Hi Greg, thanks a lot for the explanation, find my comments under FK>>
On 13.12.23 21:14, Greg Mirsky wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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. Fk>> I am a little confused: After reading this explanation I thought "out-of-band OAM == passive OAM" and "in-band OAM == active and hybrid OAM". But draft-ietf-raw-architecture-16 explicitly writes "Out-of-band OAM is an active OAM". What do I get wrong here? > > 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] <mailto:[email protected]>> *On > Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky > > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2023 04:13 > > *To:* DetNet WG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; mpls > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; 6man WG <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; IETF IPPM WG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; > opsawg <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Pascal Thubert > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Loa Andersson > <[email protected] <mailto:[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/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9197/>>) > > * iOAM - in-band OAM (RAW architecture > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-architecture-13 > <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 > <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 > <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] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet> > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
