+1
IMHO, keeping "Encapsulating", "Transit" and "Decapsulating" nodes
terminology (and related definitions) is the way to go. It's used in RFC
9197 (and in all IOAM related documents as well), and I think folks are
used to those terms/definitions now. Besides, I don't see any other
better terms (nor definitions) to replace them.
Thanks,
Justin
On 7/24/24 10:05, Alex Huang Feng wrote:
Dear Adrian,
Thanks for the rapid response.
IMO, (at least) the definitions of encapsulation, transit and
decapsulation nodes are well defined (and also well understood from the
IETF community), so I am personally not worried about any future changes
to these definitions.
I only wanted to get the perspective from the authors and I would say
your response is rather encouraging.
Cheers,
Alex
On 23 Jul 2024, at 14:55, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
Well timed email, Alex.
I made a note during today’s meeting to chase Benoit to see whether he
is happy with the references.
On reflection, getting Benoit happy may be a stretch.
The authors are working on polish. Carlos plans a revision “soon”, and
I plan to take a pass next week.
My gut feeling is that the terms are stable, but not completely
cooked. There is a risk of a small percentage churn.
We are, however, aware that it would be good to push this document
hard and fast to ensure that it can be available for everyone sooner
rather than later.
Obviously, we would really like references, but we are also aware that
normative references will (ultimately) cause delays in the RFC Editor
Queue.
Let me say that the authors will do their best.
Can I encourage the WG to be proactive and try to get reviews done now
so that when we get to WGLC the document is already practically perfect.
Cheers,
Adrian
*From:*Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-f...@insa-lyon.fr
<mailto:alex.huang-f...@insa-lyon.fr>>
*Sent:*23 July 2024 22:38
*To:*draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization.auth...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization.auth...@ietf.org>
*Cc:*opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>; Benoit Claise
<benoit.cla...@huawei.com <mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>>; Thomas.
Graf <thomas.g...@swisscom.com <mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com>>
*Subject:*Reference to oam-characterization draft
Dear authors,
Thanks a lot for writing and pushing this draft. It is very useful.
I only want to raise that our draft is now having a normative
reference to draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization.
We are using the terms “encapsulation", “transit" and “decapsulation"
node in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/> (See section 2 Terminology)
I would like to get the opinion from the authors on whether the
definition of these terms is stable enough to be used already on other
documents.
The reason I am asking is because
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry is currently very close to
get a WGLC and we were wondering if using the terms from
oam-characterization is the way to go.
Regards,
Alex, on behalf of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry authors
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
