Many thanks Thomas and Alex, both for the support, as well as for the useful
suggestions.
Alex, “on-path” is much more descriptive than “in-band” for sure!
Thomas, Alex, will send an iteration of the draft incorporating the Node Type
suggestion.
Thanks!
Carlos.
> On Mar 18, 2024, at 2:55
Many thanks Thomas and Alex, both for the support, as well as for the useful
suggestions.
Alex, “on-path” is much more descriptive than “in-band” for sure!
Thomas, Alex, will send an iteration of the draft incorporating the Node Type
suggestion. (BTW, I think you meant rfc9197 or rfc9359
Many thanks Thomas and Alex, both for the support, as well as for the useful
suggestions.
Alex, “on-path” is much more descriptive than “in-band” for sure!
Thomas, Alex, will send an iteration of the draft incorporating the Node Type
suggestion. (BTW, I think you meant rfc9197 or rfc9359
Dear Carlos and Adrian,
As I said in the chat during the OPSAWG meeting, I also support this document.
I don’t have a lot of specific examples of how the terminology are confusing,
but I am co-authoring draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry where it
started as an inband telemetry protocol
Dear Carlos and Adrian,
As the author of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry, I care and value
that you are defining OAM terminology. This is much needed. Count me on the
list of people who misused the term inband previously.
I would appreciate of you could add also OAM node type. As an
