Thank you Xiao! All good commends and addressed in the next revision. Carlos.
> On Apr 11, 2024, at 11:43โฏPM, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
