I support wg adoption of this draft.
Responding to the call for discussion by the chairs, I would provide some
comments for the authors consideration.
1. Abstract and Section 2,
In Abstract it says "
A case in point is the qualifiers "in-band" and
"out-of-band" which have their origins in the radio lexicon and which
have been extrapolated into other communication networks.".
While in Section 2 it says "
Historically, the terms "in-band" and "out-of-band" were used
extensively in telephony signaling [RFC4733] and appear also in radio
communications.".
Just curious about whether the term in-band/out-of-band comes from radio
communications or telephony signaling.
2. Section 2, several characteristics including Path, Packet, and Packet
Treatment are used for OAM classification, it seems to me they're not in
parallel, e.g., the classification between Path-Congruent OAM and
Non-Path-Congruent OAM applies to only Dedicated-Packet OAM, but not In-Packet
OAM. It would help if some clarification can be added.
3. Section 3 and 5, RFC 9322 allows adding an In situ OAM header to a copy of
data 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 Regards,
Xiao Min
Original
From: HenkBirkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>
To: OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024ๅนด04ๆ10ๆฅ 19:06
Subject: [OPSAWG] ๐ 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
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
