Greg, With my 6MAN hat on very loosely, I don’t think this discussion needs to be on the IPV6 list.
Bob > On Dec 12, 2023, at 7:13 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
