Hi Carlos,
hi Adrian,
please do it the other way around βΊοΈ
The chairs ask the authors to first rename
draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 to
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-00, keeping the content as is,
and resubmit. And then post a -01 that addresses all discussion so far,
as these represent WG feedback already.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 09.05.24 03:08, Carlos Pignataro wrote:
Thank you, Henk, for the descriptive and thoroughΒ 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++Β addressing all discussion thus far, and then an
unchanged draft-ietf-opsawg-...-00
Thanks!
Carlos.
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:14β―AM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk
<mailto: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 <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>
Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: π 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
<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
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
<mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
<mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
