Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-14
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: 2026-01-06
IETF LC End Date: 2026-01-05
Intended Status: Best Current Practice

Summary:
No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

Comments:
This document is well-written and easy to read!

Thanks to the authors for writing a very useful document that provides a clear guidance for future OAM protocols definition and classification! 

Major Issues: 
None.

Minor Issues:
None.

Nits:
Section 3.3,  
"Non-Path-Congruent OAM:

The OAM information is not guaranteed to follow the exact same forwarding path as the observed data traffic. This can also be called Path-Incongruent OAM."

For the same thing, it's better to use only one term, so I'd suggest to remove the last sentence: "This can also be called Path-Incongruent OAM".

And If you agree to remove the sentence, please do not forget to remove another one in Section 3.6.


Best regards,
Mach Chen