Hi Florian, thank you for your questions. I added my notes below under the GIM>> tag.
Regards, Greg On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 3:06 AM Florian Kauer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > ;-) ) > GIM>> The intention of introducing "in-band OAM" and "out-of-band OAM" terms is to stress that some performance measurements can be performed without traversing the same set of links and nodes as the monitored flow. For example, direct loss measurement, which is collecting counters of in-profile frames/packets, can be out-of-band. These measurement methods are classified as passive per RFC 7799. Examples of in-band OAM, in our view, can be found among active and hybrid (per RFC 7799) measurement methods. > > 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... > GIM>> Thank you. > > 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
