Talk:Ethernet Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

Merge this article with oa&m
i suggest merging this article with oa&m as both are about the same topic Ethernet Operations Administration and maintenance--User talk:R.srinivaas 07:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose this for now. EOAM is apparently a protocol whereas OA&M is a practice. I have marked this as a stub and I have added a link to this article from OA&M. Let's see what happens. --Kvng (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article describes part of what that one describes. Far as I see, it's not a reason for this one to be separate.  Jim.henderson (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * support merge another year and this is still a stub. Not even clear if this was meant for a specific protocol, or the general concept (in which case should not be upper case). I ran across the IEEE 802.3ah-2004 version (now in IEEE 802.3-2008), but that might go in Ethernet in the first mile? Or maybe that frame format was used elsewhere, e.g. I see IEEE 802.1ag also exists on this same subject. There is even a redirect from ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731 but it goes to the general ITU-T article which does not mention it at all. Would much rather have fewer articles with sources and coherent narratives, with details and diagrams etc. than many stubs. W Nowicki (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I should have chimed in earlier but to avoid using acronyms in titles, I feel the merge should have gone the other way. I will affect or propose a rename at OA&M. --Kvng (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Two isues here: if "Ethernet" deserves its own, independent of the generic OA&M and independent of the Ethernet in the first mile article that discusses some specific standards. The second question is the name of the resulting merged article. I would agree that acronyms, especially ampersands, should be avoided. I would even lower case it, to operations, administration, and maintenance to indicate it is now a proper noun, but a general concept, even if it is often referred as an acronym to shorten. W Nowicki (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you already did this, albeit without the second comma which is probably more correct anyway. So thanks, seems an improvement to me. W Nowicki (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)