Hi Benoit! Thanks for the follow-up.
>> "This document appears to define a series of terms which don’t >> apply retroactively to previously published RFCs. " -> this is exactly >> because the terms have not been used consistently throughout >> the WGs that we need such as document. My understanding of the document was as you noted, there was an inconsistent use of terms in the past and this document seeks to reduce that inconsistency in the future. Roman From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 3:27 AM To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Abstain on draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15: (with COMMENT) Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Roman, As document shepherd for this document, let me observe that "This document appears to define a series of terms which don’t apply retroactively to previously published RFCs. " -> this is exactly because the terms have not been used consistently throughout the WGs that we need such as document. Note: I am not trying to convince you to change your ABSTAIN. Regards, Benoit Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15: Abstain 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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank to you Roni Even for the GENART review. I support the DISCUSS position of Gunter Van de Velde Appreciating that RFC6291 is a BCP and this document updating it, the purpose of this document isn’t clear. The use of the BCP status is also unclear beyond this being needed to update RFC6291. This document appears to define a series of terms which don’t apply retroactively to previously published RFCs. The text suggests these terms can be used in future documents. From the perspective of conformance, use of these terms doesn’t appear to be required as terms as “recommended” is the strength of the guidance. It seems like all “future OAM documents” would be “conformant to the BCP”.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
