Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15 # The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15.txt # Many thanks to Mach Chen for the RTGDIR IETF Last Call Review # I think the draft is well written and conveys great value. # Please find two DISCUSS observations i had when processing the document. # DISCUSS # ======== # Are there guidelines for documents that intentionally do not follow the proposal? ##The proposed changes in this document are clearly relevant for OAM documents. I can see the merit in having a single, uniform definition of the terminology, but I wonder whether it is really necessary for the definitions to be identical in all cases, across every context and for every application or service. ##Would it be useful to introduce a simple “compliance statement” in future drafts—perhaps in the terminology section—indicating that the document aligns with this BCP? This could be similar in spirit to how BCP 14 is referenced today and would make the level of adherence explicit. # Clarifying what “future documents” means ## The document states that the guidelines apply to “future” documents, but I am not sure that the term future is very precise. What is considered future today may already be history in a short time. ## Would it be clearer to say that the guidelines apply to documents published after this BCP is published, or to documents that include a normative reference to it? More specifically, is the expectation that documents currently in progress, possibly even those already in the RFC Editor queue, are required to adopt this terminology, or is the intent only to guide new work from the point of publication onward? Thanks for this write-up. Gunter Van de Velde RTG Area Director _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
