Dear Adrian, Carlos and Tal, As an individual, I have reviewed again the latest revision and as previously stated find it for document authors authoring performance measurement related documents besides RFC 7799 an important terminology document. Describing re-usable terms which help readability of new documents. Apart from below comments, I believe the document is ready.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-12#section-3.4 - When an IOAM trace option [RFC9197] is incorporated in data packets it can be classified as In-Data-Packet, Path-Congruent and Equal-Forwarding-Treatment. I suggest to refine this example and bring it in context with "Passive OAM" and "Active OAM". Differentiate when packets are being generated by an active method and being observed with a passive method. As Giuseppe already mentioned, draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-active-measurements might be an interesting document to reference as such an example. As the author of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry , I resonate with Giuseppe's feedback on adding the notion of on-path (hop-by-hop) vs. edge-to-edge. Best wishes Thomas -----Original Message----- From: Benoît Claise via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 9:47 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [OPSAWG]WG Last Call: draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-12 (Ends 2025-09-30) Be aware: This is an external email. Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-12 (Ends 2025-09-30) This message starts a 2-week WG Last Call for this document. Abstract: As the IETF continues to produce and standardize different Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols and technologies, various qualifiers and modifiers are prepended to the OAM abbreviation. While, at first glance, the most used appear to be well understood, the same qualifier may be interpreted differently in different contexts. A case in point is the qualifiers "in-band" and "out-of-band" which have their origins in the radio lexicon, and which have been extrapolated into other communication networks. This document recommends not to use these two terms when referring to OAM. This document considers some common qualifiers and modifiers that are prepended, within the context of packet networks, to the OAM abbreviation and lays out guidelines for their use in future IETF work. This document updates [RFC6291] by adding to the guidelines for the use of the term "OAM". It does not modify any other part of [RFC6291]. File can be retrieved from: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization/ Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the publication of this document by replying to this email keeping [email protected] in copy. Objections should be motivated and suggestions to resolve them are highly appreciated. Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded again of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any. Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be found at [3]. Thank you. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
