Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote:
    > We would appreciate feedback and input on this position, which aims at
    > updating the guidelines for the "OAM" acronym, with unambiguous guidelines
    > for their modifiers.

    > Guidelines for Charactering "OAM":
    > 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark/

    > Look forward to input and comments to make this more clear and effective!

Thank you for the interesting read.
What do you want to do with this document?
You say publish it to update RFC6291, but I wonder if revising 6291 might be
better.  In particular, SDN maybe has changed the landscape enough that not
everyone still has the common understandings.

On this topic, RFC8994, we added qualifications "virtual out-of-band" and we
debated a lot about whether it was in-band or out-of-band!!! Because the ACP
is an overlay network, it is not tied up with the in-band traffic or
addressing, but it is also not free from depending upon it.

Path-Congruent is a nice technically accurate term.
I'm just sure that congruent is a term that is easy to say.  It's very grade
9 geometry class. ("Congruent triangles")
Probably it's also the case the native english speakers, if they do not know
the term well, will assume something inaccurate, while non-native speakers will 
go
look it up.

Section 3 also has some nice new terms, and I suspect that they are really
useful in a number of arenas, including up-coming proof-of-transit work.

Nits:
* OAM is not expanded in the introduction, and the RFC6191 reference needs to
come earlier.
* Section 2 starts off talking about history, and then gets into defining new
terms.  I thought I was going to learn more about in-band/out-of-band from a
military radio point of view, and/or SS7 vs 2600Hz.

--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to