Hi Carlos, Thanks, that’s taken from the automatic template, so a mini-bug to report to the tools team to have them update to the new draft URL. It seems to have changed a couple of months ago.
I’ve created a ticket: https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/issues/10298 Tim On 21/01/2026, 19:02, "Carlos Pignataro" <[email protected]> wrote: 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]
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
