Hi Adrian, Great, thanks for considering my suggestion!
Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 5, 2026 7:25 PM > To: Mach Chen <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR]draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-14 ietf last call > Rtgdir review > > Thanks Mach, > > I appreciate your time. > > I agree about not using two terms. One is enough (and "incongruent" > sometimes means "incongruous" which is unfortunate). > The authors will huddle on this nit. > > Adrian > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mach Chen via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: 05 January 2026 09:23 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: [RTG-DIR]draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-14 ietf last call > Rtgdir review > > Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization > Title: Guidelines for Characterizing "OAM" > Reviewer: Mach Chen > Review result: Ready > > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The > Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as > they > pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. > The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it > would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last > Call > comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or > by updating the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-14 > Reviewer: Mach Chen > Review Date: 2026-01-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2026-01-05 > Intended Status: Best Current Practice > > Summary: > No issues found. This document is ready for publication. > > Comments: > This document is well-written and easy to read! > > Thanks to the authors for writing a very useful document that provides a clear > guidance for future OAM protocols definition and classification! > > Major Issues: > None. > > Minor Issues: > None. > > Nits: > Section 3.3, > "Non-Path-Congruent OAM: > > The OAM information is not guaranteed to follow the exact same forwarding > path as the observed data traffic. This can also be called Path-Incongruent > OAM." > > For the same thing, it's better to use only one term, so I'd suggest to remove > the last sentence: "This can also be called Path-Incongruent OAM". > > And If you agree to remove the sentence, please do not forget to remove > another one in Section 3.6. > > Best regards, > Mach Chen > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
