HI Benoit, thank you for your thoughtful response to my note. Please find my follow up note below tagged GIM>>.
Regards, Greg On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 6:54 AM [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Many thanks for your review and for supporting the draft. > > The text you quote is a digest of this part from rfc6291: > > "Provisioning" is outside the scope of this document, but the > following definition is provided for completeness. > > o Provisioning - Provisioning activities involve configuring > resources in the network to support the offered services. This > might include setting up the network so that a new customer can > receive an Internet access service. > > In general, Provisioning is used to configure the network to provide > new services, whereas OAM is used to keep the network in a state that > it can support already existing services. > > Sometimes it is necessary to talk about the combination of functions > and tools supplied by OAM and Management, it is preferred that this > is spelled out as "OAM and Management". In cases where an acronym is > needed, O&M should be used. > GIM>> Thank you for providing this quote from RFC 6291. My understanding of the point of view expressed, is it acknowledges that OAM and Management provide distinctive essential functions and tools in "the combination of functions and tools supplied by OAM and Management". If my interpretation is correct, then Management functions and tools are not encompassing OAM but both complement each other. > > We propose the following change: > > OLD > > The broader concept of "operations and management" that is the > subject of this document encompasses OAM, in addition to other > management and provisioning tools and concepts. > NEW > > The broader concept of "operations and management" that is the > subject of this document encompasses OAM, in addition to other > management and provisioning tools and concepts. This is > sometimes known as “OAM and Management” or “O&M” as > explained in [RFC6291]. > > Thanks and regards, Benoit (on behalf of the authors) > > Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis > Title: Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in IETF > Specifications Reviewer: Greg Mirsky Review result: Has Issues > > Dear Authors, > Thank you for your work on this document. I wholeheartedly agree with your > view > that adding Operational Considerations to an IETF document will help in the > deployment of the specified mechanism. I found the document well-written and > easy to read. The concern I have is with the assertion of the relationship > between the scopes of Operation and Management, Operation, Administration, and > Maintenance, expressed in the Terminology section as: > The broader concept of "operations and management" that is the > subject of this document encompasses OAM, in addition to other > management and provisioning tools and concepts. > Can you reference a document that discusses that relationship? It seems that > RFC 6291 avoided discussing this issue. In your opinion, what is the value of > that assertion to the document? > > Regards, > Greg > > > > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
