Hello Greg:
I'd like to reach a consensus here, and, in particular, ensure that Giuseppe is OK since this is his review.
Le lun. 7 juil. 2025 à 22:44, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Hi, Pascal et al.,as a contributor to this work, I have a proposal for the OAM terminology. Top-posting from the discussion below and adding my note tagged GIM>>:The main issue, from an OPSDIR point of view, is section 2.6 on OAM variations.Considering the ongoing discussion on draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization,it might be better to avoid general OAM definitions here. I suggest to considerRFC 7799 and RFC 9551 for reference and include only the terms useful in thecontext of this document. I would simply refer to the definitions of RFC 9551for In-band OAM and Out-of-band OAM. In addition, I would omit new terms, e.g.Limited OAM or Upstream OAM, which are not used in the rest of the documentand, if needed, could be taken into account fordraft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization.Done.The OAM section is gone. Replaced by"RAW reuses terminology defined for Operations, Administration, andMaintenance (OAM) protocols in Section 1.1 of the "Framework of OAMfor DetNet" [DetNet-OAM] and "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods(with Hybrid Types In-Between" [RFC7799]. The reader is encouragedto consider the Guidelines for Characterizing "OAM"[I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization] to fully understand thesemantics of the terms Active, Passive, Hybrid, and In-Packet OAM,and usage guideline of the terms In-Band and Out-of-Band OAM that aredefined in [DetNet-OAM] but ."at the very beginning of the terminology section. I retained "residence time" that I moved in another section, and a discussion on low layers information that also moved..GIM>> I find that in-packet OAM is used in only in Figure 11. In fact, according to RFC 7799, protocols that combine passive and active methods of performance measurement are classified as Hybrid (e.g., IOAM and Alternate Marking). Thus, I propose changing s/in-packet OAM/Hybrid OAM/.
In Figure 11: "PLR Conceptual Interfaces", the idea is really "in-packet", since that column is about packet processing. Could we use "in-situ" ?
Hybrid really applies to the right column. I added it there.
As a result, there is no apparent need to reference I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization as RFC 7799 is the earlier authoritative source defining active, passive, and hybrid OAM measurement methods. Hence, the proposed text that replaces the OAM section can be updted as follows:NEW TEXT:RAW reuses terminology defined for Operations, Administration, andMaintenance (OAM) protocols in Section 1.1 of the "Framework of OAMfor DetNet" [DetNet-OAM] and "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods(with Hybrid Types In-Between)" [RFC7799].
The terms are defined authoritatively in RFC 9551, that much remains true - note that the reference to RFC 9551 is normative. The issue (as I understand it) is that referencing RFC 9551 imports all the terms therein and (I understood from the comments that) the terms "In-Band" and "Out-of-Band" are confusing and should be avoided in future specs.
The informational reference to draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization was thus added to discourage employing the terms "In-Band" and "Out-of-Band" OAM.
Giuseppe and Benoit recommend this addition. I complied, adding the reference as "informational" for "usage guidelines". Now you're suggesting removing it. I need a consensus to move on.
2 questions (to all):
- Do we have a consensus that draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization is correct about "In-Band" and "Out-of-Band", in other words, should we effectively discourage using those terms?
- If so, is there an issue with using the informational reference to do that?
There's a nit may be fixed:
- s/In-Between"/In-Between)"/
done
All the best,
Pascal
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
