Many thanks, Med, for the review and useful suggestions! I seem to prefer path-coupled to path-congruent as well.
I also like the packet-embedded or user-packet-embedded alternatives, as they do seem more clear than in-packet. WG - Any other thoughts on this? Adrian, what do you think? (including as a native speaker) Thanks a lot! Carlos. On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:32 PM <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Carlos, Adrian, all, > > > > Thank you for editing this document. This is really useful. > > > > Alternate terms to consider for the path-congruent terms are > path-coupled/path-decoupled OAM (inspired from RFC4080). > > > > When editing RFC 9451, I wish I had terms for: > > - “OAM packet that exclusively includes OAM data” > - “OAM packet that includes user data” > > > > I don’t think “in-packet OAM” conveys unambiguously the intent. I would > suggest explicit terms such as: “User Data Embedded OAM” or “OAM-embedded > User Data”. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> *De la part de* Carlos Pignataro > *Envoyé :* vendredi 5 janvier 2024 21:39 > *À :* Ops Area WG <opsawg@ietf.org>; Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> > *Objet :* [OPSAWG] New I-D -> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM" > > > > Hi, Ops Area WG, > > > > Every now and again, there are discussions on how to best characterize or > qualify a particular kind of "OAM", as well as misunderstandings due to > having different definitions and contexts for a given term. A case in point > is "in-band" or "out-of-band" OAM, as recently surfaced at > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/jREEH1sFOZ-uxZNky-RTggpxkuk/. > > > > To alleviate this issue, Adrian and I wrote a short I-D to provide > forward-looking guidance on "foobar OAM". > > > > We would appreciate feedback and input on this position, which aims at > updating the guidelines for the "OAM" acronym, with unambiguous guidelines > for their modifiers. > > > > Guidelines for Charactering "OAM": > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark/ > > > > Look forward to input and comments to make this more clear and effective! > > > > Adrian & Carlos. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
