Thank you, Henk, for the descriptive and thorough wrap of this adoption call.
Like Adrian, I'm also inclined to align with your conclusions, including: - "draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization" WFM -- even when it is much _less_ expressive than the original, IMO ;-) - As the other one of the editors, ofc more than happy to commit to, seek, and follow the WG on the 'pro-active alignment'. (understanding we are at a starting point in which the relevant lexicon is 'reactively misaligned', or otherwise we would not need this draft.) Net-net: All sounds good with thanks! I can post a rev++ addressing all discussion thus far, and then an unchanged draft-ietf-opsawg-...-00 Thanks! Carlos. On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:14 AM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > Thanks Henk, > > Apologies for the fatuous original name of this draft (but it worked to > get everyone's attention ;-) > > - Yes, your suggested new name works for me. > > - Since you ask, as one of the editors, I commit to a "pro-active > alignment", making changes as requested by the WG, and paying attention to > any sources of similar terminology pointed out to us. > > Ciao, > Adrian > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> > Sent: 08 May 2024 08:50 > To: OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org> > Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: 🔔 WG Adoption Call for > draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 > > Dear OPSAWG members, > > this email concludes the 1st call for Working Group Adoption for > draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03. > > We received a healthy number of replies, including a good discussion > about "yet another set of terminology" and its intrinsic > usefulness/feasibility in the IETF. A good example reflecting the > overall discussion is the existing terminology established in the DetNet > WG and published in RFC 9551. > > The chairs discussed the inputs and comments and believe this work to be > feasible to be adopted as a working group I-D. This believe includes the > expectation that no inconsistencies are introduced by this work and the > authors, editors, and contributors commit to a pro-active alignment > (scope and relationship of terms and their use in the respective > ecosystems) with other existing bodies of work that is brought to > attention in OPSAWG or otherwise. > > Typically, we would now ask to rename and resubmit as is. Alas, there is > the inconsistency between draft name and draft title. Some concern about > that naming was raised during the WGLC. While the draft name was fine > for the individual submission, the chairs tend to agree that a more > expressive draft name would benefit the work. Could the authors please > work with the WG to come up with a better draft name? We can kick this > off with a proposal from chairs: how about > draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization? Please bash, so we can move > forward. The chairs assume that this naming exercise can be resolved > quickly. > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > Henk > > On 10.04.24 13:05, Henk Birkholz 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 > To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
