Dear all,
This baby was not easy to deliver but we made it. Congratulations.
Thanks to everybody involved.
Regards, Benoit
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Guidelines for Characterizing the Term
"OAM"' to Best Current Practice
(draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-17.txt)
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 08:36:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-From: [email protected]
Resent-To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 08:36:54 -0800
From: The IESG <[email protected]>
To: IETF-Announce <[email protected]>
CC: The IESG <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Guidelines for Characterizing the Term "OAM"'
(draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-17.txt) as Best Current Practice
This document is the product of the Operations and Management Area Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair.
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization/
Technical Summary
As the IETF continues to produce and standardize different
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols and
technologies, various qualifiers and modifiers are prepended to the
OAM abbreviation. This document considers some common qualifiers
and modifiers that are prepended, within the context of packet
networks, to the OAM abbreviation and lays out guidelines for
their use in future IETF work.
This document updates RFC 6291 by adding to the guidelines for the use
of the term "OAM". It does not modify any other part of RFC6291.
Working Group Summary
There was some controversies during the lifetime of this draft, mainly
from one
particular individual, up to the point where the document was stalled
after a
first WGLC. A new document shepherd and the additional of a third author
brought new perspective to the document. A second WGLC helped successfully
resolve the remaining issues.
Review requests were shared early in the process with relevant WGs
(MPLS, BESS,
IPPM, DETNET, etc.). This was done by the authors and also the first
document
shepherd. Clarifications of some specific points involved other groups
(PALS, PW3, in particular). That feedback helped confirm the position
recorded
in the document about path congruence and QoS treatment.
Document Quality
The document is well-written and its intended use is well-articulated.
There are no implementations, as this document provides guidelines for
characterizing OAM.
Personnel
The Document Shepherd for this document is Benoît Claise.
The Responsible Area Director is Mohamed Boucadair.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
