Guidelines for Characterizing "OAM"
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15

[Ballot comment]
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

[Ballot comment]

# 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-01-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: benoit.claise@huawei.com, benoit@everything-ops.net, draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization@ietf.org, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Guidelines for Characterizing "OAM") to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Guidelines
for Characterizing "OAM"'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2026-01-06. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  As the IETF continues to produce and standardize different
  Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols and
  technologies, various qualifiers and modifiers are prepended to the
  OAM abbreviation.  While, at first glance, the most used appear to be
  well understood, the same qualifier may be interpreted differently in
  different contexts.  A case in point is the qualifiers "in-band" and
  "out-of-band" which have their origins in the radio lexicon, and
  which have been extrapolated into other communication networks.  This
  document recommends not to use these two terms when referring to OAM.

  This document considers some common qualifiers and modifiers that are
  prepended, within the context of packet networks, to the OAM
  abbreviation and lays out guidelines for their use in future IETF
  work.

  This document updates RFC6291 by adding to the guidelines for the use
  of the term "OAM".  It does not modify any other part of RFC6291.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc7799: Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between) (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There was some controversies during the lifetime of this draft, mainly from one
particular individual, up to the point where the document was stalled after a
first WGLC. A new document shepherd and the additional of a third author (Tal)
brought new perspective (and new blood) to the document. A second WGLC helped
successfully resolved the remaining issues.

Review requests were shared early in the process with relevant WGs (MPLS, BESS,
IPPM, DETNET, etc.). This was done by the authors and also the first document shepherd.

Clarifications of some specific points involved other groups (PALS, PW3, in particular).
That feedback helped confirm the position recorded in the draft about path congruence and QoS treatment.
See more at [18].

The document was presented and discussed in IPPM plenary sessions. That discussion was helpful.

The 2nd WGLC was also shared with IPPM (as some of raised issues are related to a spec owned by IPPM).
No concern was raised in that IPPM thread [19].

Note: in advance of the AD review, Med provided some feedback
pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-13-rev%20Med.pdf
doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-13-rev%20Med.doc
This would deserve a new draft revision.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

In the end, I believe all individuals are either happy, or can live with the document
status and certainly eager to get this RFC published (read: over their shoulder)

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are no implementations, as this document discusses guidelines for characterizing OAM.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document covers some technologies in IPPM, where it was presented.
Next to IPPM, feedback was collected from the following mailing lists: DETNET, IPv6, MPLS.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The OPSDIR and GENART reviews were executed and the feedback inserted in the
last document revision.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

BCP publication is being requested; the document content fits the [12] description.
Datatracker does correctly reflect the intended status.

The intended status is appropriate as this is an update to RFC 6291.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. 
Carlos Pignataro:  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/aEE9Hdz7bg9L1aE8ZqDWarg7f-c/
Adrian Farrel:  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/56LbJRjkcspJO57EPZ6Sg9OeO84/
Tal Mizrahi:  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/NiC3FIJ0Y9kkId7zo60qUtphHMA/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all authors have shown willingness to be authors and to respond to
comments and prompts.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)'

One IDNITS remaining, as flagged in the datatracker (and by Med).

  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC6291]), which it
    shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
    documents in question.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Med, as responsible AD, flagged that RFC7799 should be normative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No.  All normative references are within the IETF.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

  This document has no IANA actions.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Not applicable.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
[18]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/iTrqHTLPL8HCXh35FkR0JnlDMwg/
[19]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/LAnxsONh6RI8E3flQS6DrR22sEg/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There was some controversies during the lifetime of this draft, mainly from one
particular individual, up to the point where the document was stalled after a
first WGLC. A new document shepherd and the additional of a third author (Tal)
brought new perspective (and new blood) to the document. A second WGLC helped
successfully resolved the remaining issues.

Review requests were shared early in the process with relevant WGs (MPLS, BESS,
IPPM, DETNET, etc.). This was done by the authors and also the first document shepherd.

Clarifications of some specific points involved other groups (PALS, PW3, in particular).
That feedback helped confirm the position recorded in the draft about path congruence and QoS treatment.
See more at [18].

The document was presented and discussed in IPPM plenary sessions. That discussion was helpful.

The 2nd WGLC was also shared with IPPM (as some of raised issues are related to a spec owned by IPPM).
No concern was raised in that IPPM thread [19].

Note: in advance of the AD review, Med provided some feedback
pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-13-rev%20Med.pdf
doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-13-rev%20Med.doc
This would deserve a new draft revision.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

In the end, I believe all individuals are either happy, or can live with the document
status and certainly eager to get this RFC published (read: over their shoulder)

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are no implementations, as this document discusses guidelines for characterizing OAM.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document covers some technologies in IPPM, where it was presented.
Next to IPPM, feedback was collected from the following mailing lists: DETNET, IPv6, MPLS.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The OPSDIR and GENART reviews were executed and the feedback inserted in the
last document revision.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

BCP publication is being requested; the document content fits the [12] description.
Datatracker does correctly reflect the intended status.

The intended status is appropriate as this is an update to RFC 6291.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. 
Carlos Pignataro:  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/aEE9Hdz7bg9L1aE8ZqDWarg7f-c/
Adrian Farrel:  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/56LbJRjkcspJO57EPZ6Sg9OeO84/
Tal Mizrahi:  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/NiC3FIJ0Y9kkId7zo60qUtphHMA/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all authors have shown willingness to be authors and to respond to
comments and prompts.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)'

One IDNITS remaining, as flagged in the datatracker (and by Med).

  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC6291]), which it
    shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
    documents in question.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Med, as responsible AD, flagged that RFC7799 should be normative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No.  All normative references are within the IETF.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

  This document has no IANA actions.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Not applicable.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
[18]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/iTrqHTLPL8HCXh35FkR0JnlDMwg/
[19]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/LAnxsONh6RI8E3flQS6DrR22sEg/

I haven’t flag any major issue. These are mostly suggestions to enhance the flow of the document, ease referencing the guidance/terms by other documents, clean-up of expired I-Ds, etc. There is a normative ref to fix, IMO.

The full set of comments can be found at:

* pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-13-rev%20Med.pdf
* doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-13-rev%20Med.doc

These can be addressed with any comments from the doc Shepherd.