Dear Carlos and Adrian, As I said in the chat during the OPSAWG meeting, I also support this document. I don’t have a lot of specific examples of how the terminology are confusing, but I am co-authoring draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry where it started as an inband telemetry protocol and then we were asked to change this terminology to “on-path telemetry protocol”. Also I haven’t been able to find a clear formal definition of “on-path telemetry protocol”.
Thanks for the document, Alex > On 18 Mar 2024, at 15:32, thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote: > > Dear Carlos and Adrian, > > As the author of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry, I care and value > that you are defining OAM terminology. This is much needed. Count me on the > list of people who misused the term inband previously. > > I would appreciate of you could add also OAM node type. As an example in RFC > 9398 for IOAM the following types are defined > > IOAM encapsulation node > IOAM transit node > IOAM decapsulation node > > It would be very useful to have an OAM protocol agnostic terminology. > > Best wishes > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
