Thanks Henk, Apologies for the fatuous original name of this draft (but it worked to get everyone's attention ;-)
- Yes, your suggested new name works for me. - Since you ask, as one of the editors, I commit to a "pro-active alignment", making changes as requested by the WG, and paying attention to any sources of similar terminology pointed out to us. Ciao, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> Sent: 08 May 2024 08:50 To: OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org> Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 Dear OPSAWG members, this email concludes the 1st call for Working Group Adoption for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03. We received a healthy number of replies, including a good discussion about "yet another set of terminology" and its intrinsic usefulness/feasibility in the IETF. A good example reflecting the overall discussion is the existing terminology established in the DetNet WG and published in RFC 9551. The chairs discussed the inputs and comments and believe this work to be feasible to be adopted as a working group I-D. This believe includes the expectation that no inconsistencies are introduced by this work and the authors, editors, and contributors commit to a pro-active alignment (scope and relationship of terms and their use in the respective ecosystems) with other existing bodies of work that is brought to attention in OPSAWG or otherwise. Typically, we would now ask to rename and resubmit as is. Alas, there is the inconsistency between draft name and draft title. Some concern about that naming was raised during the WGLC. While the draft name was fine for the individual submission, the chairs tend to agree that a more expressive draft name would benefit the work. Could the authors please work with the WG to come up with a better draft name? We can kick this off with a proposal from chairs: how about draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization? Please bash, so we can move forward. The chairs assume that this naming exercise can be resolved quickly. For the OPSAWG co-chairs, Henk On 10.04.24 13:05, Henk Birkholz wrote: > 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" (OAM) is used currently & historically > in the IETF and intends to consolidate unambiguous and protocol agnostic > terminology for OAM. The summary includes descriptions of narrower > semantics introduced by added qualifications the term OAM and a list of > common capabilities that can be found in nodes processing OAM packets. > > The chairs acknowledge a positive poll result at IETF119, but there has > not been much discussion on the list yet. We would like to gather > feedback from the WG if there is interest to further contribute and > review. As a potential enabler for discussions, this call will last > three weeks. > > Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments > you may have. > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > Henk > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
