Re: [mpls] [IPv6] [Detnet] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations
Loa Andersson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.opsawg,gmane.ietf.mpls,gmane.ietf.ipv6,gmane.ietf.ippm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Stewart and Adrian, Sent from my iPad > On 18 Dec 2023, at 18:24, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 16 Dec 2023, at 10:16, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Personally, I don’t get the value of “inb-OAM” compared with “in-band OAM”. It’s not like it can be said faster (one additional syllable to say it) and it only saves four characters in typing. >> “oob-OAM” is also marginal. Same number of syllables to say (I don’t think anyone pronounces “oob” as a single syllable), and a little more saving in typing. > > + 1 I would have no problems accepting your, comments on the proposals we came up with. I’d like to say say that that the least important aspect of what we tried to say, far more important is that we tried to demonstrate that when we create new abbreviations they should be easily distinguishable from the existing. If we say that the IOAM for In-situ OAM exists, we should not consider iOAM or oOAM as abbreviations for whatever meaning. /Loa > > Stewart > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg