Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

[[e-mail]]

I also agree
Janet

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to 
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit 
written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of 
e-mail for such purpose.



From:   "DOLLY, MARTIN C" <[e-mail]>
To:     "Shaikh, Viqar A" <[e-mail]>, Steve Donovan 
<[e-mail]>, "Lee, Jay" <[e-mail]>, 
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc:     "Singh, Ray P" <[e-mail]>, "Lukacs, Donald R" 
<[e-mail]>, "Pollini, Gregory P" <[e-mail]>
Date:   11/02/2015 03:39 PM
Subject:        Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] 
#92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)
Sent by:        "DiME" <[e-mail]>



I agree
 
From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Shaikh, Viqar A
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 3:59 PM
To: Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>; Lee, Jay 
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Singh, Ray P <[e-mail]>; Lukacs, Donald R 
<[e-mail]>; Pollini, Gregory P <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 
(drmp): Range of priority levels)
 
Hello all,
 
My 2 cents:
 
Greater than 5 values for DRMP AVP is justified and it appears there is 
agreement for 16.  However, note that the 3GPP priority, e.g., 
Priority-Level AVP (ARP AVP) in TS 29.212 takes 15 values, value 1 the 
highest, 15 the lowest, and value 0 not defined. Having 15 rather than 16 
for DRMP AVP would be useful from an interworking point of view on 
Diameter interfaces connecting to the EPS. 
 
Regarding the default value - it is based on operator policy and can be 
overwritten by an operator.  Therefore, we support use of "may" and not 
"should". 
 
We feel that 15 or 16 values should suffice and there is no need to define 
an extension bit.  However, I am ok if there is consensus to do so.
 
We feel there is no need to specify a default as it is per local policy 
and can be overwritten.  But, if there is consensus to do so, we suggest 
value 10 or 11 with a note that it can be overwritten based on operator 
policy.
 
Thoughts?
 
Thanks,
Viqar
 

From: DiME [[e-mail]] on behalf of Steve Donovan 
[[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:06 PM
To: Lee, Jay; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 
(drmp): Range of priority levels)
Ten is acceptable to me.
Steve
On October 28, 2015 1:36:00 PM "Lee, Jay" <[e-mail]> 
wrote:
I also think that we agree on all different points for the finalization, 
except one point: the value for the default case. Use of the default case 
as discussed here is rather in the future than in the present for us, so I 
do not have strong opinion, especially when the default value can be 
overwritten. 
 
Looking at this objectively and also for the sake of progress, however, it 
would be prudent to have more than one lower priority cases. In the near 
future, we may identify additional use cases for lower priority case. Even 
with one use case identified, this does not necessarily mean one priority 
level per use case. One use case may require multiple lower priority 
levels, depending on applications. 
 
Any value from 9 to 12 seems reasonable to me. But, without all use cases 
identified at the present time, I propose 10 (JJacques’ proposal) or 11. 
 
Thanks,
 
Jay
 
From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of TROTTIN, 
JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:11 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 
(drmp): Range of priority levels)
 
Hi
 
Please see my comments also in line. I think we are close to finalise our 
choice on the different points  of this thread
 
Best regards
 
JJacques 
 
De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Lee, Jay
Envoyé : vendredi 23 octobre 2015 18:57
À : [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 
(drmp): Range of priority levels)
 
Please see my comments inline.
 
From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 8:02 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 
(drmp): Range of priority levels)
 
Please see my comments inline.

Steve
On 10/23/15 4:00 AM, DOLLY, MARTIN C wrote:
See inline
 
From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lee, Jay
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 1:59 AM
To: TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES) 
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 
(drmp): Range of priority levels)
 
Some further comments from my side:
 
*/ If we need to assign (but not specify) a value to the default case, we 
need to make it clear that this value can be overwritten by operators, and 
the value is for some use cases like e.g., equipment having the same value 
when leaving the factory, so that there would be no misunderstanding.
mcd- ok
SRD> I think the current proposed text makes this clear.
[JL] Agree that the current text is OK especially when we use ‘May’ in 
place of ‘Should’
[JJ] OK 
.
 
*/ Since we agree that the default value is per local policy, ‘May’ is 
preferred to ‘Should’ in order not to cause confusion.
mcd-ok 
SRD> I'm okay with making this a MAY.
[JL]  Agreed
[JJ] Also in favor of a MAY
 
*/ For assignment of the default value, I am quite open. But any value 
between 9 – 12 seems reasonable to me.
mcd- value should allow for assigning lower values, though a carrier can 
assign what they want in their network, there needs to be a common meaning 
at the interconnection point
SRD> I'm open to any value we decide on.  If there are real use cases that 
require pushing the default value more to the middle then we should do so. 
 At this point I've heard one use case for the default being something 
other then the lowest value, thus the proposal to use priority_14 as the 
default. 
[JJ] Regarding use cases, there may be
-          The case where for “normal” users, an application use the 
default value for most of its requests except some which have a lower 
priority
-          the case where besides “normal” user (and high priority users), 
some users have lower priorities, e.g. Some Machine type Communications 
(MTC) devices. 
So potentially more than one low priority level would be needed. 
We also have chosen a rather large range of values (16) , allowing 
flexibility for an operator when they define the number of priorities they 
want , leaving possibility to future additions. If PRIORITY _14 is the 
default, it leaves only one lower priority and an operator  cannot add a 
second one  except by choosing  a default value other than the 14  value. 
Then as, in practice, we may expect a range of low priority smaller than 
the range of high priority values, this is why the default value was 
proposed to be in the range 9-12  . Then I proposed 10 so to do a proposal 
but I am open on another value. 
  &! nbsp;&nbs p;  
*/  Current proposal of 16 values may be enough now, but I am fine with 
having an extensibility bit to be future proof.
mcd-ok 
SRD> I don't see a compelling argument to move beyond 16. 
In addition, it isn't clear to me that there is value in defining an 
extensibility mechanism beyond what is already supported by Diameter. 
Doing so would add significant complexity to the DRMP mechanism for 
something that, in my view, has a low probability of being used.

I propose that we not allow extending the DRMP AVP.  Rather we require 
that any extension require a new AVP.  We can then leave it to the 
document that proposes the extension to deal with determining whether send 
the DRMP AVP or the newly defined DRMPv2 AVP.  
[JL] When we proposed that the range be extended to 16, we thought that 
‘16’ was large enough and future proof. 
I am okay with having an extensibility bit, if other companies want it. 
That said, I agree that it has a low probability of being used and added 
complexity.
[JJ] JJ I also agree that with 16 values , the offered range is large 
enough in practice. This point is only to check if it would be easy to do 
an extension, if we have this requirement in the future.  I agree with 
Steve that for an extensibility, it will require a new AVP in a new 
document rather than to define a set of reserved values in the DRMP AVP. A 
point is that it will require an additional parsing effort for a node to 
look for this second AVP even if it is not present most of the time. 
 
*/ I am not sure of alternative encoding method (say, +9 to -9 per 
JJacques’ proposal) compared to the current enumerated type of DRMP. It 
offers a logical way of assigning a value 0 to the default case. But it 
offers less flexibility to operators, since the default value may not be 
easily moved to have more higher/lower priority values. Also, we are used 
to the enumerated type of DRMP and just want to have extension from 5 to 
16,  but this may require more deviation from the current design and 
thinking. For this, I would like to see more on qualitative pros/cons, 
but, given its little benefit, I am reluctant to accept this alternative. 
SRD> I agree that I don't see value in the +9 to -9 proposal.
[JL] Agreed
[J] I presented this second  approach  so to review the possible 
alternatives as we usually do before selecting the solution, this 
alternative being already used in a recent RFC.   That being said, I am 
fine with the enumerated DRMP AVP.
 
Best regards
 
JJacques 
 
From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of TROTTIN, 
JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:39 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 
(drmp): Range of priority levels)
 
Hi
 
1.      PRIORITY_14 as default priority value only allows one level of 
lower priority (PRIORITY_15)  than the default one; this seems not enough. 
 As use cases, we may have  some Machine type Communication (LTC) devices 
that may have lower priorities that normal communications without 
priority.  Even within a Diameter application, some commands may have a 
lower priority as having a secundary importance. 
 
Then which default  value ? 
-        it could be PRIORITY_8 in the middle, or if we prefer to have a 
larger range for higher priorities  than for lower priorities,  the 
default value could be  e.g. PRIORITY_10,  giving 9 higher priorities and 
5 lower priorities than the default one. I would have a preference for 
this value PRIORITY_10.
 
2.      About extensibility, the current range of 16 values is already 
large, but we can have  a reserved value to indicate a further extension. 
With  an enumerated AVP, there is no possibility to add new values. 
 
3.      I also had a look to some other IETF RFCs addressing priorities 
that Ken mentioned, so to see if we can benefit from these approaches 
although done for different contexts.
-        in RFC 4412 (Resource-Priority Header in SIP), wps and ets 
namespaces have a range of 5 values (0 to 4) with 0 as the highest 
priority  . But I have not found some indication  (I may have missed it) 
about the default priority  (I mean a SIP request without 
Resource-Priority Header compared  to a SIP request with the Header). 
Implicitly, I would assume a SIP request without  Resource-Priority Header 
corresponds to  the lowest priority.  DRMP has a similar approach but with 
 a larger range and also lower priorities. 
 
-        RFC  6710 (priority for SMTP),  uses another encoding of the 
priority values with an integer between -9 and +9. Lower priorities  are 
negative an higher priority being positive. When a value increases, it 
means a higher priority, so the opposite  to DRMP, wps or ets.  But the 
value 0 is here naturally the default value. So this is an encoding 
alternative  to the  Enumerated type of the DRMP AVP which avoids the 
question of the default value. 
Note: RFC  6710 also defines some Priority Assignment Policies using a 
subset of the range. 
 
RFC 6710 has also this guideline : 
   SMTP servers compliant with this specification are not
   required to support all 19 distinct priority levels (i.e., to treat
   each priority value as a separate priority), ….  That is, an
   implementation that only supports N priority levels (where N < 19)
   will internally round up a syntactically valid priority value that
   isn't supported to the next higher supported number (or to the
   highest supported priority, if the value is higher than any supported 
priority).
-        This raises the question to have this type of  guideline if 
considered useful. 
 
So to have your feedback 
 
Best regards
 
JJacques 
 
De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de DOLLY, MARTIN C
Envoyé : jeudi 15 octobre 2015 12:33
À : Lee, Jay; ken carlberg; Steve Donovan
Cc : [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 
(drmp): Range of priority levels)
 
A couple thoughts:
1.      There needs to be a default value defined by the standard, so that 
equipment have the same value leaving the factory
2.      This value can be over written based on local policy
3.      Should have an extensibility bit in order to and more values in 
the future
 
 
From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lee, Jay
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 6:16 AM
To: ken carlberg <[e-mail]>; Steve Donovan <
[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 
(drmp): Range of priority levels)
 
From my side, some more discussion on Steve’s mail may be needed.
 
‘Should’ vs. ‘Must’:
One can say that ‘Should’ is not mandatory. But, in practice, this is a 
fairly strong statement, and often taken as required. So in this sense, 
the proposed Note is certainly helpful. But, since we allow operators to 
override the value, I don’t see the reason why we use ‘Should’. My 
suggestion is using ‘May’.
 
PRIORITY_14 priority:
Since operators can overwrite it, I was not too concerned about it. But if 
we want to put some value, why ‘14’? A value lower than 14 is suggested in 
order to allow more rooms for lower priorities.
 
Jay
 
From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ken carlberg
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 8:40 AM
To: Steve Donovan
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): 
Range of priority levels)
 
with respect to the diff-serv example brought up below, some thing to add 
to that discussion is that it starts off with separate and distinct 
forwarding behavior whose marked packets provide segmentation of other IP 
traffic.  The availability of only 6 bits to play with (along with the 
headaches of transitive trust) also discouraged a line of thought to 
define end-to-end priority handling versus a per diff-serv domain 
treatment.  RFC-4594 did provide configuration guidelines, but that’s a 
different story.
 
So back to a couple of ideas to consider.
 
1) reserved space.  if we go back to the diff-serv model, the diff-serv 
working group agreed to set aside a set of values that was reserved for 
experimental use that could be re-assigned some time in the future.  I’m 
not suggesting that there should be space set side for experiments, but 
rather it may be prudent to set aside a reserved set of bits/values so 
that one doesn't need to define a new AVP if in the future there was a 
need to define added values beyond the 5 (plus some fudge factor) already 
mentioned on the list. 
 
2) sets of users.  previous work (e.g., rfc-4412, rfc-6710) recognized 
that there can be several sets of users/services that are distinct from 
each other and yet need to prioritize the traffic.  I bring this up 
because the draft already identifies two sets of users in sections 5.1 and 
5.2 (note: I’m assuming that the latter is aimed at the general public and 
related to 911/112/999 type calls, which should probably be more specific 
in the draft).  And there is also the potential of Firstnet users in the 
US.
 
As a side note, the distinction and separation of general public and other 
prioritized users in public phone infrastructures is not exclusive to the 
US, so the group should not be concerned that this is a US centric effort. 
 There has been GTPS in the UK, as well as other systems in other 
countries.  The RFC is a bit dated, but feel free to go over rfc-4190 for 
added background.
 
and just to reiterate.  I’m not making recommendations in the above — just 
bringing up some food for thought.
 
-ken
 
 
On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Steve Donovan <[e-mail]> 
wrote:
 
Jay,

The current text is a SHOULD level requirement:

   When there is a mix of transactions specifying priority in request
   messages and transactions that do not have the priority specified,
   transactions that do not have a specified priority SHOULD be treated
   as having the PRIORITY_14 priority.

As such, operators can choose to either not implement a priority or define 
a different value for their network.

I propose adding the following note after this paragraph to further 
explain why it is a SHOULD and not a MUST:

      Note: There are scenarios where operators might want to 
      specify a different default value for transactions that do not
      have an explicit priority.  In this case, the operator defined
      local policy would override the use of PRIORITY_14 as
      the default priority.

This leaves the ability for there to be deterministic behavior in Diameter 
networks that require a default to be defined and are happy with the 
specified default.  It also gives operators the ability to define a 
different behavior, most likely with some priority handling/mapping at the 
edge of the network.

Does this address your concerns?

Regards,

Steve
On 10/14/15 2:59 AM, Lee, Jay wrote:
Regarding the issue of whether we need to specify a default value or not, 
there are pros and cons.
 
If we specify a value for the default case, we can see the benefits in 
scenarios between different operator networks, but we take away important 
options on what operators can do with priority values. On the other hand, 
if we do not specify the default value, operators may have more options, 
but there is a question of what to do for this inter-PLMN cases when the 
networks may use different default values.
 
In practice, this issue can be addressed at the edge of the network, where 
Diameter edge agent (DEA) can perform some priority mapping based on 
bilateral roaming agreement (or SLA (service level agreement)) and other 
means to insure the proper handling. One may argue that this is not as 
good as the ‘deterministic’ case, but operator should be able handle this 
in a reasonable way. We are fully aware of the fact that, in case of this 
‘non-deterministic’ case, the default value can differ from one operator 
network to another, and it becomes difficult to guarantee the intended 
priority handling. Despite this, we still prefer giving options to 
operators by not specifying the default value.
 
What we are saying here, however, is not anything new. This is the typical 
way of handling priority levels. If anything, specifying the default value 
would be something new. As already mentioned in CT discussion, there is a 
good example of this – Internet QoS, more specifically DiffServ.
 
In order to guarantee end-to-end QoS for a specific service, IETF could 
have specified a value (DiffServ codepoint) for the specific service to 
have predetermined handling of the traffic, but IETF did not. Instead, 
DiffServ simply provided a framework for operators to have its own 
classification and differentiated treatment of the services. To guarantee 
end-to-end QoS across different networks, then, operators need to do 
packet inspection, (re)classification, QoS mapping, use of SLA and 
possibly others at the edge of network (edge router). Therefore, in the 
DiffServ architecture, intelligence was pushed to the edge of the network. 
While the end results may not be guaranteed as well as in the case of 
predetermined handling, it was still a preferred way to give flexibility 
to operators. My point is that we went through all these troubles to give 
options of priority handling to operators.
 
By the way, if we are thinking of possibility of specifying the default 
value, are we assuming that all operators are interested in this feature 
(default value in the middle, and high and low priorities at other ends)? 
Aren’t there other operators who are not interested in this feature? I 
know that at least there is one – Verizon. We have no interest in this 
feature, and no plan for implementing it. We are OK, if other operators 
are interested in this feature, and the default value is NOT specified. 
But we are certainly not happy if DIME is trying to impose this on us.
 
Jay
 
From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:55 AM
To: Shaikh, Viqar A; Janet P Gunn; DOLLY, MARTIN C
Cc: DiME; [e-mail]; Pollini, Gregory P
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels
 
Assuming that we define a range of 3 values,
Assuming that 0 is the lowest priority and 2 the highest,
Assuming that an agent receives 4 messages at the same time while being in 
overload control:
·       1) ULR with Prio-0
·       2) ULR with Prio-1
·       3) ULR with Prio-2
·       4) ULR with no priority AVP
 
Assuming that the default is locally defined as proposed below,
 
How do you know that the ULR with priority 2 will be handled with a higher 
priority  than the request without priority indication?
And what about ULR message with priority 1 with two levels of highest 
priority e.g. emergency/Important and government/very important?
 
Sorry if the answer is obvious but I fail to understand.
 
Lionel
 
 
 
De : Shaikh, Viqar A [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Envoyé : samedi 3 octobre 2015 01:21
À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; Janet P Gunn; DOLLY, MARTIN C
Cc : DiME; [e-mail]; Pollini, Gregory P
Objet : RE: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels
 
Hello all,
 
Note that the 3GPP priority, e.g., Priority-Level AVP (ARP AVP) in TS 
29.212 takes 15 values, value 1 the highest, 15 the lowest, and value 0 
not defined.
 
Having 15 rather than 16 would be useful from an interworking point of 
view on Diameter interfaces connecting to the EPS. 
 
Also, my understanding has been that the default value is per local 
policy. 
 
My 2 cents....
Viqar 

From: DiME [[e-mail]] on behalf of [e-mail] [
[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:36 AM
To: Janet P Gunn; DOLLY, MARTIN C
Cc: DiME; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels
Hi,
 
I think that the case "no Priority indication in request" is the default 
situation today.
So if we agree that it should be possible to explicitly indicate a request 
with a lower priority, we should divide the range of priority values in 
three sub-ranges: [lower priorities][no priority indication][higher 
priorities], e.g. with 17 values: [0-7][8][9-16].
If any operator can freely fix the default value, there would be no way to 
ensure the sender that a request with a specific priority value (e.g. 6) 
will be handled with a lower or higher priority than a request with no 
priority indication.
 
Therefore, for a deterministic handling mechanism, I think that it is then 
more relevant to define a standard value for the default value.
 
Regards,
 
Lionel
 
 
De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Janet P Gunn
Envoyé : mercredi 30 septembre 2015 22:53
À : DOLLY, MARTIN C
Cc : DiME; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels
 
Same here.  The "default priority" should be a matter of local policy. 

Janet

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to 
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit 
written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of 
e-mail for such purpose. 



From:        "DOLLY, MARTIN C" <[e-mail]> 
To:        Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
[e-mail]> 
Date:        09/30/2015 04:40 PM 
Subject:        Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels 
Sent by:        "DiME" <[e-mail]>




Me as well 
  
From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 4:38 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels 
  
I'm okay with Jay's proposal on not specifying a default value.

Steve 
On 9/30/15 3:27 PM, Lee, Jay wrote: 
Hi Steve and all, 
  
For the first proposal, as I indicated, I support increasing the number of 
priority levels up to 16. 
  
I am also fine with the second proposal. My question is: do we need to 
mandate this feature, as individual operators have different situations? 
Perhaps some flexibility should be allowed? Instead of mandating it, we 
can include the statement that when there is no DRMP AVP, this correspond 
to ‘normal traffic’ without a particular high or low priority. Then each 
operator can map this default to a value (e.g., 8 or something else) that 
they feel appropriate. 
  
Thanks, 
  
Jay 



_______________________________________________ 
DiME mailing list 
[e-mail] 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime 
 _______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Ce message et
ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou
privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre
diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur
et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques
etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline
toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie.
Merci.
 
This message
and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information 
that
may be protected by law;
they should
not be distributed, used or copied without
authorisation.
If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this
message and its attachments.
As emails may
be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified,
changed or falsified.
Thank
you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Ce message et
ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou
privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre
diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur
et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques
etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline
toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie.
Merci.
 
This message
and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information 
that
may be protected by law;
they should
not be distributed, used or copied without
authorisation.
If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this
message and its attachments.
As emails may
be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified,
changed or falsified.
Thank
you.
 
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing
list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
 
 
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
 
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime