Dear All, I support the adoption of this draft since it aims to provide guidelines for OAM terminology, and I think this is quite useful. Iām interested in contributing and I would also suggest to involve IPPM WG for further review, considering the correlation with RFC 7799 .
Regards, Giuseppe -----Original Message----- From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 1:06 PM To: OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org> Subject: [OPSAWG] š 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-ques > tion-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 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
