[OPSAWG]Re: Gunter Van de Velde's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15: (with DISCUSS)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Gunter, all,

For the applicability point you mentioned below, the intent is that, unless there are valid reasons, OAM-related documents that the IETF will produce after the publication of this document should follow the guidance.

This is not different from how similar BCPs are scoped. For example, BCP 166 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6365#section-1.1) includes the following:

   The definitions here SHOULD be used by IETF standards.  IETF
   standards that explicitly want to create different definitions for
   the terms defined here can do so, but unless an alternate definition
   is provided the definitions of the terms in this document apply.
   IETF standards that have a requirement for different definitions are
   encouraged, for clarity's sake, to find terms different than the ones
   defined here.

If this helps, similar text can be considered for this document. 

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Gunter van de Velde (Nokia)
> <gunter.van_de_velde=[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : mercredi 21 janvier 2026 06:01
> À : Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>
> Cc : The IESG <[e-mail]>; Benoit Claise
> <[e-mail]>; Benoit Claise <benoit@everything-
> ops.net>; [e-mail]; opsawg-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : RE: Gunter Van de Velde's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-
> oam-characterization-15: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> Hope this mail finds you well.
> 
> See inline: GV>
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 6:19 PM
> To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; Benoit Claise
> <[e-mail]>; Benoit Claise <benoit@everything-
> ops.net>; [e-mail]; opsawg-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Gunter Van de Velde's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-
> oam-characterization-15: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> Hi, Gunter,
> 
> Thank you for this two-part DISCUSS, which I find super useful.
> 
> > # I think the draft is well written and conveys great value.
> 
> 
> Thank you for your general observation as well!
> 
> 1.
> > ##Would it be useful to introduce a simple “compliance
> statement” in
> > future drafts—perhaps in the terminology section—indicating that
> the
> > document aligns with this BCP? This could be similar in spirit
> to how
> > BCP 14 is referenced today and would make the level of adherence
> explicit.
> 
> YES! I think this is a fantastic idea. If others find this
> suggestion useful, I would add a new Section 3.7, compliance
> statement, including something like "Authors who follow the terms
> as defined in this document should incorporate this phrase in a
> terminology section: ‘OAM terms … are to be interpreted as
> described in BCP …"
> 
> GV> Thanks. I'll wait to see how this spins out from consensus
> GV> perspective
> 
> 2.
> > ## The document states that the guidelines apply to “future”
> > documents, but I am not sure that the term future is very
> precise.
> > What is considered future today may already be history in a
> short time.
> 
> Future is intended to mean documents to be approved after the
> publication of this BCP. What’s the best way to word that? For
> example, should not affect documents in the RFC Ed queue.
> 
> GV> assuming there is agreement on "compliance statement" one
> could simply say:
> "The guidelines apply to documents that have the compliance
> statement (section 3.7)"
> 
> Be well,
> G/
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Carlos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jan 20, 2026, at 1:34 PM, Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position
> for
> > draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
> to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> cut
> > this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> >
> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> www.
> > ietf.org%2Fabout%2Fgroups%2Fiesg%2Fstatements%2Fhandling-ballot-
> posi&d
> >
> ata=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C6fbf0d74d0004f5090f
> d08d
> >
> e58aa195d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C63904568475
> 6643
> >
> 630%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMD
> AwMC
> >
> IsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sd
> ata=
> > 46mlQYXa7ZsORr8%2FdPujJe6UOetsGdDYfKOlU4Z14Zg%3D&reserved=0
> > tions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and
> COMMENT
> > positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> here:
> >
> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> data
> > tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-opsawg-oam-
> characterizatio&data=05
> >
> %7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C6fbf0d74d0004f5090fd08de5
> 8aa1
> >
> 95d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C63904568475665774
> 8%7C
> >
> Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIs
> IlAi
> >
> OiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gg
> 7ZX3
> > 3ofeZeUKNUUjwDKVtFXNdGrB0Ay2Yuv7aZ4OA%3D&reserved=0
> > n/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >
> > # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for
> > draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15
> >
> > # The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool:
> >
> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> auth
> > or-
> tools.ietf.org%2Fapi%2Fidnits%3Furl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2
> F
> >
> arch&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C6fbf0d74d0004
> f509
> >
> 0fd08de58aa195d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C63904
> 5684
> >
> 756667024%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIw
> LjAu
> >
> MDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C
> %7C&
> > sdata=W7HCWPuDewlYXEEMcwS6i4dI9HrMdbEQZhM83dGSiuU%3D&reserved=0
> > ive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15.txt
> >
> > # Many thanks to Mach Chen for the RTGDIR IETF Last Call Review
> >
> > # I think the draft is well written and conveys great value.
> >
> > # Please find two DISCUSS observations i had when processing the
> document.
> >
> > # DISCUSS
> > # ========
> >
> > # Are there guidelines for documents that intentionally do not
> follow
> > the proposal?
> >
> > ##The proposed changes in this document are clearly relevant for
> OAM documents.
> > I can see the merit in having a single, uniform definition of
> the
> > terminology, but I wonder whether it is really necessary for the
> > definitions to be identical in all cases, across every context
> and for every application or service.
> >
> > ##Would it be useful to introduce a simple “compliance
> statement” in
> > future drafts—perhaps in the terminology section—indicating that
> the
> > document aligns with this BCP? This could be similar in spirit
> to how
> > BCP 14 is referenced today and would make the level of adherence
> explicit.
> >
> > # Clarifying what “future documents” means
> >
> > ## The document states that the guidelines apply to “future”
> > documents, but I am not sure that the term future is very
> precise.
> > What is considered future today may already be history in a
> short time.
> >
> > ## Would it be clearer to say that the guidelines apply to
> documents
> > published after this BCP is published, or to documents that
> include a
> > normative reference to it? More specifically, is the expectation
> that
> > documents currently in progress, possibly even those already in
> the
> > RFC Editor queue, are required to adopt this terminology, or is
> the
> > intent only to guide new work from the point of publication
> onward?
> >
> > Thanks for this write-up.
> >
> > Gunter Van de Velde
> > RTG Area Director
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.