Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709 open issues)
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 23 May 2013 01:28 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 E8BF611E8182 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 18:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.178, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RKcr-UUIermQ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy14-pub.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy14-pub.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.51.224]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 55B7A11E8181 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 389 invoked by uid 0); 23 May 2013 01:27:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy14.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 23 May 2013 01:27:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=OjwO5ssjQ+faWgkwcOOfD690vy6blFOIIQaCDjRSr94=; b=Bi1U15ae9Asse4CAJicxDij4pbOIgDv4rRxSNDqlL0IMf3knAt+s9TuD+LpbA/QzF8I4vMn0nOXH8ZiVTeZOKJrr9vMrukepL5efyWUTZtYVkH8CQXOLRAPjRTqSvbl7;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:50484 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1UfKJu-0002JR-LG; Wed, 22 May 2013 19:27:54 -0600
Message-ID: <519D709A.5020609@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 21:27:54 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
References: <518A82D9.7080508@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480C67D9@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <518BDAFF.40706@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B39A@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <519657FE.5030602@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D5009B0@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <519693DF.6000003@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D504EAD@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>, <519A6EC1.4080205@labn.net> <9574E62A-6A68-4290-A103-8A0A750E2004@juniper.net>, <519A8A7D.5020002@labn.net> <ABBBA19E-EDF3-4B68-AC13-64F1C7E946EE@juniper.net> <519B6A75.5040803@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D508BCA@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <13ec9ac042d.2764.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D50937C@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>, <519D0049.80709@labn.net> <2F3E6A05-D111-4CB2-B2AD-59AE980A2043@juniper.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84319B70A@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huaw ei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84319B70A@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709 open issues)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Thu, 23 May 2013 01:28:03 -0000
drop the OLD text (identified in the trac issue) & replace Length field definition with: >> Length (12 bits): indicates the number of bits of the Bit Map >> field, i.e., the number of TS in the HO ODUk link. The TS >> granularity, 1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps, may be derived by dividing the >> HO ODUk link's rate by the value of the Length field. In the >> context of [G709-2012], the values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS >> granularity of 2.5Gps, and the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a >> TS granularity of 1.25Gps. Lou On 5/22/2013 8:55 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote: > Hi Lou and John, > > Thanks for your discussion on providing the proposed text. > > However, I am lost by the discussion. > > What is the final proposed text? I hope someone can finalize it. > > I think it is time to conclude the discussion on this point (the original point 1). > > > > Best Regards > > Fatai > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:01 AM > To: Lou Berger > Cc: Fatai Zhang; CCAMP > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709 open issues) > > Bummer > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 22, 2013, at 10:45 AM, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> wrote: > >> I'm empathetic with the addition, but suspect it's best not to put the >> first 10 words in the draft... >> >> Lou >> >> On 5/21/2013 8:45 PM, John E Drake wrote: >>> It should be blindingly obvious to the informed reader that in the context of [G709-2012], the values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS granularity of 2.5Gps, and the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a TS granularity of 1.25Gps. >>> >>> Yours Irrespectively, >>> >>> John >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:38 PM >>>> To: John E Drake >>>> Cc: Fatai Zhang; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org; >>>> CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>>> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709 >>>> open issues) >>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> Great. It seems we agree that it shouldn't have been necessary to >>>> discuss this point so many times, and that the additional text doesn't >>>> change the field definition. It is informative narrative after all. >>>> >>>> Now that said, can you live with the revised "overly precise" text so >>>> that we can move forward (and ensure we're not back here again)? >>>> >>>> Lou >>>> >>>> On May 21, 2013 4:23:37 PM John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote: >>>>> Lou, >>>>> >>>>> The question that has always been is whether signaling needed to >>>>> include an explicit TSG filed and the answer has always been no >>>>> because it can be derived from other fields. The text I proposed >>>>> makes that derivation explicit and unambiguous. The additional text >>>>> you are proposing adds neither clarity nor information. >>>>> >>>>> Yours Irrespectively, >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:37 AM >>>>>> To: John E Drake >>>>>> Cc: Fatai Zhang; >>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org; >>>>>> CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing >>>>>> G.709 open issues) John, Really? You're joking right? >>>>>> As I said to Fatai: >>>>>> My feeling is that there have been too many "surprises" on the >>>> 709 >>>>>> documents in areas that I thought were ... resolved by past >>>>>> discussions. At this point, as co-chair and Document shepherd, >>>> I >>>>>> want to ensure that any open point on the documents are >>>>>> unambiguously closed and that past discussions (i.e., points of >>>>>> consensus) are 100% captured, so that we can smoothly move >>>> through >>>>>> the planned second LC and publication request. >>>>>> The particular point of the ambiguity/implicit nature of >>>> determining >>>>>> TSG from length has been brought up at least three times. (Note, >>>> by >>>>>> others in the WG -- this is not my concern.) Each time the >>>> consensus >>>>>> from the discussion is to leave as is, but no or only minimal >>>>>> changes were made to the document. I opened the trac ticket to >>>>>> ensure that the consensus was documented in the draft and that we >>>>>> don't have to yet again revisit this topic -- which *is* my >>>> concern. >>>>>> So, the revised text addresses your concern of not needing to >>>>>> redefine the field for new 709 rate or TSGs, and it is sufficiently >>>>>> precise so that non should misinterpret the current "implicit" >>>>>> specification of TSG. >>>>>> Can we/you accept the revised "overly precise" text and move >>>> forward? >>>>>> Lou >>>>>> On 5/20/2013 10:30 PM, John E Drake wrote: >>>>>>> What is behind your preoccupation with enumerating all possible >>>>>> combinations of length & TSG? Do you have trouble with arithmetic? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 20, 2013, at 1:42 PM, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/20/2013 3:18 PM, John E Drake wrote: >>>>>>>>> I think that's a big mistake(tm). If a new rate or TSG is >>>>>>>>> introduced the RFC would need to be updated even though the >>>>>> encoding >>>>>>>>> does not require it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well that's easily addressed, via something like: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Length (12 bits): indicates the number of bits of the Bit Map >>>>>>>> field, i.e., the number of TS in the HO ODUk link. The TS >>>>>>>> granularity, 1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps, may be derived by dividing the >>>>>>>> HO ODUk link's rate by the value of the Length field. In the >>>>>>>> context of [G709-2012], the values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS >>>>>>>> granularity of 2.5Gps, and the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a >>>>>>>> TS granularity of >>>>>> 1.25Gps. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lou >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2013, at 2:43 PM, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> John, >>>>>>>>>> There's still some ambiguity here. How about: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2013 9:15 AM, John E Drake wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Length (12 bits): indicates the number of bits of the Bit Map >>>>>>>>>>> field, i.e., the number of TS in the HO ODUk link. The TS >>>>>>>>>>> granularity, 1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps, may be derived by dividing >>>>>>>>>>> the HO ODUk link's rate by the value of the Length field. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Replace: >>>>>>>>>>> For example, for an HO ODU2 >>>>>>>>>>> link, whose link rate is 10Gbps, the value of the Length >>>> field >>>>>>>>>>> will be either 4 or 8 and the TS granularity will be either >>>>>>>>>>> 2.5Gbps or 1.25Gbps, respectively. >>>>>>>>>> With: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS granularity of 2.5Gps, >>>>>>>>>> while the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a TS granularity of >>>> 1.25Gps. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lou >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Irrespectively Yours, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:33 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: John E Drake >>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Fatai Zhang; >>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org; >>>>>>>>>>>> CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling- >>>> g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: >>>>>> Closing >>>>>>>>>>>> G.709 open issues) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> John, >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you haven't been paying attention! The rewrite >>>>>>>>>>>> originated from Daniele, was tweaked by me and then fixed by >>>>>> Fatai. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have an alternate proposal to address issue#48? >>>>>>>>>>>> Issue #48="In signaling document section 6: Clarify related >>>>>>>>>>>> text [i.e., the OLD text] to unambiguously identify the >>>>>>>>>>>> relationship between label length and TSG." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Lou >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2013 1:15 PM, John E Drake wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the original text is fine and your attempted >>>>>>>>>>>>> re-write >>>>>>>>>>>> completely mangled its meaning. The label is a bit vector >>>>>>>>>>>> whose length is equal to the ODUk rate / TSG. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrespectively Yours, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] >>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Lou Berger >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:17 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Fatai Zhang >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org; >>>>>> CCAMP; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft- ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Closing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> G.709 open issues) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Authors/WG, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the mail on the list it seems to me that we've >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reached >>>>>>>>>>>> closure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Issue #48: "Document no explicit indication of TSG in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>> label" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/trac/ticket/48). I'd >>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to confirm my reading. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I read the list, this issue will be resolved by making >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the following change to draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling- >>>> g709v3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OLD >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Length field in the label format MAY be used to indicate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>> TS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of the HO ODUk (i.e., TS granularity at 1.25Gbps or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.5Gbps) since the HO ODUk type can be known from IF_ID >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RSVP_HOP Object. In some cases when there is no Link >>>>>> Management >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Protocol (LMP) or routing to make the two end points of >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> link to know the TSG, the TSG information used by another >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end can be deduced from the label format. For example, for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HO ODU2 link, the value of the length filed will be 4 or >>>> 8, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which indicates the TS granularity is 2.5Gbps or 1.25Gbps, >>>>>> respectively. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> NEW >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that the TS granularity of an HO ODUk can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferred from the length of the label. The values of 4 and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16 indicate a TS granularity of 2.5Gps, while the values >>>> 2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8, 32 and 80 indicate a >>>>>>>>>>>> TS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> granularity of 1.25Gps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please speak up if you disagree with this resolution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2013 9:41 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For point 1), "1" should be dropped and "7" should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "8" in your proposed text. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CCAMP mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CCAMP@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >> > > > > >
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Clos… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing G.… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Clo… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Clos… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: C… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: … Lou Berger