Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> for your review
Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 06 November 2023 15:46 UTC
Return-Path: <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B58ABC1519AE; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 07:46:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0MBLGWp72CqE; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 07:46:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x635.google.com (mail-ej1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::635]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D93EDC1C5F35; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 07:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x635.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-9e1021dbd28so121114166b.3; Mon, 06 Nov 2023 07:46:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1699285579; x=1699890379; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=G/4teW69mnrXtguqO+lqkE5RISUL2+8Kc2KtL7hbRjc=; b=ODBi/MzeLH2nf+dLw8/Crq/kCuvRYPQOAJBA059XETOFwjAWM9POdZRs1vZVQto+Pn K01oibxt75lwlAoVu69LPwcqM8S8Eg10B44i4Nt5qapDM6unJdmYxlw35O7aDRamzvg9 33rqSZR/GQeJ1zO9LnECHX2Cw6LpQQCQmyKRXzo9oDP7q21ywDAGhn2b4IZ0kA0Hrg1N MYO+C/lWVY/TKdncg63Gd1sv/pSWY/fwyxWKTA7RtHyHiZS/ogOt92C/kwKsI0uSDTRy oMdBRI4dYjUwzK6afQqeqhKH46K98C9VK8FUPbaJWGmNCN4t0daKMO4padwDkYqLpCw+ iAhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1699285579; x=1699890379; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=G/4teW69mnrXtguqO+lqkE5RISUL2+8Kc2KtL7hbRjc=; b=KD+qWLwZpfvBWHxvVgoOXUrKRTckKlRD98urQ4H6JOHzNwMAtoYm6BsQGsAbLUWgy+ qpDx5mwjXZm7Ghsp4OkaH5FSZJfUVQgBkdJSpOFtQXaX3CNdbxON1FGErZYfkEzkAkwx XrAksVT/gBudDONFqD9H5tqTr5eX1/LoUdgFm6PfpeKcSHQtrPDa32cO205tfA4i/QT3 DzkYxhtYbLZ1a3nM7fmqZ5KJ1Z8vDLPuIIJEQ4lzaSOh3xfNjJdK/Y7T/yJTcFu9FkV8 +Csi2NIUWZnDF6T2t9DCdmccYtV0wP0XtWrbOR1/sKikhBaKvQauRJvBkUSH2VCKBBEE bvzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxeQZgJAExxTQrsPs2DYOLDNnNoKRTZ/u5GerThNngiuzIjosXw MroQFkU4uey7mZz9US9R1qYhT3aOkiCNOTON15U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFsFXblyzMjXN1tnQJFJjq3SRGBVR0tGP9qC+dJVUFmkUc56F7IE2GqEIN+3Tyz6YvwOuy0SOI11aZJh5h96LQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3c0a:b0:9c7:5207:280a with SMTP id h10-20020a1709063c0a00b009c75207280amr10792694ejg.55.1699285578949; Mon, 06 Nov 2023 07:46:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231031000248.CB5C4E7C06@rfcpa.amsl.com> <27ABDF6F-6973-42CE-B930-24B79FA9D2B7@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <27ABDF6F-6973-42CE-B930-24B79FA9D2B7@amsl.com>
From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 16:46:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH6gdPwXFYamPprS2EBo8jMZ4Tor9ST0qwEgUQBH-0TvLp-obg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com>
Cc: Zhenbin Li <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Dale McEwen <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, lsr-ads@ietf.org, lsr-chairs <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, acee@cisco.com, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004e299706097dc1b6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/VvNBHE52QBMKqGiwxNoXeFg2JyA>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 15:46:57 -0000
Hi Madison, This is the first time that I receive this email. This has happened to me before since I started using Gmail 😔 I guess my co-authors were waiting on me to respond as the editor. I'll respond during this IETF week. Thanks, Ketan On Mon, 6 Nov, 2023, 4:42 pm Madison Church, <mchurch@amsl.com> wrote: > Greetings, > > This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your > attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 > announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the > AUTH48 review process. > > The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9513 > > The AUTH48 FAQs are available at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48 > > We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/mc > > > On Oct 30, 2023, at 7:02 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > Authors, > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > > > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been > updated as > > follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 > ("RFC > > Style Guide"). > > > > Original: > > OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6 > > > > Current: > > OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) > > --> > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Registry names > > > > a) FYI - We updated "IGP MSD Types" here to "IGP MSD-Types" (with > > hyphen) as we believe this refers to the registry at > https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types > . > > > > Original: > > These MSD Types are allocated under > > the IGP MSD Types registry maintained by IANA that are shared by IS- > > IS and OSPF. > > > > Updated: > > These MSD types are allocated in > > the "IGP MSD-Types" registry maintained by IANA and are shared by IS- > > IS and OSPF. > > > > b) FYI - We updated "IGP Algorithm Type" to "IGP Algorithm Types" > ("Types" > > rather than "Type") per the name of the registy at > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-algorithm-types > . > > > > Original (appears multiple times in the document): > > Algorithm values are > > defined in the IGP Algorithm Type registry [RFC8665]. > > > > Updated: > > Algorithm values are > > defined in the "IGP Algorithm Types" registry [RFC8665]. > > --> > > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] We have updated "as defined in [RFC8986] flavors" as > > follows. Please review. > > > > Original: > > The Maximum End Pop MSD Type signals the maximum number of SIDs in > > the SRH to which the router can apply "Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP) > > of the SRH" or "Ultimate Segment Pop (USP) of the SRH", as defined in > > [RFC8986] flavors. > > > > Perhaps: > > The Maximum End Pop MSD Type signals the maximum number of SIDs in > > the SRH to which the router can apply "Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP) > > of the SRH" or "Ultimate Segment Pop (USP) of the SRH", which are > > defined flavors in [RFC8986]. > > --> > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Should this note be in the <aside> element? The <aside> > element > > is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less > > important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" > > (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). > > > > Original: > > NOTE: The drop behavior depends on the absence of a > > default/summary route matching the locator prefix. > > --> > > > > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rephrasing the following sentence for > > readability. Does the suggested text below retain your intended meaning? > > > > Original: > > The procedures for OSPFv3 Flexible Algorithm for SR-MPLS, as > > specified in [RFC9350], like ASBR reachability, inter-area, external, > and NSSA > > prefix advertisements and their use in Flexible Algorithm route > computation > > also apply for SRv6. > > > > Perhaps: > > The procedures for OSPFv3 Flexible Algorithm for SR-MPLS as > > specified in [RFC9350] also apply for SRv6 (e.g., ASBR reachability and > > inter-area, external, and NSSA prefix advertisements and their use in > > Flexible Algorithm route computation). > > --> > > > > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated "Up to 16-octet field" to "1-16 octets" > for > > clarity. Please review. > > > > Original: > > Locator: Up to 16-octet field. This field encodes the advertised > > SRv6 Locator as an IPv6 Prefix as specified in section A.4.1 of > > [RFC5340]. > > > > Updated: > > Locator: > > 1-16 octets. This field encodes the advertised SRv6 > > locator as an IPv6 Prefix as specified in Appendix A.4.1 of > > [RFC5340]. > > --> > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] We do not see "END behavior" (with all caps) in RFC > 8986, though > > we do see "End behavior" (initial caps). Please review and let us know > > if any updates are needed here. > > > > Original: > > Every SRv6-enabled OSPFv3 router SHOULD > > advertise at least one SRv6 SID associated with an END behavior for > > itself as specified in [RFC8986], although it MAY omit doing so if > > that node is not going to be used as a Segment Endpoint (e.g., for TE > > or TI-LFA) by any SR Source Node. > > --> > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] We have included some specific questions about the IANA > text in > > the document. In addition to responding to those questions, please > > review all of the IANA-related updates carefully and let us know if any > > updates are needed. > > > > a) FYI - We have updated the IANA section to use tables for improved > readability. > > > > > > b) Section 13.8: May we update the range as follows to match the range > listed > > in the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA TLVs" registry? We know that values 0 > and 1 > > are assigned by this document. Link to registry: > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa > > > > Original: > > Types in the range 2-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or IESG > > Approval [RFC8126]. > > > > Perhaps: > > Types in the range 0-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or IESG > > Approval [RFC8126]. > > > > > > c) Section 13.9: May we update the range as follows to match the range > listed > > in the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry? We know that values > 0-5 > > and 10 are assigned by this document. Link to registry: > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa-sub-tlvs > . > > > > Original: > > Types in the range 6-9 and 11-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or > > IESG Approval [RFC8126]. > > > > Perhaps: > > Types in the range 0-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or > > IESG Approval [RFC8126]. > > > > > > d) Sections 13.9 and 13.10: We updated the notes in these sections as > follows > > (it may be easier to see the changes in the diff file). Please review > and let > > us know any objections. > > > > Note that we will ask IANA to update these notes in the "OSPFv3 SRv6 > Locator > > LSA TLVs" and "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registries, > respectively, to > > match the edited document prior to publication. > > > > Links to registries: > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa-sub-tlvs > > > > Original: > > Note: Allocations made under this registry for any sub-TLVs that are > > associated with OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator TLVs MUST be also evaluated for > > their applicability as OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs and, therefore, > > also requiring allocation under the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" > > registry. > > ... > > Note: Allocations made under this registry for any sub-TLVs that are > > associated with OSPFv3 Extended TLVs related to prefix advertisements > > MUST be also evaluated for their applicability as OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator > > Sub-TLVs and, therefore, also requiring allocation under the "OSPFv3 > > SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry. > > > > Updated: > > | Note: Allocations made in this registry for sub-TLVs that are > > | associated with OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator TLVs MUST be evaluated for > > | their applicability as OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLVs, which are > > | required to be allocated in the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" > > | registry. > > ... > > | Note: Allocations made in this registry for sub-TLVs that are > > | associated with OSPFv3 Extended TLVs related to prefix > > | advertisements MUST be evaluated for their applicability as OSPFv3 > > | SRv6 Locator sub-TLVs, which are required to be allocated in > > | the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry. > > --> > > > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online > > Style Guide > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and > let > > us know if any changes are needed. Note that our script did not flag any > > words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best > > practice. --> > > > > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon > first use > > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > > > LSA > > NSSA > > TI-LFA > > --> > > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Are the terms "legacy OSPFv3 LSA" and "OSPFv3 legacy > LSA" interchangeable? If so, we suggest using one or the other for > consistency throughout the document. > > > > Original (legacy OSPFv3 LSA): > > When operating in Extended LSA sparse-mode [RFC8362], these > > locators SHOULD be also advertised using legacy OSPFv3 LSAs [RFC5340]. > > > > Original (OSPFv3 legacy LSA): > > In cases where a locator advertisement is received both in a > > prefix reachability advertisement... the prefix reachability > advertisement in > > the OSPFv3 legacy LSA or Extended LSA MUST be preferred over the > advertisement > > in the SRv6 Locator TLV when installing entries in the forwarding plane. > > --> > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > RFC Editor/mc/rv > > > > > > > > On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:00 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > Updated 2023/10/30 > > > > RFC Author(s): > > -------------- > > > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > > your approval. > > > > Planning your review > > --------------------- > > > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > > > * RFC Editor questions > > > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > > follows: > > > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > > > * Content > > > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > > - contact information > > - references > > > > * Copyright notices and legends > > > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/). > > > > * Semantic markup > > > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > > > * Formatted output > > > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > > > > Submitting changes > > ------------------ > > > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > > include: > > > > * your coauthors > > > > * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > > list: > > > > * More info: > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > > > * The archive itself: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and > > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > > > An update to the provided XML file > > — OR — > > An explicit list of changes in this format > > > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > > > OLD: > > old text > > > > NEW: > > new text > > > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of > text, > > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found > in > > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream > manager. > > > > > > Approving for publication > > -------------------------- > > > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > > > > Files > > ----- > > > > The files are available here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.txt > > > > Diff file of the text: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes > > where text has been deleted or moved): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-alt-diff.html > > > > Diff of the XML: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-xmldiff1.html > > > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own > > diff files of the XML. > > > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.original.v2v3.xml > > > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates > > only: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.form.xml > > > > > > Tracking progress > > ----------------- > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9513 > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Editor > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC9513 (draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15) > > > > Title : OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6 > > Author(s) : Z. Li, Z. Hu, K. Talaulikar, Ed., P. Psenak > > WG Chair(s) : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps > > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston > >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-o… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Peter Psenak
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- [auth48] 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Lizhenbin
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- [auth48] 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Lizhenbin
- [auth48] 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Huzhibo
- [auth48] 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Huzhibo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Alanna Paloma
- [auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- [auth48] [IANA #1289591] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-t… David Dong via RT
- Re: [auth48] [IANA #1289591] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: R… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Ketan Talaulikar