Thank you, Henk. I support adoption of this document (as a co-author).
As spelled out in the Acknowledgements of this document, its genesis started in this very mailing list with a need for clarification that seemed deja vu. As such, I feel updating RFC 6291 will take clarity to a next level. Thanks, Carlos. On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:06 AM Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> wrote: > Dear OPSAWG members, > > this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of > > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03.html > > ending on Thursday, May 2nd. > > As a reminder, this I-D summarizes how the term "Operations, > Administration, and Maintenance" (OAM) is used currently & historically > in the IETF and intends to consolidate unambiguous and protocol agnostic > terminology for OAM. The summary includes descriptions of narrower > semantics introduced by added qualifications the term OAM and a list of > common capabilities that can be found in nodes processing OAM packets. > > The chairs acknowledge a positive poll result at IETF119, but there has > not been much discussion on the list yet. We would like to gather > feedback from the WG if there is interest to further contribute and > review. As a potential enabler for discussions, this call will last > three weeks. > > Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments > you may have. > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > Henk > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
