That sounds like a good point, Dhruv.
Cheers, Adrian From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 01 May 2024 11:52 To: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> Cc: OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
