Hi Thomas, Thanks for your comments. Please see below, marked [TM].
On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 2:49 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. [TM] We have updated the example that combines active measurement with passive observation of a stream of interest. As Giuseppe suggested, the example now also includes the case where the active flow incorporates an IOAM trace option. We believe this addresses the aspect of combining active IOAM with passive observation. > > 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. [TM] As noted in response to Giuseppe's review: This is an interesting distinction that is relevant for example in draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-active-measurements, but not necessarily required in the current document. Indeed, there may be more aspects by which OAM can be classified further, but the current scope is focused on three main aspects as described in the document. > > Best wishes > Thomas Thanks, The authors. > > -----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] _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
