Ketan Talaulikar 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document. I have a couple of points that I would like to discuss. <discuss-1> Does this document really "update" RFC6291? (Note: the "update" metadata tag is perhaps used in an inconsistent way across areas/WGs - this point is more about the text in the document.) RFC6291 is about the guidelines for the use of the OAM acronym in the IETF. This document does not seem to be changing that. Per https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6291#section-3 - this document is tackling only the "Operations" part and that too very narrowly about terminologies related to monitoring and measurement protocols within the Operations bucket. It does not cover Administration or Maintenance. Then doesn't this document sound more like "Guidelines for Characterization of OAM Monitoring & Measurement Protocols" (or something like that?). Which then brings up the question in my mind about what is being changed in RFC6291? This seems like an independent document to me. <discuss-2> In continuation of the previous point, are all protocols under the larger "OAM" bucket only about monitoring or measurement? This document gives the impression that all OAM protocols are related to monitoring/measurement by use of the term "OAM protocol". There is text in section 3.5 that gives the (correct) impression that measurement protocols are a subset of OAM protocols. What about other? With the RFC6291 definition of the OAM acronym, would NETCONF and SNMP be considered as OAM protocols? Given that this document is all about terminologies, I am wondering whether it is accurately characterizing all OAM protocols or a specific sub-set of OAM related protocols related to operations alone. I am guessing only monitoring and measurement protocols? Is it possible to clarify this context? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for bringing clarity to the terminologies and the recommendations to move away from the "band-specific" terminologies. I would suggest adding more specific recommendations (perhaps in section 3.1?) for future documents - i.e., specifically adding this document as a reference when using any of the terminologies in those documents and only going further/beyond to provide context-specific details. Coming to the choice of BCP track, I am not sure if that is the best option. This document would also do just as well as informational (RFC7799 being a good example). Have all the terms introduced in the document been sufficiently vetted out as "best current practice" (I am not sure myself)? So, I support positions questioning the BCP status but I would rather focus on the discussion points in my ballot. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
