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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Scott and Bert,

there has been a lot of water under the bridges since we started ths.
the original long list of expansions of the OAM acronym came
from documents that were published a "xxx-mpls-tp-xxx", by people I
as a novice in the area thought were OAM-experts".

So we set out to have some common ground in the tp-project, but when
we looke around the situation was the same all over, so the draft
were generalized in steps.

My take is the draft now has the correct scope and also a correct
recommendation.

/Loa


On 2011-02-03 22:29, Scott Mansfield wrote:
>
> Please see in-line...
>
> Snip...
>>
>> 1. In section 1 I see:
>>
>>          The examples below show a number of different ways
>> that the OAM
>>          acronym has been expanded in previous documents.
>>
>>      So are those "prvious" documents meant to be just IETF
>> documents, or
>>      also non-IETF documents. And I guess we want to
>> streamline our (IETF)
>>      use of these terms, but I bet we have very little (if
>> any) influence on what
>>      other organisations do with this term. Would be good to
>> be explicit on
>>      these aspects.
>>
>
> "previous documents" is not very clear.  I could cut down the list to those only seen in IETF RFCs and say...
>
> The examples below show a number of different ways that the OAM acronym has been expanded in IETF RFCs.
>
> OAM = Operations, Administration, Maintenance
> OAM = Operation, Administration, and Maintenance
> OAM = Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
> OAM = Operations, Administration, and Management
> OAM = Operations and Management
>
> There are more and there are variants that mess with commas, but I think 5 is probably enough to get the point across.
>
> For completeness, however, another example of the "fourth letter" should be added..
>
> OAM&P = Operation, Administration, Management and Provisioning
>
> Obviously creating a standard abbreviation would be very helpful...
>
>>      Same for the recommendations. Are they specific for use
>> in IETF documents,
>>      or are we suggesting it for wider applicability. Better
>> to be specific I think.
>
>
> The recommendations are meant for IETF documents.  I was hoping the first sentence in the Introduction made the purpose of the clear.  However, if taking the word "main" out would make it clearer, I'm all for that...
>
> Change "The main purpose of this document" to "The purpose of the this document is to provide a definition of the OAM acronym such that it is useful for the IETF".
>
>
>>
>> 2. I am not sure that the document is clear in how/where I
>> should categorize/put
>>       CONFIGURATION. For example Netconf? Is that part of OAM?
>> There is some
>>       configuration listed under "Maintenance" on page 7.
>>       I can see it can also be used for Provisioning.
>>       And then there is FCAPS, where it could fall under the C.
>
>
> I'll address this one in my response to Juergen's mail.
>
>
> Regards,
> -scott.
>
>
>
>>
>> Bert
>>
>>
>> On 1/31/11 3:40 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>>> I should have done this right after the last IETF meeting
>> but, in any
>>> case, this message starts a WGLC on
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def
>>> - please let the list know if you think the ID is ready for
>>> publication as a BCP
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> Scott
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OPSAWG mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

-- 


Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
                                              [phone]