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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 03:25:40PM -0500, Scott Mansfield wrote:
 
> 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.

This document is making a strong (BCP) recommendation what the IETF
should be using when referring to OAM + Management. I am taking the
position that OAM and O&M are too easy to confuse, they almost look
the same. I am not questioning the explanation "where O&M is used it
usually means all of management".

> I suggest keeping O&M as the suggested acronym for management
> because it usually means what we want it to mean.

So where is "usually"? I am concerned about the usage in the IETF and
I am concerned that OAM and O&M can be too easily confused.

> If you would like to add extra text pointing out what O&M means,
> that might be useful to add.

I think we are not discussing the meaning, we are discussing the
symbol to use to refer to the meaning.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>