Re: [OPSAWG] New I-D -> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"

[Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>]

Many thanks, Med, for the review and useful suggestions!

I seem to prefer path-coupled to path-congruent as well.

I also like the packet-embedded or user-packet-embedded alternatives, as
they do seem more clear than in-packet.

WG - Any other thoughts on this?

Adrian, what do you think? (including as a native speaker)

Thanks a lot!

Carlos.

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:32 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Carlos, Adrian, all,
>
>
>
> Thank you for editing this document. This is really useful.
>
>
>
> Alternate terms to consider for the path-congruent terms are
> path-coupled/path-decoupled OAM (inspired from RFC4080).
>
>
>
> When editing RFC 9451, I wish I had terms for:
>
>    - “OAM packet that exclusively includes OAM data”
>    - “OAM packet that includes user data”
>
>
>
> I don’t think “in-packet OAM” conveys unambiguously the intent. I would
> suggest explicit terms such as: “User Data Embedded OAM” or “OAM-embedded
> User Data”.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* OPSAWG <[e-mail]> *De la part de* Carlos Pignataro
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 5 janvier 2024 21:39
> *À :* Ops Area WG <[e-mail]>; Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> *Objet :* [OPSAWG] New I-D -> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"
>
>
>
> Hi, Ops Area WG,
>
>
>
> Every now and again, there are discussions on how to best characterize or
> qualify a particular kind of "OAM", as well as misunderstandings due to
> having different definitions and contexts for a given term. A case in point
> is "in-band" or "out-of-band" OAM, as recently surfaced at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/jREEH1sFOZ-uxZNky-RTggpxkuk/.
>
>
>
> To alleviate this issue, Adrian and I wrote a short I-D to provide
> forward-looking guidance on "foobar OAM".
>
>
>
> We would appreciate feedback and input on this position, which aims at
> updating the guidelines for the "OAM" acronym, with unambiguous guidelines
> for their modifiers.
>
>
>
> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM":
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark/
>
>
>
> Look forward to input and comments to make this more clear and effective!
>
>
>
> Adrian & Carlos.
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>