Hi, so does in-band OAM (RAW architecture) actually mean exactly the same as In-situ OAM (RFC 9197)? If yes, both should be named and abbreviated exactly the same way and since RFC 9197 is already published, it should probably be In-situ OAM (IOAM). (But the question then is what is out-of-band OAM? Out-situ OAM? ;-) )
If no, PLEASE don't use the same abbreviation for slightly different things, even in slightly different contexts. I acknowledge the preference of those working on a very specific topic to keep their daily used terminology as concise as possible, but as someone who tries to get into all those topics to understand the bigger picture or to actually implement something, specific abbreviations are always a hurdle, especially when they have different meanings in slightly different contexts. So I really like inb-OAM and oob-OAM, because you can really "see" the origin in it without repeatedly asking yourself if "i" stands for in-situ, in-band, internet, industrial, intelligent... If you need a whole new section in an RFC just to explain the different uses of I in an abbreviation, you will likely spend more key strokes on that section, than on the additional "nb-"s ;-) Just my two cents. Greetings, Florian On 13.12.23 11:54, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote: > > > When IPPM started working on IOAM, there was a long discussion on naming – > and the conclusion was that “in-band” as not appropriate for OAM information > being piggybacked on top of user traffic. This is why the IPPM WG concluded > to use “In-situ OAM” – or “IOAM” for short, which is what is used in RFC9197 > and all related documents. > > Frank > > > > *From:*ippm <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2023 04:13 > *To:* DetNet WG <[email protected]>; mpls <[email protected]>; 6man WG > <[email protected]>; IETF IPPM WG <[email protected]>; opsawg <[email protected]>; > Pascal Thubert <[email protected]>; Loa Andersson <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [ippm] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations > > > > Dear All, > > Loa and I have discussed these abbreviations to help us find a solution that > avoids the confusion we found when we came across them. Firstly, what they > stand for: > > * IOAM - In-situ OAM (RFC 9197 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9197/>) > * iOAM - in-band OAM (RAW architecture > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-architecture-13>) > * oOAM - out-of-band OAM (RAW architecture > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-architecture-13>) > > We discussed the issue with Pascal and came to slightly different > abbreviations for the last two: > > * inb-OAM > * oob-OAM > > We also discord these abbreviations with the RFC Editor. Resulting from that, > RFC Editor agreed to add IOAM to the RFC Editor Abbreviation List > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt>. The other two > abbreviations cannot be added at this time. If that is needed, we can ask the > RFC Editor to add them once the respective RFC is published. > > We are seeking your feedback on the following: > > * Do you see the benefit of introducing two new abbreviations for in-band > OAM and out-of-band OAM? > * Which set of abbreviations (iOAM/oOAM vs. inb-OAM/oob-OAM) do you prefer > for being used in IETF? > * Or would you propose another set of abbreviations? > > Regards, > > Loa and Greg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
