Working Group, Carlos, and Adrian, The way I understood draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark, is that while it updates RFC 6291, the updates are only additions, is that correctly understood?
You give the guidance: The guidance in this document is to avoid the terms "*-band" and instead find finer-granularity descriptive terms. The definitions presented in this document are for use in all future IETF documents that refer to OAM, and the terms "in-band OAM" and "out-of-band OAM" are not to be used in future documents. You mean that there is no need to go back and update old documents, e.g. the MPLS WG has a handful of documents with *-band" in the title. If we don't update them for some other reason? If so I support this. Some small nits - I think we should follow the RFC Editor, OAM is an abbreviation, not an acronym. Yes I know I had it wrong in RFC 6291, and if you want to make that update I'm all for it. - you say: [RFC9197] currently uses the acronym "IOAM" for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance. While this document does not obsolete that acronym, it still recommends that "In situ OAM" is used instead to avoid potential ambiguity. "Currently there are 7 RFCs that have the abbreviation IOAM in the title, RFC 9197, RFC 9322, RFC 9326, RFC 9359, RFC 9378, RFC 9452, and RFC 9486, I suspect there are more that have IOAM in the body. You might want to make this a more general guidance than just to refer to RFC 9197. I also think we should make "OAM" well-known, so we don't have to expand it when we use e.g. "In situ OAM" in a title. Other than that I support adopting the draft as a working group draft. /Loa -- Loa Andersson Senior MPLS Expert Bronze Dragon Consulting l...@pi.nu loa.pi....@mail.com _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
