Guidelines for Characterizing the Term "OAM"
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-17

# Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15
CC @anewton1998

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Thanks to the Reviewers

Thanks to Robert Sparks for the ARTART review.

## Comments

I have no objections with the promotion of this document to BCP.

Thank you to Kyle Rose for their secdir review.

# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. I am really impressed by the quality of the definition, they are crystal clear.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Benoît Claise for the shepherd's *very detailed* write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. See also comments below.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues.

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Sherpherd's write-up

The shepherd's write-up could be updated (OTOH the I-D has passed the shepherd step):
- question 1: the note about pre-AD review should be updated to reflect what has been done
- question 17 as RFC 7799 is now normative and is not in the downref registry

### Section 3.2

Should the "In-Data-Packet OAM" definition include some text about fragmented packets ? I.e., the OAM part is probably only in one fragment but we could also envision the OAM part repeated in all fragments. Should there be text around this ? The fragments could also follow a non-congruent path with the OAM fragment.

This was a clear document and it seems to provide a useful set of defintions. 

I have the following (non-blocking) comments:

1. Abstract
The present abstract reads more like a problem statememt for the work, than a summary of the key things being standardised. I suggest this current text still may be useful intoroduction, but the abstract could more be usefully based on the text in the first para of section 3.1.

2. Section 3.5?
Would it be helpful for the words "equal forwarding treatment" be replaced by the defined term "Equal-Forwarding-Treatment" for more consistency?

Best wishes, Gorry

Thank you for addressing and resolving all my open DISCUSS items
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/iDesX1roYCJXbVS2O750SYdJNJI/

Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document. This document brings much needed clarity to terminologies associated with OAM protocols and the recommendations to move away from the "band-specific" terminologies. 

Also, thanks to the authors for the discussion and updates to address the comments in my previous ballot.