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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

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: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>