Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 16 January 2015 20:36 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB05C1B2B89 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:36:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.778
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FRT_SLUT=2.522, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 QCl3x105BEOU for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:35:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A18BE1B2B88 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:35:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0GKZpnm018887; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:35:51 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (80-121-133-160.adsl.highway.telekom.at [80.121.133.160]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0GKZnrv018881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:35:50 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Leeyoung' <leeyoung@huawei.com>, draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <00dd01d026c8$c3bd9280$4b38b780$@olddog.co.uk> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C71EBC@dfweml706-chm>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C71EBC@dfweml706-chm>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:35:50 -0000
Message-ID: <061c01d031cc$04913920$0db3ab60$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGuBc8fgeeljdJ0ZqOUd7m3it/ADQMMa/K0nO8nu3A=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21258.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.827-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--16.827-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: IeZYkn8zfFqnykMun0J1wvHkpkyUphL9Ud7Bjfo+5jQ5CCUkHUNu7l8P CCxSDY8vxBVPBDt9NWDtztXOOYV+4FBcD+fUZsB3p9ciXoJ/pWvNXgP7liZ5IpnNlSgGlfGpkdv IxNucy7+/7P8Kn+XkCX1KuvpUktmcNGfbF3CuxektMfCdg6KRDbQtUQGcjvHVIFBEE5CFomKSo7 YBtVK4/LrpeJrM1CK5OXh+vcntO3Bg0s9CJc8XvB3EEAbn+GRbnbR1KGab5Xm7+NPPxj+R6sXyP yHR36DVS1ayce3yAb6caX6Dvv+qh064sLvrq1LKdXz3l78F3Yk6En2bnefhoFfXgfL55invOgzl DZRw74sfhcUQijhd/wbqZM3zDkF0vycUQR1kwKYgKw/iul4Zx/cSIoniEyWosp5O052MzLryb35 SZdaBrJM0aoaSyIzHwwsK8ezn183au9iF5mAFeylrosmS0SOAMZm0+sEE9mslP1vFxquW9hnFeU hjgGQW+PU3j/oc0qUPs83S68xkMDcDLA95do+zhsE+u3nnCfDJ5SXtoJPLyI0F/H1BKHLgfYU2C f7Gf9lgHXrd7zy3WPCmupLh2jJ53MzeZlPGORdUJ1Ud7T8U/hNwWv2dBrmkH1bhq4z+yfSVP+jF +CZwUSBvW/mLOyUJsJZHwROosuK0TGHcoEhE3jDfgfM3Zc/RhQaFqMRElgkcXmBZ3mI5SQDDWSS ylqoGWkp65qH3viM5pYX88gSRnwvuBkbttOjik3ewifG2MNPGdQx1K0CtmTnKpbGL4ChVKSyMl4 Bp7a5TKmVbi8YBkjflP41njKHUGJBzk6LE3bOeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCpvI8UZOf47gc4WL5J jd88I2j49Ftap9EOwBXM346/+zb82p5LoMxQYuPT1OGWzOyPqsSflAyF97P28hvfc+BmfDQtSx7 RCad
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Yppwr6Rn0TU5w_-8-7c5o4EjQFo>
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 16 Jan 2015 20:36:02 -0000
This is much clearer. Thanks! Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Leeyoung [mailto:leeyoung@huawei.com] > Sent: 15 January 2015 20:06 > To: Leeyoung; adrian@olddog.co.uk; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson- > encode.all@tools.ietf.org > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode > > Hi Adrian, > > There was one question I left unanswered in the previous email. Here's my > comment. You said: > > --- > > Section 3.3 > > Where Action = 0 denotes a list of 16 bit integers and Action = 1 > denotes a bit map. In both cases the elements of the RB Set field > are in a one-to-one correspondence with the values in the usage RB > usage state area. > > This is not clear. I think the Action field is explaining how the > RB Usage State field is encoded. > - Not sure why you call it "Action" > - Would be good if you could make it clear that "16 bit integers" > or "bit map" apply to the RB Usage State field. > > But... > > RB#i State (16 bits, unsigned integer): indicates Resource Block #i > is in use or available. > > - You might say what value of the 16 bit unsigned integer indicates in > use and what value indicates available. > - You should explain to me why a list of 16 bit integers to encode a > set of Booleans is in anyway efficient or appropriate. > > It is *really* hard to parse from this section that the state applies > to the whole RB when Action is 0, but applies to the elements of the RBs > when Action is 1. At least, that is what I think I parsed from the text > although I also found text in the section that convinced me you meant > something else. > > In short, this section is not clear! > > [YOUNG] How about: > > OLD: RB#i State (16 bits, unsigned integer): indicates Resource Block #i > is in use or available. > NEW: RB#i State (16 bits, unsigned integer): indicates the number of resources > available in Resource Block #i. > > Action = 1 covers the case where each resource block only contains a single > element. > Action = 0 covers the case where there are multiple elements for each resource > block. > > Hope this helps. Thanks. > > Young > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Leeyoung > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 5:20 PM > To: 'adrian@olddog.co.uk'; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode > > Hi Adrian, > > Thanks. > > My comment for general vs. WSON-specific issue is that > the design philosophy of general encoding was to generalize a common element > that can be applied > to different technologies. For instance, connectivity matrix definitely can be > applied to WSON, OTN and other > Switching technology as one encoding can fit to all. You seemed to desire a > sharing of the same encoding to describe > different entities where possible. This is fine for label vs. wavelength as there is > one-to-one mapping for this. > However, Resource Block encoding cannot properly share with the connectivity > matrix encoding with two reasons: > > 1. They refer to different elements in the node. > 2. They require different sets of fields with different number of fields. > > Please also see my comment in-line for details. > > Thanks, > Young > -----Original Message----- > From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 2:15 PM > To: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode > > Hello, > > I've now done my AD review of this document. I am rather regretting > starting the IETF last call for draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint- > encode on which this document depends because it seems that this > document introduces WSON-specific encodings (all of those before > Section 4) that should/could have been made generic. In fact, I > thought the point of the general encodings document was to produce > protocol objects that could be used by technology-specific documents > like this one. > > If you can respond to my comments below, we can work out whether the > general encodings document needs to be brought back for more work. > > Thanks for your efforts with this. > > Adrian > > =========== > > Abstract > > while other parts are fairly specific to WSONs. > > They are either specific or they are not. I think you need > s/fairly specific/specific/ > > [YOUNG] YES. > > --- > > Shouldn't the Introduction include a discussion of and reference to > [Gen-encode]? > > [YOUNG] A good point. Will add this. > > --- > > > The Introduction has > > > This document provides efficient encodings > > and > > Note that since these encodings are relatively efficient > > Which are they? And relative to what? > > [YOUNG] will remove 'relatively'. > > --- > > Section 1.1 has > > Refer to Section 5 of [Gen-Encode] for the terminology of Resources, > Resources Blocks, and Resource Pool. > > I think you mean [RWA-Info]. That would also make [RWA-Info] a normative > reference which seems correct anyway. > > [YOUNG] Yes. Will change. > --- > > Section 1.1 makes RFC 6163 a normative reference. > > [YOUNG] Yes. Will correct. > > --- > > Section 2.1 seems somewhere between a copy of and a modification of > the Link Set Field in 2.3 of [Gen-Encode]. > > Some clarification would be useful. If this is different, why is it not > using one of the generic encodings applied in a specific way? If it is > the same, you should probably just reference the encoding in > [Gen-Encode] and describe here how the fields are used, but if you > insist in re-drawing the figure it should be aligned with the figure in > [Gen-Encode]. > > [YOUNG] not quite. Link Set and Label Set are two different things with different > fields. > Link Set has directionality and identifier format while Label Set does not have > these fields but has connectivity field. > Not sure how we can point to each other. > --- > > Section 2.1 > > The RB identifier represents the ID of the resource block which is a > 32 bit integer. > > You might note that the scope of the RB identifier is local to the node > on which it is applied although that node may choose to use a globally > known encoding such as from RFC 6205. > > I assume that flexi-grid is out of scope for WSON. If it is not, then > you need to think further about your 32 bit identifiers. > > [YOUNG] Flex-grid is out of scope here. In addition, RB identifier is a resource > block ID > Which is different from wavelength identifier. I am sure how a globally known > encoding for > Wavelength id can be used for RB identifier. They seemed to refer two different > entities. > > --- > > Section 3.1 > > Why isn't the Resource Accessibility Field expressed in terms of the > use of a generic Connectivity Matrix Field from section 2.1 of > [Gen-Encode]? I thought the whole point of [Gen-Encode] was to derive > application agnostic encodings that could be used without modification > (but with applicability notes) by specific technologies. > > [YOUNG] Not quite. Connectivity Matrix encoding cannot be used for Resource > Accessibility Field as the latter > has additional entity (namely, RB set field) to describe. We generalized a single- > stage connectivity matrix in [Gen-Encode] that can > be applicable to any switching technology. Here in WSON, we have a need to > model RB constraints (for the pool of Wavelength Converters) > from/to input/output link sets. Putting two different entities into one coding was > not the choice of the authors. > > --- > > Section 3.2 > > I looked for the equivalent of the Resource Wavelength Constraints > Field in [Gen-Encode]. I understand that Input Wavelength Constraints > Field and Output Wavelength Constraints Field are encoded using the > generic Label Set of [Gen-Encode], but I thought that the whole concept > of Resource Constraints would be generic. > > [YOUNG] Again, I think the design of generalization is not intended to > share the same encoding to describe two different entities. Besides, I do > not see the need to generalize encoding of an entity that has no particular > use in other technologies than WSON. > > --- > > Section 3.3 > > As with the previous section I don't see anything that is WSON-specific > in the concept of the 3.3. Resource Block Pool State (RBPoolState) Field > and I wondered why [Gen-Encode] doesn't have anything to cover this. > > [YOUNG] RB is wavelength converters, which is a unique WSON element. > --- > > Section 3.3 > > Where Action = 0 denotes a list of 16 bit integers and Action = 1 > denotes a bit map. In both cases the elements of the RB Set field > are in a one-to-one correspondence with the values in the usage RB > usage state area. > > This is not clear. I think the Action field is explaining how the > RB Usage State field is encoded. > - Not sure why you call it "Action" > - Would be good if you could make it clear that "16 bit integers" > or "bit map" apply to the RB Usage State field. > > But... > > RB#i State (16 bits, unsigned integer): indicates Resource Block #i > is in use or available. > > - You might say what value of the 16 bit unsigned integer indicates in > use and what value indicates available. > - You should explain to me why a list of 16 bit integers to encode a > set of Booleans is in anyway efficient or appropriate. > > It is *really* hard to parse from this section that the state applies > to the whole RB when Action is 0, but applies to the elements of the RBs > when Action is 1. At least, that is what I think I parsed from the text > although I also found text in the section that convinced me you meant > something else. > > In short, this section is not clear! > > [YOUNG] Indeed it is not clear. For this, let me get back to you shortly. > > --- > > Why don't Sections 3.4 and 4 have a B-bit like that in 3.2? > > [YOUNG] I think the reason for B bit is not included in Section 3.4 is the context > where it won't be very useful (even if we have a B bit) as input wavelengths > available will hardly match with output wavelength available in most cases. > Compared to this, wavelength constraints can more often be same for input and > output. > > --- > > Sections 3.4 and 4 should list the allowed settings of I and O > (presumably: 01, 10, 11). Cf. Section 3.2. > > [YOUNG] OK. How adding: > > Currently the only valid combinations of (I,O) are (0,1), (1,0), or (1,1). > > --- > > Section 4 > > How do I know the length of the ResourceBlockInfo field? I need to know > this to decide whether to try to parse the next bytes as another > Optional subfield. I *do* when I reach the end of one Optional subfield, > but I don't know whether another follows. > > Possibly you intend the object that includes a ResourceBlockInfo field > to provide the length information, but other fields defined in this > document do include lengths or enough information to deduce the lengths. > > [YOUNG] Yes, you're right. It is not completely consistent. How about the > following > Encoding: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |I|O| Reserved | Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | RB Set Field | > : : > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Optional subfield 1 | > : ... : > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > : : : > : : : > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Optional subfield N | > : : > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Length: 16 bits > > The total length of this field in bytes. > > --- > > Section 4.1 > > The following I and E combination are defined: > > s/E/O/ > > [YOUNG] Agree. Thanks. > --- > > Section 4.1 > > 1: [ITU-G.698.1] application code. > > 2: [ITU-G.698.2] application code. > > 3: [ITU-G.959.1] application code. > > 4: [ITU-G.695] application code. > > You should use the same format as in the references section. E.g., > [G.959.1]. > > Do you mean 698 or 694? You have references for 694.1 and 694.2, but > not 698.1 or 698.2. But 694.1 does not seem to include any "application > codes" - they're in 698.1 and 698.2. > > Each of the subsections 4.1.1-4.1.4 should include a citations. > > [YOUNG] Yes, for the reference format. The right references are 698.1 and 698.2 > --- will correct with the right references. Citations will be added in each of the > subsections. > --- > > Section 4.1 > How do I interpret a Vendor-Specific Application Code? Is there an OUI > I'm missing? > > [YOUNG] Not sure if I understood this question. What is "OUI"? > > --- > > I discussed sections 4.1.1-4.1.4 with the authors and the WG chairs and > have asked the chairs to send a liaison to ITU-T Q6/15 asking them to > cast an eye over the text of these sections. > > [YOUNG] Thanks. It is a good idea to send a liaison to Q6/15. > > --- > > 4.1.1 > > Where (values between parenthesis refer to ITU defined values as > reported above): > > Please remove the parentheses from this sentence. > > [YOUNG] OK. > --- > > 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 > > An Optional F can be added indicating a FEC Encoding. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |B| D |S| c | W | y | t | z | v | F | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | reserved | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > F (suffix): = 0 reserved, = 1 Fec Encoding > > Values not mentioned here are not allowed in this application > code > > If F is optional but only one value is allowed (viz. 1) how do I opt to > not indicate a FEC Encoding? > > [YOUNG] I guess 0 will do it. > > --- > > 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 > > Your definition of parameter c makes RFC 6205 a normative reference. > . > I think you could usefully point with more precision to Figure 2 in > Section 3.2 of RFC 6205. > > However, I wonder whether you want to allow new values that may be added > to the IANA registry created by Section 5.2 of RFC 6205 > > [YOUNG] OK. Will change RFC 6205 as a normative reference and point with more > precision to Fig. 2 in Section 3.2 of RFC 6205. Since we are not adding values to the > channel spacing here, I am not sure if it is appropriate to discuss this in this > document. > --- > > 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 > > > n: maximum number of channels (10 bits, up to 1024 channels) > > Hmmm, 2^10 is 1024, but 10 bits can only encode 1023 unless you say that > n=0 is not valid and so n is actually max channels minus one. > > [YOUNG] I would change: 1024 -> 1023. > --- > > 4.4 > > The processing capability list field is then given by: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Reserved | Processing Cap ID | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Possible additional capability parameters depending upon | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > : the processing ID : > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > When the processing Cap ID is "regeneration capability", the > > I don't believe you have told me how to encode "regeneration > capability" into the Processing Cap ID field. Possibly you mean that the > numbered list above is intended to define the settings of this field. > > If so then: > - say so > - explain that "Fault and performance monitoring" and "Vendor Specific > capability" have no additional capability parameters > - probably remove the note about "Fault and performance monitoring" and > "vendor specific capability" because if it isn't here it is, of > course, for future study. > > [YOUNG] Yes, how about adding right after the encoding and before, "when ..." > the following: > > The processing capability ID field defines the following processing capabilities: > > 0: Reserved > > 1: Regeneration capability > > 2: Fault and performance monitoring > > 3: Vendor Specific capability > > [YOUNG] OK, will remove the note on the further study and add: > > "Fault and performance monitoring" and "Vendor Specific > capability" have no additional capability parameters. > > --- > > 4.4 > > Note that when the capability of regenerator is indicated to be > Selective Regeneration Pools, regeneration pool properties such as > input and output restrictions and availability need to be specified. > The code point for this is subject to further study. > > I think you mean to replace that final line with... > > These properties will be encoded in the capabilities field starting > with the bits marked Reserved in the figure. An additional > specification describing the encoding of these parameters is required > before the value C=2 can be used. > > [YOUNG] Thanks. Agree. > > --- > > Section 6 > > In Section 6 and 6.1 you appear to be creating a new top-level registry > called "GMPLS Routing Parameters for WSON" with a sub-registry called > "Types for subfields of WSON Resource Block Information". > > It's a shame to create a whole new top-level registry. I suppose you > think that this information will only ever be used in routing and > never in signaling. Probably right, in which case you are good to go, > although your text could be clearer. > > [YOUNG] Unfortunately it is only intended for Routing. Will add this is the case in > the text. > > --- > > Section A.3 is using some form of BNF to represent information. > > This is probably RBNF from RFC 5511. Anyway, you need to give a > reference so people can read it. > > It would be nice to lay the BNF out on the page in a more readable way. > > [YOUNG] OK, will reference and do some cosmetic surgery on this. > > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-en… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wso… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wso… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wso… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wso… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wso… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wso… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wso… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wso… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wso… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wso… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wso… Leeyoung