Joe, Thanks for concluding the WG LC. Adrian and I are working through the comments with the commenters and on-list. We will be posting a new revision as we progress on this exercise, and signal to the chairs and list.
Here's some additional follow-ups and responses. Tom/Joe -- title typo fixed. Tom, thanks for a useful review and comments!!! We are working through incorporating the fixes, not only in the areas that Adrian identified and proposed changes, but also throughout. Roni, thanks much for the GENART review that says: > The document is ready for publication as a best current practice document. Tiamran, Thanks for the interest and commenting! Please find responses to your two comments comments: 1. > RFC7799 did the same thing. Why this draft could do better than it? The document already explains the relationship with 7799 -- it is not trying to change it, it is not in a competition to be better than it; rfc7799 mentions "passive methods" and "out of band", and this doc clarifies how that mention relations to this document. This document is actually updating RFC6291, and fortunately the authors of RFC6291 provided already explicit on-list support to this approach (we checked before diving too deep). [Unrelated, also, are you suggesting that RFC7799 cannot be improved? That's not what Characterizing OAM is trying to do -- but surely there are improvements to it.] 2. > I have a suggestion not to define new terms any more. Just use descriptive > language to classify OAM tools in different ways. This is a suggestion that we absolutely considered and discussed, and the problem is that documents continue to use terms that are not defined anywhere... so documents continue to either: 1. Use pre-used terms (like "in-band oam") assuming definitions and being used in mutually contradictory ways. 2. Define their own terms (typically longer variations of foo-bar in-band-ish oam) on a document-by-document basis without consideration to other WGs or collisions with other documents. I already showed on this list examples of this. Med, Greg, will respond to your comments on separate emails, since they are longer, for an easier follow-up. Thank you for the support on the document, Xiao, Med, Best, Carlos. > On Nov 6, 2024, at 1:47 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > > This concludes this WG LC. The authors received several WG comments as well > as one from GEN ART. As we said at the mic this morning, the chairs will > wait for the authors to work through the comments and discuss some of the > main points with those raising them. They will bring forth a new revision, > and we can then decide how to move forward on this work. > > This draft will not move forward to the IESG at this time. It remains a WG > document. > > Joe > > From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com <mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> > Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 at 12:21 > To: opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>> > Subject: WG LAST CALL: Guidelines for Charactering "OAM" > > 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. > > 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
