Hi Greg, I agree with you on Hybrid.
In my AD-requested re-review of the OAM draft I suggested that the original meaning of Hybrid OAM from 7799 be restored, and that the new draft does not pick just one sub-case of Hybrid as the new definition. Tim On 07/09/2025, 01:31, "Carlos Pignataro" <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Greg, Sorry — what question did I ask? I cannot find any question in my text — perhaps only the redirect to you to focus on the thread about draft-fioccola-ippm-on-path… That said, if "This is a specific case of Hybrid OAM.” Is hard to digest, please suggest a short equivalent. Hybrid Type 1 **is** a case of Hybrid. So perhaps we simply write “This is a Type of Hybrid OAM”. If that’s the core of the issue, the signal-to-noise ratio on these emails —> 0... Thanks, Carlos. On Sep 6, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Carlos, thank you for asking your question. I believe that the definition of In-Data-Packet OAM in the draft: In-Data-Packet OAM: The OAM information is carried in the packets that also carry the data traffic. This is a specific case of Hybrid OAM. It was sometimes referred to as "in-band". Is not accurate in part that what is being being positioned as a special case of Hybrid OAM is what defined in RFC 7799 as Hybrid OAM: o Augmentation or modification of the stream of interest, or employment of methods that modify the treatment of the stream => Hybrid Type I The OAM information augments data packet whether it is IOAM as defined in RFC 9197 or RFC 9326, or the Alternate Marking Method (RFC 9341). So there's nothing "special case" in In-Data-Packet OAM definition, as it is already described in RFC 7799 and is broadly adopted in IETF. Re-defining it in draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization would, in my opinion, create unnecessary confusion. What can the WG do to avoid such confusion? That is for the WG, WG Chairs, and the Responsible AD to decide. Personally, I subscribe to the idea that the document is ready when there's nothing left to be removed without decreasing the value of the document. Regards, Greg On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 9:09 PM Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear Greg, · IOAM can be applied to synthetic test packets. While the IOAM is “in-packet”, the packets that it is in are not data packets, so the methodology is purely Active OAM : it uses dedicated OAM packets. GIM>> Yes, and that is what, in my opinion, mixes the characterization of OAM protocols according to RFC 7799 with how an OAM protocol can be applied. The fact that IOAM or the Alternate Marking method is used in combination with a data or synthetic packet doesn't change the characterization of the protocol. It actually does. Characterization: The act of describing the qualities, traits, or distinctive features. Just trying to understand what the objective of your reply is. On Sep 3, 2025, at 3:18 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: · Alternate marking can be applied to data packets, making it Hybrid OAM. But I don’t read draft-fioccola to be talking about this mode. GIM>> I support the adoption of the draft as it provides a solid foundation for continued work. I intend to work and contribute to it, including adding the Alternate Marking method. Still trying to understand your goal. You might want to reply about adoption on the other thread about draft-fioccola-ippm-on-path...? Note, it might be more useful to adapt new drafts to this characterization, than to try to change the characterization for every new draft. Best, Carlos.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
