Re: [alto] New Version Notification for draft-lachosrothenberg-alto-brokermdo-01.txt
"Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu> Mon, 09 July 2018 21:14 UTC
Return-Path: <yang.r.yang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0EB1274D0 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 14:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u8n2x8AySZnu for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com (mail-lf0-f65.google.com [209.85.215.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 215A7130DF0 for <alto@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 14:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-f65.google.com with SMTP id g6-v6so5730724lfb.11 for <alto@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 14:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QRWkvFgAz8yFkcwhteWooDiG0/hRN+UcmRV0jj+6oWk=; b=aEWuE9yjNjYvUcoDA1JCFjmgFbedvkbAZfVSl0AVeBEga/0URx8ytVB+HIugP2NkyU GXRElyprp+c+9QECFWEMHLtCUFPUf3OGeEJleSfzoIeYqbJjxqRuXfCgZk3R+R2TzVGT YtM1+nL7vcBpcvT4rXaivPpom54S0sRmlJ/OjXfixmDqH0XxlgjVW4Bxk7t1EjVOtRpE 05e9L4IVZOsusGYmF66pwRDm9tcGmZJhrqAhgPukM5uD44yxSNEuTQUtIoVLGD9U4GEa OclTww+4Wy/YIoZ09V9to1X/chFvQ9Tq79Mxkx2Vz+yKQuBjmGHMzk83tWoAOzBqq4wI fPAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3ARMa3ufedgb6w7Tb8nKFoH4TY2jF5x9CWldRrRSPy1OxojT+l doTPSxBDJ8SvN8ilTTfQxyYAYZYL0pUiG6/qskg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfq4gNPd4eM8AwTsa5s/Xu/6EsHY9G4sNMNMyBOVUGZlOOPvDjOxPE9TfoMfOZyB1J9/k9FMq0X1T9v2fYmzHI=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:2c4f:: with SMTP id s76-v6mr807078lfs.25.1531170844122; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 14:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153055911959.16252.2507795361887964381.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAEDarX+Wa1kj-Z+k6X9P_jC+_-AOgDmL1j=XkPvmWFbSrm3dug@mail.gmail.com> <CANUuoLprC-uhDtCCeG+nOweeMg=n-BfdTJxRD4CFMyuNeWixdQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANUuoLprC-uhDtCCeG+nOweeMg=n-BfdTJxRD4CFMyuNeWixdQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 17:13:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CANUuoLouiwNp-TaaQCjSpzLmFPNqJudoEjBdD3THQtoSWjBYHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Danny Alex Lachos Perez <dlachosper@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004123870570977e58"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/QG6RXw6QdVft3JZJtuCCcKWYt4c>
Subject: Re: [alto] New Version Notification for draft-lachosrothenberg-alto-brokermdo-01.txt
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:14:12 -0000
Danny, Christian, Very interesting work. I finished a review of Sec. 6, and below is the second part of my review. Richard ==== 6. Proposed Approach The primary design goal for ALTO-based Broker-assisted Multi-domain Orchestration is to discover resource and topology information from different administrative domains involved in the federation, while also safeguarding the privacy and autonomy of every domain. [yry] Connect to all requirements above? In the architectural proposal shown in Figure 1, a broker component is conceived to be working as coordinator of a set of MdOs, whose key [yry] coordinator -> a coordinator; whose it is not clear righ away what "whose" refers to, MdOs or broker? components are: the Inter-domain Resource (IdR), the Inter-domain Topology (IdT) and the ALTO Server. BROKER COMPONENT [yry] COMPONENTS +--------------------------------------------+ | | | +-----------------+ | | | | | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ALTO SERVER(s) | | X | | + | X | +----------------+\ | X | / \ | X | / \ | X | +------+/+-------+ +---------------+ | X | | Inter-domain | | Inter-domain | | X | | Topology (IdT) | | Resource (IdR)| | X | +-^------^-------+ +---^-------^---+ | X | | | | | | X +--------------------------------------------+ X | | | | X | | | | +--X--------+---+--------------------+ | | | | | | | +------------+------------+---+ | MdO1 | | | | +<------------->+ +---+ +---------------+ | MdO2 | | | | | +-+--------------+ | | | Legend: | MdO(n) | XXX ALTO Protocol +------------------+ Figure 1: Broker-assisted Multi-operator Network Architecture [yry] Does it help to label all, or key edges, not only the single XXX, on which protocol (protocols) will be used? You mentioned BGP/BGP-LS, ... 6.1. Inter-domain Resource (IdR) Component It creates a hierarchical database that contains inter-domain resource information such as resource availability (i.e., CPU, memory, and storage), Virtual Network Functions (VNFs) and Physical Network Functions (PNFs) supported and Service Access Points (SAPs) to access those resources. UNIFY [UNIFY.NFFG], TOSCA [TOSCA], ETSI- [yry] It can be ambiguous what Service Access Points refer to, only VNFs/PNFs or all? The idea of a hierarchical database appears to be not fully specified. NFV [ETSI-NFV-MANO], among other data models can be used to create the interface between IdR and MdOs. [yry] IdR not defined yet---appeared only in the section title. 6.2. Inter-domain Topology (IdT) Component A hierarchical TED (Traffic Engineering Database) that contains inter-domain network topology information including additional key parameters (e.g., throughput and latency of links). This information can be retrieved from each MdO through BGP-LS or REST interfaces. 6.3. ALTO Server Functionalities The ALTO server component is the core of the broker layer. Multiple logically centralized ALTO servers use the information collected from IdR and IdT modules to create and provide abstract maps with a [yry] module vs component simplified view, yet enough information about MdOs involved in the federation. This information includes domain-level topology, storage resources, computation resources, networking resources and PNF/VNF capabilities. [yry] Consistency: missing CPU, as above? As an ALTO client, each MdO sends ALTO service queries to the ALTO server. This server provides aggregated inter-domain information exposed as set ALTO base services defined in [RFC7285], e.g., Network Map, Cost Map and ALTO extension services, e.g., Property Map [DRAFT-PM], Multi-Cost Map [RFC8189], Path Vector [DRAFT-PV]. For example, when a source MdO receives a customer service request, it checks whether or not it can deliver the full service. If it is unable to do so, the MdO consumes from the ALTO Server the Property Map service to have a clear global view of the resource information offered by other MdOs. This information allows discovering which candidate MdOs may be contacted to deliver the remaining requirements of a requested end-to-end service deployment. The connectivity information among discovered MdOs can be retrieved by a Cost Map service, responding, for instance, a path vector with the AS-level topology distance between the source MdO and candidate MdOs. 6.4. Filtered Cost Map Extension [yry] A bit disruptive transition. Why only Filtered Cost Map? It helps to state the basic ALTO services that broker uses and state that this is the one needs extension---I actually think this should be a new service, instead of filtered cost map. The ALTO server MUST provide connectivity information for every SG link in the SG path for an E2E requirement. This information is the AS-level topology distance in the form of path vector, and it includes all possible ways for each (source node, destination node) pair in the SG link. [yry] Is it necessary to limit to only AS-hop distance? I assume that other distances such as bw, latency can be useful as well. In this section, we introduce a non-normative overview of the Filtered Cost Map defined in Section 6.1 of [DRAFT-PV] [1]. The specifications for the "Media Types", "HTTP method", "Capabilities" and "Uses" (described in Section 6.1 of [DRAFT-PV] [2]) are unchanged. 6.4.1. Accept Input Parameters The ReqFilteredCostMap object in Section 6.1.2 of [DRAFT-PV] [3] is extended as follow: object { [NFFG sg;] } ReqFilteredCostMap; [yry] If sg is optional, the req can have an empty body. What is the response to an empty request? Non-optional makes more sense, to me. [yry] One key question that we should think: is it possible that NFFG is an example of a more *generic* query model, for example, waypoint model, so that the generic query is src -> dst: waypoints? object { JSONString nfs<1..*>; JSONString saps<1..*>; NextHops sg_links<1..*>; REQs reqs<1..*>; } NFFG; object { JSONNumber id; JSONString src-node; JSONString dst-node; } NextHops; object { JSONString id; JSONString src-node; JSONString dst-node; JSONNumber sg-path<1..*>; } REQs; sg: If present, the ALTO Server MUST allow the request input to include an SG with a formatted body as an NFFG object. An NFFG object contains NFs, SAPs, SG links representing logical connections between NFs, SAPs or both and E2E requirements as a list of ids of SG links. It is worth noting that further versions of this draft will define a more elaborated NFFG object to support extended parameters such as monitoring parameters, resource requirements, etc. [yry] Also, need consistency requirement, for example, src-node string appears in union of nfs, saps ... 6.4.2. Response If the ALTO client includes the path vector cost mode in the "cost- type" or "multi-cost-types" field of the input parameter, the response for each SG link in each E2E requirement MUST be encoded as a JSONArray of JSONArrays of JSONStrings. Anyone of the sub-arrays indicates a potential candidate path calculated as the per-domain topological distance corresponding to the amount of traversing domains. [yry] The encoding is quite interesting, but without an example, and a bit explanation, it can be hard to understand the nested data structure. I feel that the model can be a generic model, such as waypoint, beyond SG; see above. Moreover, as defined in Section 6.3.6 of [DRAFT-PV] [4], If an ALTO client sends a request of the media type "application/alto- costmapfilter+json" and accepts "multipart/related", the ALTO server MUST provide path vector information along with the associated Property Map information (e.g., entry points of the corresponding foreign domains), in the same body of the response. Section 6.5.2 gives an example of the Filtered Cost Map query and the corresponding responses. 6.5. Examples of Message Exchange This section list a couple of examples of the Property Map and Filtered Cost Map queries and the corresponding responses. These responses are based on the information in Table 1 and Table 2 of a use case implementation described in Appendix A. 6.5.1. Property Map Service In this example, the ALTO client wants to retrieve the entire Property Map for PID entities with the "entry-point", "cpu", "mem", "storage", "port" and "nf" properties. GET /propmap/full/inet-ucmspn HTTP/1.1 Host: alto.example.com Accept: application/alto-propmap+json,application/alto-error+json HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Length: ### Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json { "property-map": { "pid:AS1": { "entry-point": [ "http://172.25.0.10:8888/escape" ], "cpu": [ "50.0" ], "mem": [ "60.0" ], "storage": [ "70.0" ], "port": [ "SAP1" ], "nf": [ "NF1", "NF3" ] }, "pid:AS2": { "entry-point": [ "http://172.26.0.10:8888/escape" ], "cpu": [ "10.0" ], "mem": [ "20.0" ], "storage": [ "30.0" ], "nf": [ "NF2" ] }, "pid:AS3": { "entry-point": [ "http://172.27.0.10:8888/escape" ], "cpu": [ "80.0" ], "mem": [ "90.0" ], "storage": [ "100.0" ], "port": [ "SAP2" ], "nf": [ "NF1", "NF3" ] } } } [yry] A key issue that one may encounter in multi-domain aggregation is ambiguity of aggregated resources. Is the semantics that each resource is the *local* resource? If so, is there a naming/scoping requirement on naming entities? [yry] If you do hierarchical brokers and each broker can hide the details, the resource aggregation can become ambiguous: (1) broker 1 can say it has 10 units of CPUs, and broker 2 can say the same, but they may aggregate the 10 from the same individual domain. 6.5.2. Filtered Cost Map Service The following example uses the Filtered Cost Map service to request the path vector for a given E2E requirement. The SG request information in Table 2 is used to describe the service, and it is composed of three NFs (NF1, NF2, and NF3) and two SAPs (SAP1 and SAP2). Links connecting the NFs and SAPs ("sg_links" tag) are also included, followed by an E2E requirement ("reqs" tag) with information about the order in which NFs are traversed from SAP1 to SAP2. Note that the request accepts "multipart/related" media type. This means the ALTO server will include associated property information in the same response. POST /costmap/pv HTTP/1.1 Host: alto.example.com Accept: multipart/related, application/alto-costmap+json, application/alto-propmap+json, application/alto-error+json Content-Length: [TBD] Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json { "cost-type": { "cost-mode": "array", "cost-metric": "ane-path" }, "sg": { "nfs": [ "NF1", "NF2", "NF3" ], "saps": [ "SAP1", "SAP2" ], "sg_links":[ { "id": 2, "src-node": "SAP1", "dst-node": "NF1", }, { "id": 2, "src-node": "NF1", "dst-node": "NF2", }, { "id": 3, "src-node": "NF2", "dst-node": "NF3", }, { "id": 4, "src-node": "NF3", "dst-node": "SAP2", } ], "reqs": [ { "id": 1, "src-node": "SAP1", "dst-node": "SAP2", "sg-path": [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ] } ] } } The ALTO server returns connectivity information for the E2E requirement provided by the ALTO Client request of the above example. Also, the response includes Property Map information for each element in the path vector. In this case, it is retrieved a Property Map with the "entry-point" property, i.e., the URL of the MdO entry point for the corresponding network. HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Length: [TBD] Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=example --example Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json { "meta": { "cost-type": { "cost-mode": "array", "cost-metric": "ane-path" }, }, "cost-map": { "SAP1": { "SAP2": { "SAP1": { "NF1": [ [ "AS1" ], [ "AS1", "AS2", "AS3" ] ] }, "NF1": { "NF2": [ [ "AS1", "AS2" ], [ "AS3", "AS2" ] ] }, "NF2": { "NF3": [ [ "AS2", "AS1" ], [ "AS2", "AS3" ] ] }, "NF3": { "SAP2": [ [ "AS1", "AS2", "AS3" ], [ "AS3" ] ] } } } } } --example Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json { "property-map": { "pid:AS1": { "entry-point": "http://172.25.0.10:8888/escape" }, "pid:AS2": { "entry-point": "http://172.26.0.10:8888/escape" }, "pid:AS3": { "entry-point": "http://172.27.0.10:8888/escape" } } } --example-- [yry] Very interesting design. It helps if you add some text to go over the meaning, such as [ "AS1" ], [ "AS1", "AS2", "AS3" ] are two alternative paths. ==== On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 9:47 PM Y. Richard Yang <yry@cs.yale.edu> wrote: > Dear Danny, Christian, > > I started to read this draft. It addresses an important, timely issue. > Below is the first part (on Sections 1-6) of my review, and I will send the > second part on Sections 7-9 by tomorrow. > > Great work! > Richard > > ==== > Existing proposals for the network service orchestration are > intrinsically conceived for single administrative domain scenarios. > > [yry] Add citations right after existing proposals? > > For example, in the standard service orchestration model described in > ETSI NFV MANO framework [ETSI-NFV-MANO], one orchestrator is supposed to > work within one administrative domain. The analysis of > orchestration and management of network Services over multiple > > [yry] case, network vs Services > > administrative domains have begun to be addressed by ETSI > in [ETSI-NFV-MANO-MDO]. > > [yry] The last sentence gives a related work. To make reading easier, > it may help to differentiate between proposals (first sentence) and > analysis (this sentence). > > All such proposals described above envision the potential > introduction of new business model approaches, including federation > models [PPP-5:2013] among administrative domains. In this context, > this document considers each network operator involved in the > community advertises its abstracted capabilities (e.g., software/ > hardware resources, physical/virtual network functions, etc.) to a > broker (i.e., 3rd party). This latter, in its turn, provides or > > [yry] latter -> broker > > assists coordinate E2E network services spanning multi-domain > networks. > > 5. Problem Statement and Challenges > > The provision of a complete E2E network service requires chaining > services provided by multiple network operator with multiple > > [yry] operator -> operators > > technologies. In this multi-domain environment, the orchestration > process will require an advertise mechanism through which single > > [yry] advertise -> advertisement, single -> individual > > domains can describe their capabilities, resources, and VNFs in an > interoperable manner. Moreover, a discovery mechanism is also > necessary so that source domains can obtain candidate domains (with > > [yry] Although one can infer what source/candidate domains mean, > it can help if you define them. > > the corresponding connectivity information) which can provide a part > of the service and/or slide in an E2ENS requirement. > > [yry] slide -> slice? > > In order to the advertising and discovery process works in a proper > way, a number of challenges can be identified: > > [yry] "In order to" -> "In order that" > > Lack of Abstractions: Multiple vendors with heterogeneous > technologies need an information model to adequately represent > in confidentiality-preserving fashion the resource and topology > information. > > Scalability: Involves the distribution of topology and resource > information in a peer-to-peer fashion (MdO-to-MdO). Multi- > > [yry] Note that the previous item mentions generic information model > but here mentions only topology and resource information. It can help > if > the scoping is clarified up front: only topology/resource. > > operator multi-domain environments where the information > distribution is advertised in a peer-to-peer model scales > linearly. It means more MdO interconnections one has, the more > > [yry] Why linearly? There can be ambiguity. Assume the total > transmission load of one domain grows linearly with n, which is > the number of domains. Total system scales w/ n^2. But there can be > other peer-to-peer systems such as CHORD which publish > (advertises) with a constant cost. It helps to specify some more details. > > it "costs" to distribute. > > Flexibility: Considers that a distributed approach does not allow > domains without physical infrastructure (e.g., without BGP or > BGP-LS) to advertise resource capabilities and networking > resources. Such procedures consist in deploying and configuring > physical peering points for these domains. > > [yry] The description above is not clear to me yet. One can run BGP > w/o a physical infrastructure. It helps if you can clarify this challenge. > > Complexity: Refers to the discovery mechanism to pre-select > candidate domains, accounting for resources and capabilities, > necessary for an E2E network service deployment. An intrinsic > complexity exists in the process of assembling, logically > organizing, and enabling abstraction views of different > resources and capabilities in multi-domain scenarios. > > [yry] A summary comment on the 4 items. Are they challenges, issues > or requirements? The wording appears to have multiple aspects: lacking > of abstractions seems to imply issues; flexibility seems to imply > requirements... Is the set complete, for example how about security, > autonomy, privacy ...---some you touch right below? One more comment is > that the terms used (e.g., flexibility) can be too generic. If you go a bit > more specific, for example, Discovery Flexibility, it may help. > > ==== > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:25 PM Danny Alex Lachos Perez < > dlachosper@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear WG members >> >> This new version (-01) considers a section on benefits and open questions >> (section 7) where we analyze the advantages and open issues in the >> broker-assisted architecture. Moreover, we removed the Property Map >> Extension section because the current Property Map draft [0] already >> supports property values encoded as JSONArray. >> >> Other changes include (i) update the Problem Statement and Challenges >> section and (ii) many minor style and grammar edits. >> >> Comments and feedback will be highly appreciated. >> >> Thank you very much >> >> [0] >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-04#section-4.6 >> >> Ss >> >> Danny Lachos >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 4:18 PM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> A new version of I-D, draft-lachosrothenberg-alto-brokermdo-01.txt >>> has been successfully submitted by Danny Alex Lachos Perez and posted to >>> the >>> IETF repository. >>> >>> Name: draft-lachosrothenberg-alto-brokermdo >>> Revision: 01 >>> Title: ALTO-based Broker-assisted Multi-domain Orchestration >>> Document date: 2018-07-02 >>> Group: Individual Submission >>> Pages: 22 >>> URL: >>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lachosrothenberg-alto-brokermdo-01.txt >>> Status: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lachosrothenberg-alto-brokermdo/ >>> Htmlized: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lachosrothenberg-alto-brokermdo-01 >>> Htmlized: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lachosrothenberg-alto-brokermdo >>> Diff: >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-lachosrothenberg-alto-brokermdo-01 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> Evolving networking scenarios (e.g., 5G) demand new multiple >>> administrative domain (aka multi-domain) orchestration models. This >>> document proposes the use of Application-Layer Traffic Optimization >>> (ALTO) services to offer topology and resources addressing network >>> service discovery and provisioning by multi-domain orchestrators. >>> The ALTO services with the proposed protocol extension offer >>> aggregated views on various types of resources contributing to a more >>> simple and scalable solution for resource and service discovery in >>> multi-domain, multi-technology environments. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>> submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> The IETF Secretariat >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> alto mailing list >> alto@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >> > > > -- > -- > ===================================== > | Y. Richard Yang <yry@cs.yale.edu> | > | Professor of Computer Science | > | http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/ | > ===================================== > -- -- ===================================== | Y. Richard Yang <yry@cs.yale.edu> | | Professor of Computer Science | | http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/ | =====================================
- Re: [alto] New Version Notification for draft-lac… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [alto] New Version Notification for draft-lac… Danny Alex Lachos Perez
- Re: [alto] New Version Notification for draft-lac… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [alto] New Version Notification for draft-lac… Danny Alex Lachos Perez