Hi, I support adoption.
Just one comment - In-Packet OAM: > The OAM messages are carried as part of data traffic. This was sometimes > referred to as "in-band". I wonder if "message" is the correct term here. In the example that follow for IOAM you use the term "information". Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 4:36 PM Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> wrote: > 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
