Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

this a more general guidance than just to refer to RFC 9197. I also think we should make "OAM" well-known, so we don't have to expand it when we use e.g. "In situ OAM" in a title. Other than that I support adopting the draft as a working group draft. /Loa -- Loa Ande

Re: [OPSAWG] [mpls] [IPv6] [Detnet] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations

Stewart and Adrian, Sent from my iPad > On 18 Dec 2023, at 18:24, Stewart Bryant wrote: > >  > >> On 16 Dec 2023, at 10:16, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> >> Personally, I don’t get the value of “inb-OAM” compared with “in-band OAM”. >> It’s not like it can be said faster (one additional

Re: [OPSAWG] [mpls] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations

for in-band to have a consistent rule with the OOB acronym (i.e. ib-OAM and oob-OAM)   My 2 cents   Italo   From: Greg Mirsky Sent: mercoledì 13 dicembre 2023 04:13 To: DetNet WG ; mpls ; 6man WG ; IETF IPPM WG ; opsawg ; Pascal Thubert ; Loa Andersson Subject: [mpls] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM

Re: [OPSAWG] Please welcome our new chair!

Warren, On 2016-02-08 04:18, Warren Kumari wrote: On Friday, February 5, 2016, Zhoutianran > wrote: Oh, really? I would like to know. Bribery with cookies usually works well, for really big things, bribery with a funny hat...

Re: [OPSAWG] Support in working group last calls

the document - after all you are co-author; but please note that the IETF consensus process does not work by voting. And maybe a pointer to the Tao of IETF. /Loa On 2013-09-10 13:39, Melinda Shore wrote: On 9/10/2013 3:29 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: Melinda, in general I agree with you - but I