Dear Greg, Sorry — what question did I ask? I cannot find any question in my text — perhaps only the redirect to you to focus on the thread about draft-fioccola-ippm-on-path…
That said, if "This is a specific case of Hybrid OAM.” Is hard to digest, please suggest a short equivalent. Hybrid Type 1 **is** a case of Hybrid. So perhaps we simply write “This is a Type of Hybrid OAM”. If that’s the core of the issue, the signal-to-noise ratio on these emails —> 0... Thanks, Carlos. > On Sep 6, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Carlos, > thank you for asking your question. I believe that the definition of > In-Data-Packet OAM in the draft: > In-Data-Packet OAM: > The OAM information is carried in the packets that also carry the > data traffic. This is a specific case of Hybrid OAM. It was > sometimes referred to as "in-band". > Is not accurate in part that what is being being positioned as a special case > of Hybrid OAM is what defined in RFC 7799 as Hybrid OAM: > o Augmentation or modification of the stream of interest, or > employment of methods that modify the treatment of the stream => > Hybrid Type I > The OAM information augments data packet whether it is IOAM as defined in RFC > 9197 or RFC 9326, or the Alternate Marking Method (RFC 9341). So there's > nothing "special case" in In-Data-Packet OAM definition, as it is already > described in RFC 7799 and is broadly adopted in IETF. Re-defining it in > draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization would, in my opinion, create > unnecessary confusion. What can the WG do to avoid such confusion? That is > for the WG, WG Chairs, and the Responsible AD to decide. Personally, I > subscribe to the idea that the document is ready when there's nothing left to > be removed without decreasing the value of the document. > > Regards, > Greg > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 9:09 PM Carlos Pignataro <cpign...@gmail.com > <mailto:cpign...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Dear Greg, >> >> >>>> IOAM can be applied to synthetic test packets. While the IOAM is >>>> “in-packet”, the packets that it is in are not data packets, so the >>>> methodology is purely Active OAM : it uses dedicated OAM packets. >>> GIM>> Yes, and that is what, in my opinion, mixes the characterization of >>> OAM protocols according to RFC 7799 with how an OAM protocol can be >>> applied. The fact that IOAM or the Alternate Marking method is used in >>> combination with a data or synthetic packet doesn't change the >>> characterization of the protocol. >> >> It actually does. >> Characterization: The act of describing the qualities, traits, or >> distinctive features. >> Just trying to understand what the objective of your reply is. >> >> >>> On Sep 3, 2025, at 3:18 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> Alternate marking can be applied to data packets, making it Hybrid OAM. >>>> But I don’t read draft-fioccola to be talking about this mode. >>> GIM>> I support the adoption of the draft as it provides a solid foundation >>> for continued work. I intend to work and contribute to it, including adding >>> the Alternate Marking method. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> Still trying to understand your goal. >> You might want to reply about adoption on the other thread about >> draft-fioccola-ippm-on-path...? >> Note, it might be more useful to adapt new drafts to this characterization, >> than to try to change the characterization for every new draft. >> >> Best, >> >> Carlos. >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
