Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

Thank you, Henk.

I support adoption of this document (as a co-author).

As spelled out in the Acknowledgements of this document, its genesis
started in this very mailing list with a need for clarification that seemed
deja vu.

As such, I feel updating RFC 6291 will take clarity to a next level.

Thanks,

Carlos.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:06 AM Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>
wrote:

> Dear OPSAWG members,
>
> this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>
> >
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03.html
>
> ending on Thursday, May 2nd.
>
> As a reminder, this I-D summarizes how the term "Operations,
> Administration, and Maintenance" (OAM) is used currently & historically
> in the IETF and intends to consolidate unambiguous and protocol agnostic
> terminology for OAM. The summary includes descriptions of narrower
> semantics introduced by added qualifications the term OAM and a list of
> common capabilities that can be found in nodes processing OAM packets.
>
> The chairs acknowledge a positive poll result at IETF119, but there has
> not been much discussion on the list yet. We would like to gather
> feedback from the WG if there is interest to further contribute and
> review. As a potential enabler for discussions, this call will last
> three weeks.
>
> Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments
> you may have.
>
>
> For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
>
> Henk
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>