Agreed — thank you, Tim. One quick correction, > A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in > IETF Specifications"_ can be found at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/.
I believe you mean https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/ Best, Carlos. > On Jan 21, 2026, at 2:33 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Tim, > > I find that a really helpful comment and hope we can fold it in to the next > revision. > > Cheers, > Adrian > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Chown via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: 21 January 2026 12:17 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: [OPS-DIR]draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15 ietf last call > Opsdir review > > Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization > Title: Guidelines for Characterizing "OAM" > Reviewer: Tim Chown > Review result: Has Nits > > Hi, > > I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this > Internet-Draft. > > The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related > Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that > adequate operational considerations are covered. > > A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in > IETF Specifications"_ can be found at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/. > > While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area > Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback > received. > > - Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15 > > - Reviewer: Tim Chown > > - Review Date: 21 Jan 2026 > > - Intended Status: BCP > > --- > > ## Summary > > Choose one: > > - Has Nits: This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that > should be considered prior to publication. > > ## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis > > This is the third time I've reviewed this draft. I think recent iterations > have > given the document a good focus. > > It serves a very useful purpose in clarifying the use of OAM terminology, and > its qualifiers, especially of "in-band" and "out-of-band" which it recommends > against using. > > ## Major Issues > > There are no remaining major issues in the draft. > > --- > > ## Minor Issues > > There are no minor issues. > > --- > > ## Nits > > I like that at the start of section 3 the document states "This document > recommends avoiding the terms "in-band" and "out-of-band" when referring to > OAM. Instead, it encourages the use of more fine-grained and descriptive > terminology." > > I think these two sentences, at the very least the first, should be added to > the abstract (maybe expanding the second paragraph) and to the text in Section > 2 (maybe at the end of the penultimate paragraph). I suspect the focus of the > draft has moved over time and the abstract not been updated to reflect that. > > --- > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-DIR mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
