Many thanks Michael for the review and useful feedback! Please find some follow-ups inline.
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:54 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > Carlos Pignataro <cpign...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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! > > Thank you for the interesting read. > What do you want to do with this document? > You say publish it to update RFC6291, but I wonder if revising 6291 might > be > better. In particular, SDN maybe has changed the landscape enough that not > everyone still has the common understandings. > Thank you investing time in review and share feedback! Our initial intention is to have this document published as a BCP updating RFC6291 (a BCP), because the two documents are well demarcated in scope (one about the noun, one about the adjective). RFC6291 stood the test of a decade+, even without errata. The more practical approach, considering the above, seems to progress this document as an RFC and use the same BCP 161 (as RFC6291) -- not sure how to signal that in the I-D. Other thoughts? > > On this topic, RFC8994, we added qualifications "virtual out-of-band" and > we > debated a lot about whether it was in-band or out-of-band!!! Because the > ACP > is an overlay network, it is not tied up with the in-band traffic or > addressing, but it is also not free from depending upon it. > And that is, indeed, the issue. On a separate off-list thread, we were wondering if ICMP is out of band or in band, given different definitions (in data plane, in packet flow) Net-net: "there is no band" -- Neo. And then different discussions and contexts mean different (incompatible) things for "in-band". Also RFC 8994 uses the M for Management instead of Maintenance (and this is sensible to me since it's a management autoconfigured, authenticated, secure layer, kinda) for autonomic functions. It also serves as a "virtual out-of-band channel" for Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) communications over a network that provides automatically configured, > > Path-Congruent is a nice technically accurate term. > I'm just sure that congruent is a term that is easy to say. It's very > grade > 9 geometry class. ("Congruent triangles") > Probably it's also the case the native english speakers, if they do not > know > the term well, will assume something inaccurate, while non-native speakers > will go > look it up. > Very open to other suggestions -- we opted for optimizing technical accuracy in descriptiveness. (Carlos, a non-native English speaker, who looks up words in his native languages too) > > Section 3 also has some nice new terms, and I suspect that they are really > useful in a number of arenas, including up-coming proof-of-transit work. > Once again, indeed! PoT is another clear target in our mind. > > Nits: > * OAM is not expanded in the introduction, and the RFC6191 reference needs > to > come earlier. > * Section 2 starts off talking about history, and then gets into defining > new > terms. I thought I was going to learn more about in-band/out-of-band from > a > military radio point of view, and/or SS7 vs 2600Hz. > Thank you -- all fixed. We'd welcome a citation from radio and/or SS7 telephony! Thanks! Carlos. > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
