCEC14F74E; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 18:40:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 u64TBZIDLky6; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 18:40:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D9FBC14CF05; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 18:40:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4SvLXN2lQPz8XrRH; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 10:40:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4SvLWp23L5z4xVcD; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 10:40:06 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app01.zte.com.cn ([10.40.12.136]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 3BJ2dqiE054172; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 10:39:52 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 10:39:54 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 10:39:54 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc6581027a7c0-4398a
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202312191039541391269@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <892FE39D-9BF5-45E2-BE98-C196597DA2CD@gmail.com>
References: 202312141056289511089@zte.com.cn, 017501da3008$fcf69120$f6e3b360$@olddog.co.uk, 892FE39D-9BF5-45E2-BE98-C196597DA2CD@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, mpls@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, xiong.quan@zte.com.cn, opsawg@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 3BJ2dqiE054172
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 658102A4.000/4SvLXN2lQPz8XrRH
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/xtyMit-yoLr1oQKirfsUQjj-bAk>
Subject: Re: [ippm] [IPv6] [mpls] [Detnet] 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: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 02:40:49 -0000

I agree with Adrian and Stewart.
The current terms that I know of are IOAM (In situ OAM), in-band OAM (sometimes In-band OAM or Inband OAM), and out-of-band OAM (sometimes Out-of-band OAM). I lean to remain it as is.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min


Original


From: StewartBryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk <adrian@olddog.co.uk>;
Cc: mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>;ipv6@ietf.org <ipv6@ietf.org>;ippm@ietf.org <ippm@ietf.org>;熊泉00091065;opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>;detnet@ietf.org <detnet@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年12月18日 18:25
Subject: Re: [IPv6] [mpls] [Detnet] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


On 16 Dec 2023, at 10:16, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

Personally, I don’t get the value of “inb-OAM” compared with “in-band OAM”. It’s not like it can be said faster (one additional syllable to say it) and it only saves four characters in typing.
“oob-OAM” is also marginal. Same number of syllables to say (I don’t think anyone pronounces “oob” as a single syllable), and a little more saving in typing.



+ 1 

Stewart

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status