[OPSAWG]Re: WG LAST CALL: Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"

[Adrian Farrel]

Thanks Tom.

 

Carlos and I will surely take another pass at clarifying the guidance, and will also try to throw more light on the meaning.

 

It is, of course, ridiculous to ask you to suggest text because how could you when you can't discern the meaning? But it is also a challenge for us when we thought what he wrote was clear.

 

But we can try.

 

Cheers,

Adrian 

On 24/10/2024 11:53 BST tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote:

 

 

From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>

Sent: 21 October 2024 17:21

 

This starts a two week WG LC https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization/. The authors have been polled and there is no known IPR on this work that has been disclosed at this time.

 

Please post comments and thoughts on this document’s readiness to the list. We ultimately want to run publication of this in conjunction with the on-path telemetry document. Thanks to Greg Mirsky who agreed to shepherd this draft.

 

<tp>

Not Ready - I think I understand the words but cannot discern the meaning

 

There seem to be somewhere between four and fifteen terms being defined in various ways with no clear - to me - guidance as to when or when not they should be used

 

It comes across to me as a document written by experts for experts which non-experts, like me, will struggle to use consistently which I suspect will confuse authors more than at present as to what term to use when

 

Tom Petch

Tom Petch

 

 

 

 

 

 

The WG LC will run until November 4.

 

Thanks.

 

Joe

 

 

_______________________________________________

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