Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03
Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com> Fri, 21 January 2022 21:49 UTC
Return-Path: <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D2583A0F3D for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 13:49:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 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_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.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 T9TY8Lntaa8c for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 13:49:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sonic301-32.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (sonic301-32.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [66.163.184.201]) (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 99DCE3A0F16 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 13:49:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1642801755; bh=Cy66fhMa44OZSszmt5RM+cbFUCbZp3Yg02CbkI1gjXg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject:Reply-To; b=rC29U2wGGSBiWEVSyS6P3+Tl2JYBoJP+kmYnvRHIkhlJBNntN+PLyMuO2glA8sMz3a0uY5wL6Py+UrmV1Tr7lITxcXCakdOTAxewgB5+MRVdmoTD0by+UsXDX0IusYLzJoy2T50WwBfYQIHgmmm/u4GBxw8H+IanPjDOJPAkY9rrcsCL5qzKPJJqahBptplwD7ofWKcqtV7/Vp9rTKa+BI8RLvRvVn9OINYhqfCbkkk68KfsILXTvV/gG6iSqzMUhBTUl2iy7/onWwgbRCnn08AhvVpr81/zX6qGBmxVrHtdSDJeI+9abf7PW36W+s8hKXpk0WXsWkwAuCWUyRMZow==
X-SONIC-DKIM-SIGN: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1642801755; bh=bcB4tSw6pIhU1ok8wMe9ToN6nr3nCi3eHTDXNIx24eH=; h=X-Sonic-MF:Date:From:To:Subject:From:Subject; b=WP/irFyJ07LmIePjdcSo3SyhZJ/5EMYASrP0rEF2AzfP/DSdBAl60M3LhLqK7qG9fTDVkVlrf416IlR+3dVbx/3GsKC7rAua8UNlUQRUl31YFGGh/Qgw8sFTSmhNgTHwWnsxIrBfW7p8VD4Af+ElD4dryD1DnxQwxphwGdefB/r3nsq371Ud/KzuC14VRn88NMOORCNw9Olndf+SIqis1A19sgsrzvdfElij1WqOpe5kf/7COCUKmkOrxAu5SOUy4yfQy0WWU+yaSOPwW7phzjrnZEQBA8mvBCaiUS9gbyrRwbAU3r6qDWy2ufe7ja6N55Z03SHa/trfhfzLcMux8w==
X-YMail-OSG: K61LpDgVM1mUbQQ4crZVF3pQGkyKRo5b1QajgBrY9.kY60XCoubiveIZC80kesi deQhpz1.kHd4JJAdBxMXFzV3CpwGs31u4S3rabu9hAHq84oFZoJvGXOfAlO0_Vo74FsgoXukMUpK HkfjmLFlmaR8ATsZm3jfvwng7RhURAw.atrUDHWdu7baE5knmhRbEfNjKFeIkAVmEF27A59f.Fg. fPKpFBT8ZMZ_9BxfcrFe12QSMRPNaBAmW8H7wh2TNe.fY5gl9vzWlFsu_RMplJ8FZSYTX_8rv8vU QFRED3jSENXUzw8sKD3Hb5OhJ_JAFgmJcgzzG.BTHZtBndRyqCGOWY6x8IAfzV9I3tFAZ6EsE_q6 wJxsGYxry5jbWs.ZI8FAUIhWiUdK8bd3YO5u6nTt.KpKhNiXoOPmbIXm9Yrlq4B5C8PLfP7qDHRd P6CMezM7QuxDepgCFftEWo9uiUGcNRdj24u3Ep5OfOvsDi4KIa0a_S9H1ZgSrzF97xQtBAgZx3bp hydT9q_0cRjymDok9qjY2Abow4n_.tG_rzOuqOz1A0XKLfNVgkJONErmd2Q.NzbcaHMsawxrFWqe PW4prw_Ot0DMTmacRDl8PNrZtIXJx4_hyBcALO_hxPfC2xhoifYy3iLfg43n8thGxATZkRJzRIs6 DesyHZFbblDfUerM7b2OFwyOk53qpUYLg.fRAojFUPeGoT9z16vXuRTiVzZle.bZ7.3Whu2Qs6Xv BEvPewSDxnf_RpV3mbOJDWfqNXe_kMo8sE3hLKxTB1FBEbvSEo8BF_9lqb4.OrGHivBNSarNyKRm KMRz7CEG7fvuPPiWRdXyP7qvpx10IbSUX26bRsBM4ARYKR.79mtODFajDNXeyignxj4sWVeRgjlo Wfl4nDpy5HseDvotsdQB.r0Yh5Y5hEbQePNjRsSvqA_NKZtZ_fvdUykWlN56kfRcmIercIQQfjDX ffTq35iEg2ZhXndbHmF.K3I21NPiM2tUwNUIV4l8_achruX.WIG91J64T62tEmWgnhSg1NtxPUsA ikiOwEgGO1IOhZFvxh0uT3sRXkEyedKD7hqEWw4.r5xaNAYNXnzUId8mq2ROxkLCoJwuyYbg0G6Y kRMF8C5BBW5U8zzxY3EYM68LG6SgbAFXvmvDrU0m9hs.bbX_hL0As8xZchP6Jh2iRxugJ.HtGH4X DG1EX7aPbE8NxioiEukd5zg4hwkBwKQFH2u0FeKv.jfvetzkRBpApripksLgDADNAPJFhisof41O rgRoYVwYomsmR6DdP4NVCGKGQNAdRpCKvwNs5v2xoFAq3B5mb1aCguIys8QbG7J7KLa7AisqCSLj veOa8gizytfuAuPuptHuVBd4AwiG8r4URT4kKLDUVe.YFA5kvDyp0wdHm0azwPLAFe8Bikhi4XX8 0gigDbfGoyE2UVL4JQBasNZBeTnBTeIZxQ9SR4t3_LKUSSp2hjEDF_5qXGdxAk22is.40ndPho97 y3aFa4GBhZEyC_GqJTFzs4mZpzhR0PjZgoPk5DsImoTP9KlkpVSwYZ04V_6bvuQ_131_svFW.kV8 QXFNLT9F2pjA0EmIWHoFpJSGTI.atCq7pG8Mrfg2.LvWB8IOh_HpXCGM_omN2ewAQrM5LVl17Y2c ppdzMe9S8kz6C0EEAJuM.URSGp5rylVDZ39tk81iwRsv9j2FGx.bAQDadJo9gVSJ8y92ofaUOURx CVvzsBjqwpjMjvH1XfJur7WoJt3OyweX6iCwwuZY7OZ1LTwlPpOP2Jn55OBgtaU9cLLl_Dm8iA6x J46RSdpbmsHQdjpXGR3MURD5LqZB3j4TIWcI09yehVqZ3.h19ZKzxKbyYz5DfJHlMKWtNIB.BjJZ V7Fr3Fu489dFBLiYvAD2u92VzBehEPCvlS_PgSw85ZUurjF0DMivyhXVQM8UwI2N38JJxtNqsWrw FnKnGpxszGfzvCm9n.EFtGZgIWqWeDYucl24.grrGKGXi79KKF4J0FhEvqCRk21YtZ7COh4ked6a xRX9dagru_rWNaEsM6fRWlVnnjpaPGp7b3Geh5ib57c8JAwNT4ctRkYtur5sU0k3e8lauZGqxhm5 xfZIZTq6whpcP5e3xvx9enX3rf9DGgvmgSzttqJcn.oFFxSMgao5KUEIlBempx44Okk6okiirGNw .IcktIEzvvf4LOhZyYS47sHM.nrwm5cnfGgUGNK.HiZ7zK1kni.xb_xkh4YZ2VzywOmiBJMhs8j4 Avrn.qYA8IucZ.ogdAiIcOBcbjjGE5Lz7wsPmNhjuXL3LZEdnIZLEtqn1KPkg0_AULIBD6uyEz4N pZw7ts.TE0EFOBhqtTDwUlWSHGjMv3SWolgeJ.9.6DGE9
X-Sonic-MF: <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic301.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 21:49:15 +0000
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 21:49:08 +0000
From: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
To: jmh@joelhalpern.com, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Aihua Guo <aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <934457352.1197598.1642801748295@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <e65d2e96-d437-66dc-8aec-a8fcbfdeb658@joelhalpern.com>
References: <57454ea9d22240cbad4dd7c29b75f89a@huawei.com> <04c001d808a1$d5b22b50$811681f0$@olddog.co.uk> <CABNhwV18Em-F0bWOF=4MimW2tres+9WWVNZ3vKNm4gt-ki72hw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFS+G6SL+GtOgOy5H4er-hKHWpFREygHmDXv_0UD-7xTjURcDQ@mail.gmail.com> <e65d2e96-d437-66dc-8aec-a8fcbfdeb658@joelhalpern.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1197597_2010517842.1642801748289"
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.19615 YahooMailAndroidMobile
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/KLe87hmI6GO1um6bdmMxBWv_41o>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 21:49:23 -0000
Question: if I am to ask for a slice of a 3 layer cake with raspberries at the top, walnuts in the middle and pineapple at the bottom ( for SLOs) do I send the request to one or three separate places? If the latter, how do I know where from and from how many places the kitchen gets its walnuts? Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 3:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern<jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: Under what circumstance, even if the customer knows (out of band) that the operator has OTN capability) would the customer somehow specify OTN specifics as part of requesting an end-to-end network slice (which inherently has to traverse more than the OTN?) Yours, Joel On 1/21/2022 2:07 PM, Aihua Guo wrote: > Hi Gyan, > > I'd agree with you and Adrian that a technology-agnostic network > slicing, i.e. IETF NS can be used to specify slice requests regardless > of underlay network technologies - whether it being IP or OTN. Actually, > in draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing, Figure 2 describes the support > for this scenario with multiple options, as shown below: > > +--------------------+____ > > | Provider's User |____ > > +--------|-----------+____ > > | CMI____ > > +-----------------------+----------------------------+____ > > | Orchestrator / E2E Slice Controller |____ > > +------------+-----------------------------+---------+____ > > | | NSC-NBI____ > > | +---------------------+---------+____ > > | | IETF Network Slice Controller |____ > > | +-----+---------------+---------+____ > > |/_option3_/ |/_option 2_/ |____ > > | OTN-SC NBI |OTN-SC NBI |____ > > +------------+-------------+--------+ | /_option 1_/____ > > | OTN-SC | |____ > > +--------------------------+--------+ |____ > > | MPI | MPI____ > > +--------------------------+---------------+---------+____ > > | PNC |____ > > +--------------------------+-------------------------+____ > > | SBI____ > > +-----------+----------+____ > > |OTN Physical Network |____ > > +----------------------+____ > > __ __ > > */_Option 1:_/* the IETF NSC receives a technology-agnostic slice > request, it uses MPI to realize the slice on PNC using available > mechanisms, such as L1VPN, abstract TE topologies, TE tunnels, or any > proprietary technologies the controller chooses to use. In this case, > the OTN-SC NBI is not used.__ > > __ __ > > */_Option 2:_/* the IETF NSC receives a technology-agnostic slice > request and delegates the request to the OTN-SC by using the OTN slicing > interface at the OTN-SC NBI. The OTN-SC NBI is technology specific and > augments the IETF NSC NBI. Therefore, the IETF NSC request to OTN-SC can > be either technology agnostic or OTN specific depending on the > realization of IETF NSC. The OTN-SC will in turn work with the PNC and > realize the slice. In this option, OTN-SC is essentially a subordinate > slice controller of the IETF NSC which also meets the hierarchical > nature of slice control as described in the network slice framework > document. > > __ > > __ __ > > Both Option 1 and Option 2 are in line with the view that a customer can > request a technology-agnostic NS and the IETF-NSC can realize the slice > in its underlay networks whether it being OTN or packet.____ > > > Additionally, */_Option 3: _/* a customer who is OTN-aware may use the > augmented OTN-SC NBI to request an OTN slice with OTN-specific SLOs > (e.g. BER, bandwidth in terms of the # of time slots), and the OTN SC > realizes the slice by working with the underlying PNC(s) in single- or > multi-domain network scenarios. Several use cases for option 3 are also > described in the draft. > > > To summarize, the OTN slicing model provides a service-intent interface > that supports the configuration of OTN slices, which can be realized by > the OTN-SC controller in various ways. The OTN SC also allows an > OTN-aware customer to create OTN slices with OTN-specific SLOs. > > __ __ > > I hope the above clarification could be helpful. Authors are open to > make further clarifications in the document to align with the framework > of IETF network slicing.__ > > __ __ > > Thanks,____ > > Aihua > > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 3:26 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com > <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Hi Adrian > > I agree with all your comments related to this draft especially the > complexity with this approach as compared to ACTN architecture. One > critical point you make is that the slice service should be > independent of underlay technology. As OTN is a component of the > underlay it goes against the agnostic slice approach taken with IETF > Network Slice. > > Others have mentioned the same related to underlay technology slice > added complexity and does that mean a different slice Yang model > for each L1 Technology “Bottoms Up” approach. 😁 > > Comments in-line > > Kind Regards > > Gyan > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:20 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk > <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>> wrote: > > Hi Fatai, Daniele,____ > > __ __ > > I think that CCAMP should work on YANG models for slicing OTN > networks. I think that this draft forms a starting point and > should be adopted, but like Igor, “I have questions”.____ > > __ Gyan> I support WG adoption and I think all the comments > mentioned can be addressed.__ > > So, my support for adoption is heavily conditional on the > authors not believing that the approach used in the draft is > fixed. (This is normal, but it is worth highlighting in view of > my thoughts, below).____ > > __ > > I am particularly interested to look at harmonising this work > with draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing and > draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang/> > (I appreciate the work the authors have done to synchronise with > draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices). > > Gyan> Agreed > > I think one question here is whether the “slice request” > interface shouldn’t actually be built on > draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang/> > (i.e. top down, not bottom up as currently). > > Gyan> Agreed. > > The point being that “The definition of an IETF Network Slice > Service is independent of the connectivity and technologies used > in the underlay network” [draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices] > meaning that the NBI in this model could be a > technology-specific augmentation of > draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang/>.____ > > Gyan> Agreed > > Another question is why there is the need to introduce the > complexity of interfaces and controllers shown in Figure 2, when > Figure 1 of draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing considers > a more simple mapping between the slicing and ACTN > architectures. That is, why does the CMI appear as different > from the OTN-SC NBI and the NSC NBI? > > Gyan> Completely Agree. ACTN mapping is a much simpler mapping. > > ____ > > We might also debate the meaning of “E2E Slice Controller” since > this term is not mentioned anywhere except in Figure 2 and only > appears once in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices (in Figure > 2) that appears to have escaped being cleaned up.____ > > __ __ > > But, I think these are questions that can be easily resolved in > discussions within the WG, so adoption should be safe.____ > > __ Gyan> Agreed __ > > Best,____ > > Adrian____ > > __ __ > > PS. At some stage the AD is going to ask, “Please find a way to > reduce the front page authors to 5 or fewer.” Experience > suggests that it is easier to do this sooner rather than later, > and it is better if the authors resolve that rather than > requiring the chairs to force the point.____ > > __ __ > > *From:*CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org > <mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org>> *On Behalf Of *Fatai Zhang > > > *Sent:* 12 January 2022 02:24 > *To:* CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>> > *Subject:* [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on > draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03____ > > __ __ > > Hi all,____ > > __ __ > > All the IPR declarations regarding > draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03 have been collected, this > starts the polling for WG adoption.____ > > __ __ > > The poll will last 2 weeks and will end on Wednesday January > 26th.____ > > __ __ > > Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do > not support" and a motivation for your reply, mandatory for the > "not support" and nice to have for the "support".____ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > Thanks,____ > > __ __ > > Fatai & Daniele____ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org <mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp> > > -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > /Network Solutions A//rchitect / > > /Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>// > / > > /M 301 502-1347 > > / > > > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org <mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp> > > > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-yan… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Victor Lopez
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Aihua Guo
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Italo Busi
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Zhenghaomian
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Henry Yu
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-c… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-c… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-c… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-c… Aihua Guo
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-c… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-c… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-c… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-c… Italo Busi
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-c… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-c… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Aihua Guo
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Zhenghaomian
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Aihua Guo
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Aihua Guo
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Loa Andersson
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Aihua Guo
- Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp… Gyan Mishra