Dear Adrian, Thanks for the rapid response.
IMO, (at least) the definitions of encapsulation, transit and decapsulation nodes are well defined (and also well understood from the IETF community), so I am personally not worried about any future changes to these definitions. I only wanted to get the perspective from the authors and I would say your response is rather encouraging. Cheers, Alex > On 23 Jul 2024, at 14:55, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well timed email, Alex. > > I made a note during today’s meeting to chase Benoit to see whether he is > happy with the references. > On reflection, getting Benoit happy may be a stretch. > > The authors are working on polish. Carlos plans a revision “soon”, and I plan > to take a pass next week. > My gut feeling is that the terms are stable, but not completely cooked. There > is a risk of a small percentage churn. > > We are, however, aware that it would be good to push this document hard and > fast to ensure that it can be available for everyone sooner rather than later. > > Obviously, we would really like references, but we are also aware that > normative references will (ultimately) cause delays in the RFC Editor Queue. > > Let me say that the authors will do their best. > Can I encourage the WG to be proactive and try to get reviews done now so > that when we get to WGLC the document is already practically perfect. > > Cheers, > Adrian > > From: Alex Huang Feng <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: 23 July 2024 22:38 > To: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: opsawg <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Benoit Claise > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Thomas. Graf > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Reference to oam-characterization draft > > Dear authors, > > Thanks a lot for writing and pushing this draft. It is very useful. > > I only want to raise that our draft is now having a normative reference to > draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization. > We are using the terms “encapsulation", “transit" and “decapsulation" node in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/ > (See section 2 Terminology) > > I would like to get the opinion from the authors on whether the definition of > these terms is stable enough to be used already on other documents. > > The reason I am asking is because draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry > is currently very close to get a WGLC and we were wondering if using the > terms from oam-characterization is the way to go. > > Regards, > > Alex, on behalf of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry authors
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
