Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Mon, 06 February 2017 12:33 UTC
Return-Path: <rmohanr@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B924C129D32; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 04:33:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 DQb_Y1zW2ZM4; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 04:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44908129D31; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 04:33:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=18984; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486384381; x=1487593981; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=7wFMtpieHsqz6dBWkrT2gGvU+Hj3Y4GQLesAJZiPgTs=; b=CSMDpp2a/POFvua1vdkQrXdhMz5V4R7Uc1iL/opdxBPbEpiz0P3AlsTf x/R8DMoeckRFBBKa5taAsxaNkZ1WXQJOXUllKpv27QKyS4+t37I3C6VCe 4JeNLDZwIIuFmoGDidG4rC79eqfOrj4FoSe6ymCgyR23EXCwhcKFQIDeM o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BHAQDma5hY/4kNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1NhgQkHg1GKCJIMkyiCD4IMKoV4AhqCMD8YAQIBAQEBAQEBYiiEaQEBAQMBIxFFDAQCAQgOAwMBAgECAh8HAgICMBUICAIEAQ0FH4lMCA6uUIIlizUBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYELh0aBYYEJgxeBJxYHECOCTC6CMQWJB5JfAYZniyGBe4UXiXCTCwEfOH5PFTwRAYQyHRmBSHWGWyuBAwGBCwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,342,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="382022390"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 06 Feb 2017 12:32:59 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (xch-rtp-017.cisco.com [64.101.220.157]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v16CWx5U032631 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:32:59 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 07:32:58 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-017.cisco.com ([64.101.220.157]) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com ([64.101.220.157]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 07:32:58 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSbeseZdw0JJoDs02EXfYysuX0qaE7UlwAgAAvAwCAAGIlAP//pZyAgABgG4CAAS0tAIAAXSIAgAGXSoCAANpmAIARYtkAgAhGBgCAAacwgIABiTEA
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:32:58 +0000
Message-ID: <8577E5D1-1E3F-4B06-BDF2-832D8C16E4C5@cisco.com>
References: <148434596441.9752.6696571117558965561.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CC88E0DB-1B9A-4565-BC9B-724ADFC94B75@cisco.com> <1484576862.2842665.849203352.4F87F4EA@webmail.messagingengine.com> <30CC3092-0ED4-4983-8203-8394FD06D0A9@cisco.com> <1484578527.2848348.849241320.7317C68A@webmail.messagingengine.com> <BAA69D79-2948-4953-A076-2B4917D1DDEB@cisco.com> <3E8813A2-FC3D-433F-B51B-41380ABD3D95@cooperw.in> <60D33439-D03C-4E3D-A293-9DE608AC5DB4@cisco.com> <6E698BCA-2F14-4660-B053-BEDA42860B86@cooperw.in> <67E82966-54E2-403B-9684-2F8580B75A9E@cisco.com> <CD64A072-93BA-4C01-850F-1654FAA59549@cisco.com> <EA31015F-4ECC-4F45-BDDC-5DA325273E3E@fastmail.fm> <3B129AC4-6AC6-463E-B8F6-C6CD261D795A@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3B129AC4-6AC6-463E-B8F6-C6CD261D795A@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.0.160910
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [72.163.175.95]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <A0DD6FBC9B1A474D86C5D85C5A8AADCB@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/i8tD4DDx4t8cMPE2gLN1IqpgZ_A>
Cc: "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bfcpbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:33:04 -0000
I have published a new revision addressing all the IESG feedback received so far. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-09 Diff is here - https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-09 Regards, Ram -----Original Message----- From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Date: Sunday, 5 February 2017 at 6:35 PM To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thanks Alexey, I will publish the revision after fixing the nits you pointed below Ram -----Original Message----- From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Date: Saturday, 4 February 2017 at 10:51 PM To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi Ram, > On 30 Jan 2017, at 05:30, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) <rmohanr@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Alexey/all, > > Please find the diffs with the changes to use single attribute. This diff also has other comments from Ben, Kathleen incorporated. This looks much better, thank you! You have introduced a typo in one place (search for "wwebsocket"). Best Regards, Alexey > Regards, > Ram > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> > Date: Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 9:30 AM > To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> > Cc: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Hi Alissa, > > I don’t have a strong opinion on this. Either way (having a single attribute or two different SDP attributes) would work. > > Implementations can still retrieve the value (URI) of that attribute and based on the proto line (TCP/WS/BFCP or TCP/WSS/BFCP) match the URI against ws or wss schema defined in RFC6455. I would expect such a validation to happen across layers. > The SDP stack parser to look at the proto line transport value (TCP/WS/BFCP or TCP/WSS/BFCP) and check for presence of a=websocket-uri attribute. The value of this attribute (ws or wss schema) can be passed *as is* to the application (in this case BFCP client application) which will validate it against the schema in RFC 6455. > > I am OK to incorporate this comment to have a single SDP attribute. > > Regards, > Ram > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> > Date: Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 1:58 AM > To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> > Cc: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org> > Resent-To: <rmohanr@cisco.com>, <gsalguei@cisco.com> > Resent-Date: Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 1:58 AM > > Hi Ram, > > I had some further conversation with Alexey on the side and wanted to come back to a question he posed: is there a reason why a=ws-uri and a=wss-uri both need to be specified? Why can’t a single label be specified, say a=websocket-uri, and then have normative language requiring the scheme in the URI itself to match what’s in the associated m-line (ws:// for TCP/WS/BFCP and wss:// for TCP/WSS/BFCP)? Won’t it be more efficient for implementations to grab the URI itself anyway and check that the scheme matches the m-line? > > Thanks, > Alissa > >> On Jan 17, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) <rmohanr@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Alissa, >> >> I am fine with the proposed text. >> >> Thanks, >> Ram >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> >> Date: Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 8:07 PM >> To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> >> Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org>, "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> >> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >> >> Alexey, would the following changes clarify things? >> >> Section 4.1 >> OLD >> the server side, which could be either >> the offerer or answerer, MUST add an "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri" >> attribute in the media section >> NEW >> the server side, which could be either >> the offerer or answerer, MUST add an "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri” >> attribute (but not both) in the media section >> >> Section 4.3 >> OLD >> If the answers assigns SDP "setup" attribute with "passive", then it >> MUST have a URI in either "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri" attribute >> depending on whether the application uses WebSocket or >> secureWebSocket. >> NEW >> If the answers assigns SDP "setup" attribute with "passive", then it >> MUST have a URI in either "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri" attribute >> (but not both) in the media section, depending on whether the application uses WebSocket or >> secureWebSocket. >> >> Ram, would you be okay with those clarifications? >> >> Alissa >> >> >>> On Jan 16, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) <rmohanr@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alexey, >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> >>> Date: Monday, 16 January 2017 at 8:25 PM >>> To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> >>> Cc: "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org> >>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >>> >>> Hi Ram, >>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017, at 02:49 PM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote: >>>> Hi Alexey, >>>> >>>> Please see inline <Ram> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> >>>> Date: Monday, 16 January 2017 at 7:57 PM >>>> To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> >>>> Cc: "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org" >>>> <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" >>>> <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, >>>> "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on >>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >>>> >>>> Hi Ram, >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017, at 06:09 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote: >>>>> Hi Alexey, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your feedback. Please see inline <Ram> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Alexey Melnikov >>>>> <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> >>>>> Date: Saturday, 14 January 2017 at 3:49 AM >>>>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> >>>>> Cc: "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org" >>>>> <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" >>>>> <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, >>>>> "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org> >>>>> Subject: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on >>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >>>>> >>>>> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for >>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: Discuss >>>>> >>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> DISCUSS: >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> This is generally a well written document, but I have a small list of >>>>> issues that I would like to discuss before recommending its approval: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Are a=ws-uri and a=wss-uri mutually exclusive? (Section 4.3 is a >>>>> good >>>>> place to mention what to do if both are specified). >>>>> >>>>> <Ram> Yes kind of. In a given media line (m= line) we will either have >>>>> a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri. That said a response from a BFCP server using >>>>> webSocket as a transport can >>>>> have two media lines one with ws and other with wss. Something like: >>>>> >>>>> Answer (server): >>>>> m=application 50000 TCP/WSS/BFCP * >>>>> a=setup:passive >>>>> a=connection:new >>>>> a=wss-uri:wss://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312 >>>>> m=application 50000 TCP/WS/BFCP * >>>>> a=setup:passive >>>>> a=connection:new >>>>> a=ws-uri:ws://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312 >>>> >>>> [Alexey]: This is exactly my problem, you should specify how a >>>> recipient >>>> should handle your example above. If you only have 1 attribute, the >>>> problem goes away entirely. >>>> >>>> <Ram> in the above case, they are still two different m= lines. The >>>> receiver (after offer/answer is done) of this SDP connects to the URI >>>> mentioned in that m= line. >>>> Note I just re-used the same URL/port in the example above. If there are >>>> multiple m=application media lines (they will be for different >>>> applications) being negotiated in SDP, one application may use secure WS >>>> and other application may use non-secure WS. The client after it receives >>>> the answer SDP will just setup the connection to the URI specified in the >>>> attribute. >>> >>> Sorry, I was thinking about different example: >>> >>> m=application 50000 TCP/WSS/BFCP * >>> a=setup:passive >>> a=connection:new >>> a=wss-uri:wss://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312 >>> a=ws-uri:ws://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312 >>> >>> You have 2 conflicting URIs for the same m= line. Is this possible? >>> >>> <Ram> No this is not possible. If the transport is TCP/WSS/BFCP we should have only a=wss-uri. If transport is TCP/WS/BFCP we should have only a=ws-uri. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ram >>> >>>> I don’t see any problem in here. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ram >>>> >>>>> Why not a single attribute, considering that both ws: and wss: URIs >>>>> are >>>>> possible? >>>>> >>>>> <Ram> I would still prefer two attributes. We just followed the >>>>> convention / approach that was used in [RFC6455]. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > > > <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08.txt - draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-09.txt.html> > <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-09.txt>
- [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov