Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def

Scott Mansfield <scott.mansfield@ericsson.com> Fri, 11 February 2011 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.mansfield@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D80D3A6975 for <opsawg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:26:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Llllpbr9QLXl for <opsawg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:26:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048DD3A6997 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:26:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p1BLB92Y001027; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:11:12 -0600
Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.168]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:26:43 -0500
From: Scott Mansfield <scott.mansfield@ericsson.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:25:40 -0500
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def
Thread-Index: AcvJ/xK+cbl34i4NRTGD+/PcEDeTQAAKYqfQ
Message-ID: <FDC72027C316A44F82F425284E1C4C320686EC2FDC@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <20110131144045.DB27081B75B@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4D4932B6.60401@bwijnen.net> <20110202121655.GA10019@elstar.local> <FDC72027C316A44F82F425284E1C4C320686E1095A@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20110211151906.GB59184@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20110211151906.GB59184@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:26:42 -0000

I understand your point.  OAM is easy to confuse with O&M.  However, I think it is important to highlight the differences because (in my experience anyway) where O&M is used it usually means all of management, and when the term OAM is used it sometime means all of management and sometimes means the horizontal management protocol(s) used between NE's.

I suggest keeping O&M as the suggested acronym for management because it usually means what we want it to mean.  If you would like to add extra text pointing out what O&M means, that might be useful to add.

Regards,
-scott. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] 
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 10:19 AM
> To: Scott Mansfield
> Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def
> 
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 05:02:38PM -0500, Scott Mansfield wrote:
> > 
> > > Personally, I am not too happy with the choice of the O&M acronym 
> > > because it is very easy to confuse with OAM - the 
> difference really 
> > > does not stand out.
> > 
> > The O&M acronym seems to be the one that is most confused 
> with OAM (when talking with non-management folks).  That is 
> why I think it is important to show both OAM and O&M.  If you 
> want to equate O&M with OAM+Mgmt, we could point that out in 
> the document.
> 
> Now I am confused. Section 4 says:
> 
>    O&M - OAM and Management
> 
> So this is not my proposal, this is what the I-D says. My 
> point is that OAM and O&M are way to easy to confuse and 
> misread and hence I would prefer some other notation.
> 
> > This would point out that there is not a one-to-one mapping 
> of what we 
> > mean by OAM to FCAPS.  As said before, FCAPS is more vertically 
> > oriented dealing with NE to EMS communication while the term OAM is 
> > horizontally oriented dealing with NE to NE communication.  So a 
> > simple picture like this might be helpful...
> > 
> >          NMS          
> >         /    \
> >     (FCAPS)  (FCAPS)
> >       /         \ 
> >      EMS        EMS 
> >     /    \       \ 
> > (FCAPS) (FCAPS) (FCAPS)
> >  /         |          \
> > NE -(OAM)- NE -(OAM)- NE
> 
> This is an interesting way of drawing this. I kind of like it.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>