Dear OPSAWG members,
this email concludes the 1st call for Working Group Adoption for
draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03.
We received a healthy number of replies, including a good discussion
about "yet another set of terminology" and its intrinsic
usefulness/feasibility in the IETF. A good example reflecting the
overall discussion is the existing terminology established in the DetNet
WG and published in RFC 9551.
The chairs discussed the inputs and comments and believe this work to be
feasible to be adopted as a working group I-D. This believe includes the
expectation that no inconsistencies are introduced by this work and the
authors, editors, and contributors commit to a pro-active alignment
(scope and relationship of terms and their use in the respective
ecosystems) with other existing bodies of work that is brought to
attention in OPSAWG or otherwise.
Typically, we would now ask to rename and resubmit as is. Alas, there is
the inconsistency between draft name and draft title. Some concern about
that naming was raised during the WGLC. While the draft name was fine
for the individual submission, the chairs tend to agree that a more
expressive draft name would benefit the work. Could the authors please
work with the WG to come up with a better draft name? We can kick this
off with a proposal from chairs: how about
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization? Please bash, so we can move
forward. The chairs assume that this naming exercise can be resolved
quickly.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 10.04.24 13:05, Henk Birkholz 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
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
