Hi Carlos, Hope this mail finds you well.
See inline: GV> -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 6:19 PM To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>; Benoit Claise <[email protected]>; Benoit Claise <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Gunter Van de Velde's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15: (with DISCUSS) Hi, Gunter, Thank you for this two-part DISCUSS, which I find super useful. > # I think the draft is well written and conveys great value. Thank you for your general observation as well! 1. > ##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. YES! I think this is a fantastic idea. If others find this suggestion useful, I would add a new Section 3.7, compliance statement, including something like "Authors who follow the terms as defined in this document should incorporate this phrase in a terminology section: ‘OAM terms … are to be interpreted as described in BCP …" GV> Thanks. I'll wait to see how this spins out from consensus perspective 2. > ## 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. Future is intended to mean documents to be approved after the publication of this BCP. What’s the best way to word that? For example, should not affect documents in the RFC Ed queue. GV> assuming there is agreement on "compliance statement" one could simply say: "The guidelines apply to documents that have the compliance statement (section 3.7)" Be well, G/ Thanks! Carlos. > On Jan 20, 2026, at 1:34 PM, Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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-posi > tions/ 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-characterizatio > n/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/arch > ive/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]
