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

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
> > OPSAWG@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 