That sounds like a good point, Dhruv.
Cheers,
Adrian
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 01 May 2024 11:52
To: Henk Birkholz
Cc: OPSAWG
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for
draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03
Hi,
I support adoption.
Just one
Hi,
I support adoption.
Just one comment -
In-Packet OAM:
> The OAM messages are carried as part of data traffic. This was sometimes
> referred to as "in-band".
I wonder if "message" is the correct term here. In the example that follow
for IOAM you use the term "information".
Thanks!
Dhruv
Thank you Loa for reviewing this document again! Much appreciated.
Please find some follow-ups inline below
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:46 AM Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working Group, Carlos, and Adrian,
>
> The way I understood draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark, is
> that
> while it
Dear OPSAWG,
I support the adoption of this draft.
I think centralising the different used terms in one doc is useful.
Regards,
Alex
> On 10 Apr 2024, at 20:05, Henk Birkholz wrote:
>
> Dear OPSAWG members,
>
> this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>
>>
Working Group, Carlos, and Adrian,
The way I understood draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark, is that
while it updates RFC 6291, the updates are only additions, is that correctly
understood?
You give the guidance:
The guidance in this document is to avoid the terms "*-band" and
On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz
Sent: 10 April 2024 12:06
To: OPSAWG
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for
draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-wha
heers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Michael Richardson
> Envoyé : mardi 16 avril 2024 15:20
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; OPSAWG
>
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-
> oam-whaaat-question-mark-03
>
>
> mohamed.boucad.
ers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* OPSAWG *De la part de* Greg Mirsky
> *Envoyé :* mardi 16 avril 2024 10:11
> *À :* Carlos Pignataro
> *Cc :* OPSAWG
> *Objet :* Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for
> draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03
>
&g
Hi Michael,
I don't think that every term must and can be self-explanatory. We develop
our dictionary through the development of explicitly defined terms. That is
what we use Terminology section in our drafts for. And, AFAICS, it is
normal to expect that anyone interested in the field, in the
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> For example, Michael indicated that he wished he had a better name for
> "Virtual In-Band OAM" (I still don’t digest what does that mean
> actually). I also indicated that I wished I had terms for the following
> when I edited RFC 9451:
The
adoption, not a Last Call.
Cheers,
Med
De : OPSAWG De la part de Greg Mirsky
Envoyé : mardi 16 avril 2024 10:11
À : Carlos Pignataro
Cc : OPSAWG
Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for
draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03
Dear Carlos,
thank you for making my point even cle
Greg Mirsky wrote:
> thank you for the update. I'm glad that you found the definition in RFC
> 9551 working for ANIMA's Autonomic Control Plane as well. I will read RFC
> 8994 to educate myself about it.
Well, it works within 9551's definition, but I don't like the term we wound up
Dear Carlos,
thank you for making my point even clearer. I do believe that a term may
have interpretation in different scopes - a document, a series of
documents, or across all IETF documents. RFC 9551 established the
interpretation of terms for all DetNet OAM documents. The document under
Greg,Repeating something does not make it so…You had argued that those were definitions only within the context of DetNet, and each context can have different ones. You really cannot have it both ways. This is confusing. I-Ds follow causality — lots of things were approved to then be corrected.
Hi Michael,
thank you for the update. I'm glad that you found the definition in RFC
9551 working for ANIMA's Autonomic Control Plane as well. I will read RFC
8994 to educate myself about it.
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 5:54 PM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Greg Mirsky wrote:
> >
Greg Mirsky wrote:
> I have to repeat that the definitions of terms "in-band OAM", "out-of-band
> OAM", and "on-path telemetry"
> In-band OAM: an active OAM method that is in band within the
> monitored DetNet OAM domain when it traverses the same set of
> links and
Hi Carlos,
I have to repeat that the definitions of terms "in-band OAM", "out-of-band
OAM", and "on-path telemetry"
In-band OAM: an active OAM method that is in band within the
monitored DetNet OAM domain when it traverses the same set of
links and interfaces receiving the same QoS
Dear Greg,
Thank you for the input.
It appears that much of what you write below was already discussed at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/IVQzSSU_kvGgopCyCp-8oqK_xmg/
Am I to understand you might be keen on continuing using "in-band OAM" with
different meanings depending on the WG
Dear All,
I've read the latest version of the draft, Please find my notes and
questions below:
- All SDOs that standardize methods and/or protocols in the field of OAM
recognize that, in the FCAPS network management model, OAM is addressing
the 'F' and 'P', i.e., Fault Management and
packet or a dedicated OAM packet (e.g. STAMP), to my understanding it
> can be classified as Active OAM, if that's the case, the text in Section 5
> needs to be tweaked, because in this case not only Source Node and Sink Node
> are involved in Active OAM processing.
>
>
>
> Best Re
WG ;
Date: 2024年04月10日 19:06
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for
draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03
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
en
,
Giuseppe
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 1:06 PM
To: OPSAWG
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for
draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption
10 avril 2024 13:06
> À : OPSAWG
> Objet : [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-
> whaaat-question-mark-03
>
>
> Dear OPSAWG members,
>
> this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.
-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03
Be aware: This is an external email.
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-ques
> tion-mark-03.html
ending on Thursday, M
I read whaaat-question-mark a few weeks ago, and I never noticed the obtuse
filename last time. I think the document is useful. I would wish that it
might give ANIMA's ACP a clear name... we would up with "Virtual In-Band OAM"
which I think nobody was happy about (but was least hated).
Once
Support adoption. I think this document is *very* useful (speaking as an
IOAM contributor in ippm).
Cheers,
Justin
On 4/10/24 13:05, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
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.
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"
28 matches
Mail list logo
