Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-08
Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Wed, 21 March 2012 18:00 UTC
Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9478221F854C for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 t9gQhByWDOZR for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2554F21F8548 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggmi1 with SMTP id i1so1329998ggm.31 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=TufVYQZz5DcITLNoKCvKWxelPlsFqWoVhMd9ercXHu0=; b=bKV6wvR6R74HfbLKnpM7SGT8/ExJ3uGzxD+p961b9NdO0ADNaRZANzj7kTxbhqx8tJ a5//gjGyAKGYv/TsjNVXEmNb1kOXcVxOsV8DPyFxREcY/CLTgiuIjcCUUoVOvGSytPzM YlYC2VRf+CZGb4DeKgsN2lbVq1x2dfEsCuETqGB/X1dUJIGxi1RN7GAIfs3CvKGUSZ/y 1wx89J0v8uNbtqIOYs9/ZH61xE0RJtwWrevi6c/wKw+duZdxsNQpHlw66vPzzCp8kPvP 39y5ti2uE538IVf1pA7Yba84N3lHTWchUBfIG7tIk4bqsVxD1lP5Uea64d/nW0fX112T iv+w==
Received: by 10.236.72.133 with SMTP id t5mr4831418yhd.94.1332352811671; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-173-206-3-29.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.3.29]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 32sm3007697anu.14.2012.03.21.11.00.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F6A1729.2080205@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:00:09 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <CAHBDyN6PN-vp9wXo6fF8G4VfODXjkfbWBaJN8EPopeWfOg9PmQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EFF838D.5020704@joelhalpern.com> <BLU0-SMTP18EE1E01EAA97CC44A44FFD8900@phx.gbl> <4F00BAFD.2070201@joelhalpern.com> <4F00CAE1.60103@gmail.com> <4F00E181.7020605@joelhalpern.com> <4F01BD58.1080303@gmail.com> <4F01E15D.6080601@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <4F01E6F5.5080701@joelhalpern.com> <4F01F054.2050301@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <4F01F1AD.8000806@joelhalpern.com> <841FA158-3616-4C9A-ACF4-D8C7CC2A47D3@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <841FA158-3616-4C9A-ACF4-D8C7CC2A47D3@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120321-0, 21/03/2012), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour@tools.ietf.org, Steven Blake <slblake@petri-meat.com>, Michael Menth <menth@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, gen-art@ietf.org, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>, David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:00:17 -0000
The description of the factor U has been updated. The new text reads as follows: 1. [SM-specific] The sustainable aggregate rate (SAR) for the given ingress-egress-aggregate is estimated using the formula: SAR = U * NM-Rate for the latest reported interval, where U is a configurable factor greater than one which is the same for all ingress-egress- aggregates. In effect, the value of the PCN-supportable-rate for each link is approximated by the expression U*PCN-admissible-rate rather than being calculated explicitly. Tom Taylor On 12/03/2012 2:28 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > I am very confused about the state of this. My skimming of the thread seems to indicate at least one unresolved issue. > > Russ > > > On Jan 2, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > >> The clarification on U is very helpful. I look forward to comments from others on the routing based behavior / ECMP text removal / replacement question. >> >> On 1/2/2012 12:58 PM, Michael Menth wrote: >>> Hi Joel, hi Tom, >>> >>> Am 02.01.2012 18:18, schrieb Joel M. Halpern: >>>> Michael, I am not sure what to make of your recommended text abut ECMP. >>>> ECMP is used by almost all operators. It is generally considered a >>>> necessary tool in the tool-kit. >>>> More significantly, at least for the egress understanding of the >>>> ingress, it is not even the single operator's ECMP, but other >>>> operators selections of paths that produce the issue. So even in the >>>> unlikely event that this operator does not use ECMP, it still is not >>>> sufficient. >>> >>> Then I better leave the ECMP issue for others to answer. >>> >>> The definition of U can be better corrected as follows (improved >>> rewording of my previous email): >>> >>> U represents the average ratio of PCN-supportable-rate to >>> PCN-admissible-rate over all the links of the PCN-domain. >>> -> >>> U is a domain-wide constant which implicitly defines the >>> PCN-supportable-rate by U*PCN-admissible-rate on all links of the PCN >>> domain. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> Joel >>>> >>>> On 1/2/2012 11:54 AM, Michael Menth wrote: >>>>> Hi Tom, hi Joel, >>>>> >>>>> I wish you a happy new year! >>>>> >>>>> Here are my comments to address Joel's concerns: >>>>> >>>>> ==================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> The issue with ECMP: I'd add a comment that CL and SM should not be in >>>>> the presence of ECMP if routing information is used to determine >>>>> ingress-egress-aggregates since this seems to be messy and error-prone. >>>>> >>>>> ==================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> The following text may clarify at the beginning of Section 3.3.2 the >>>>> relation >>>>> between admission control and flow termination to address one of Joel's >>>>> comments (for both SM and CL): >>>>> >>>>> In the presence of light pre-congestion, i.e., in the presence of a >>>>> small, >>>>> positive ETM-rate (relative to the overall PCN traffic rate), new >>>>> flows may >>>>> already be blocked. However, in the presence of heavy pre-congestion, >>>>> i.e., >>>>> in the presence of a relatively large ETM-rate, termination of some >>>>> admitted >>>>> flows is required. Thus, flow blocking is logical prerequisite for flow >>>>> termination. >>>>> >>>>> ==================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> The following sentence in 3.3.2 should be corrected (only SM-specific): >>>>> >>>>> U represents the average ratio of PCN-supportable-rate to >>>>> PCN-admissible-rate >>>>> over all the links of the PCN-domain. >>>>> >>>>> -> >>>>> >>>>> U represents the ratio of PCN-supportable-rate to PCN-admissible-rate >>>>> for all >>>>> the links of the PCN-domain. >>>>> >>>>> ==================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> I also recommend to change the following text as I think it may cause >>>>> misinterpretations (applies both to SM and CL): >>>>> >>>>> If the difference calculated in the second step is positive, the >>>>> Decision >>>>> Point SHOULD select PCN-flows to terminate, until it determines that the >>>>> PCN-traffic admission rate will no longer be greater than the estimated >>>>> sustainable aggregate rate. If the Decision Point knows the bandwidth >>>>> required by individual PCN-flows (e.g., from resource signalling used to >>>>> establish the flows), it MAY choose to complete its selection of >>>>> PCN-flows to >>>>> terminate in a single round of decisions. >>>>> >>>>> Alternatively, the Decision Point MAY spread flow termination over >>>>> multiple >>>>> rounds to avoid over-termination. If this is done, it is RECOMMENDED >>>>> that >>>>> enough time elapse between successive rounds of termination to allow the >>>>> effects of previous rounds to be reflected in the measurements upon >>>>> which the >>>>> termination decisions are based. (See [IEEE-Satoh] and sections 4.2 >>>>> and 4.3 >>>>> of [MeLe10].) >>>>> >>>>> -> >>>>> >>>>> If the difference calculated in the second step is positive (traffic >>>>> rate to >>>>> be terminated), the Decision Point SHOULD select PCN-flows to >>>>> terminate. To >>>>> that end, the Decision Point MAY use upper rate limits for individual >>>>> PCN-flows (e.g., from resource signalling used to establish the >>>>> flows) and >>>>> select a set of flows whose sum of upper rate limits is up to the >>>>> traffic >>>>> rate to be terminated. Then, these flows are terminated. The use of >>>>> upper >>>>> limits on flow rates avoids over-termination. >>>>> >>>>> Termination may be continuously needed after consecutive measurement >>>>> intervals for various >>>>> reasons, e.g., if the used upper rate limits overestimate the actual >>>>> flow rates. >>>>> For such cases it is RECOMMENDED that enough time elapses between >>>>> successive >>>>> termination events to allow the effects of previous termination events >>>>> to be >>>>> reflected in the measurements upon which the termination decisions are >>>>> based; >>>>> otherwise, over-termination may occur. See [IEEE-Satoh] and Sections 4.2 >>>>> and >>>>> 4.3 of [MeLe10]. >>>>> >>>>> ==================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> [IEEE-Satoh] is not a good key for Daisuke's work as the prefix "IEEE" >>>>> makes it look like a reference to a standards document. >>>>> You better use [SaUe10] or [Satoh10]. Applies both to CL and SM. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 02.01.2012 15:21, schrieb Tom Taylor: >>>>>> It shall be as you say, subject to comment from my co-authors when >>>>>> they get back from holiday. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 01/01/2012 5:43 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>>>>>> In-line... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/1/2012 4:06 PM, Tom Taylor wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 01/01/2012 2:58 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>>>>>>>> Thank you for responding promptly Tom. Let me try to elaborate on >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> two issues where I was unclear. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On the ingress-egress-aggregate issue and ECMP, the concern I >>>>>>>>> have is >>>>>>>>> relative to the third operational alternative where routing is >>>>>>>>> used to >>>>>>>>> determine where the ingress and egress of a flow is. To be blunt, >>>>>>>>> as far >>>>>>>>> as I can tell this does not work. >>>>>>>>> 1) It does not work on the ingress side because traffic from a given >>>>>>>>> source prefix can come in at multiple places. Some of these >>>>>>>>> places may >>>>>>>>> claim reachability to the source prefix. Some may not. While a given >>>>>>>>> flow will use only one of these paths, there is no way to determine >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> routing information, at the egress, which ingress that flow used. >>>>>>>>> 2) A site may use multiple exits for a given destination prefix. >>>>>>>>> Again, >>>>>>>>> while the site will only use one of these egresses for a given flow, >>>>>>>>> there is no way for the ingress to know which egress it will be >>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>> basis of routing information. >>>>>>>>> Thus, the text seems to allow for a behavior that simply does not >>>>>>>>> work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [PTT] I think the disconnect here is that you read the text to say >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> an individual node uses routing information to determine the IEA. >>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>> wasn't the intention. Instead, administrators use routing >>>>>>>> information to >>>>>>>> derive filters that are installed at the ingress and egress nodes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as I can tell, your response describes a situation even less >>>>>>> effective than what I assumed. >>>>>>> Firstly, it does not matter whether it is the edge node, the decision >>>>>>> node, or the human administrator. Routing information is not enough to >>>>>>> determine what the ingress-egress pairing is. The problems I describe >>>>>>> above apply no matter who is making the decision. >>>>>>> Secondly, having a human make the decision means that as soon as >>>>>>> routing >>>>>>> changes, the configured filters are wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would suggest that the text in question be removed, and replaced >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> a warning against attempting what is currently described. >>>>>>> >>>>> My view is also that CL ans SM do not work in the presence of ECMP. This >>>>> should be indicated as a warning. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am still confused about the relationship of section 3.3.2 to the >>>>>>>>> behavior you describe. 3.3.2 says that as long as any excess >>>>>>>>> traffic is >>>>>>>>> being reported, teh decision point shall direct the blocking of >>>>>>>>> additional flows. That does not match 3.3.1, and does not match your >>>>>>>>> description. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [PTT] I can't see the text in section 3.3.2 that says you continue to >>>>>>>> block as long as any excess traffic is being reported. What I >>>>>>>> think it >>>>>>>> says is that as long as excess traffic is reported, the decision >>>>>>>> point >>>>>>>> checks to see whether the traffic being admitted to the aggregate >>>>>>>> exceeds the supportable level. Excess traffic may be non-zero, yet no >>>>>>>> termination may be required (i.e., traffic is below the second >>>>>>>> threshold). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think I see what you are saying. If I am reading this correctly, the >>>>>>> decision process must re-calculate to determine if there is >>>>>>> termination >>>>>>> every time it receives a report with non-zero excess and the port is >>>>>>> already blocked. But it does not have to actually block anything. >>>>>>> This however seems to depend upon the correct relative >>>>>>> configuration of >>>>>>> the limit that flips it into blocked state, the value of U, and maybe >>>>>>> some other values. >>>>>>> Put differently, I understand that the two are not contradictory. >>>>>>> However, since the two things use different calculations, it is not at >>>>>>> all clear that they are consistent. This may well be acceptable. >>>>>>> But the >>>>>>> difference in methods is likely to lead to confusion. So, as a minor >>>>>>> (rather than major) comment, I would suggest that you provide >>>>>>> clarifying >>>>>>> text explaining why it is okay to use one condition to decide if there >>>>>>> is blocking, but a different condition (which could produce a lower >>>>>>> threshold) to decide how much to get rid of. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>> Joel >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>>>> Joel >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2012 2:48 PM, Tom Taylor wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the review, Joel. Comments below, marked with [PTT]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 31/12/2011 4:50 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For >>>>>>>>>>> background on >>>>>>>>>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>>>>>>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call >>>>>>>>>>> comments >>>>>>>>>>> you may receive. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-08 >>>>>>>>>>> PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Single Marking (SM) Mode of >>>>>>>>>>> Operation >>>>>>>>>>> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern >>>>>>>>>>> Review Date: 31-Dec-2011 >>>>>>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 13-Jan-2012 >>>>>>>>>>> IESG Telechat date: N/A >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Summary: This documents is almost ready for publication as an >>>>>>>>>>> Informational RFC. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Question: Given that the document defines a complex set of >>>>>>>>>>> behaviors, >>>>>>>>>>> which are mandatory for compliant systems, it seems that this >>>>>>>>>>> ought to >>>>>>>>>>> be Experimental rather than Informational. It describes something >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> could, in theory, later become standards track. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [PTT] OK, we've wobbled on this one, but we can follow your >>>>>>>>>> suggestion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Major issues: >>>>>>>>>>> Section 2 on Assumed Core Network Behavior for SM, in the third >>>>>>>>>>> bullet, >>>>>>>>>>> states that the PCN-domain satisfies the conditions specified >>>>>>>>>>> in RFC >>>>>>>>>>> 5696. Unfortunately, look at RFC 5696 I can not tell what >>>>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>>>> these are. Is this supposed to be a reference to RFC 5559 >>>>>>>>>>> instead? No >>>>>>>>>>> matter which document it is referencing, please be more specific >>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>> which section / conditions are meant. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [PTT] You are right that RFC 5696 isn't relevant. It's such a long >>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>> since that text was written that I can't recall what the intention >>>>>>>>>> was. >>>>>>>>>> My inclination at the moment is simply to delete the bullet. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would have been helpful if the early part of the document >>>>>>>>>>> indicated >>>>>>>>>>> that the edge node information about how to determine >>>>>>>>>>> ingress-egress-aggregates was described in section 5. >>>>>>>>>>> In conjunction with that, section 5.1.2, third paragraph, seems to >>>>>>>>>>> describe an option which does not seem to quite work. After >>>>>>>>>>> describing >>>>>>>>>>> how to use tunneling, and how to work with signaling, the text >>>>>>>>>>> refers to >>>>>>>>>>> inferring the ingress-egress-aggregate from the routing >>>>>>>>>>> information. In >>>>>>>>>>> the presence of multiple equal-cost domain exits (which does >>>>>>>>>>> occur in >>>>>>>>>>> reality), the routing table is not sufficient information to make >>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>> determination. Unless I am very confused (which does happen) this >>>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>>> to be a serious hole in the specification. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [PTT] I'm not sure what the issue is here. As I understand it, >>>>>>>>>> operators >>>>>>>>>> don't assign packets randomly to a given path in the presence of >>>>>>>>>> alternatives -- they choose one based on values in the packet >>>>>>>>>> header. >>>>>>>>>> The basic intent is that packets of a given microflow all follow >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> same path, to prevent unnecessary reordering and minimize >>>>>>>>>> jitter. The >>>>>>>>>> implication is that filters can be defined at the ingress nodes to >>>>>>>>>> identify the packets in a given ingress-egress-aggregate (i.e. >>>>>>>>>> flowing >>>>>>>>>> from a specific ingress node to a specific egress node) based on >>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>> header contents. The filters to do the same job at egress nodes >>>>>>>>>> are a >>>>>>>>>> different problem, but they are not affected by ECMP. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Minor issues: >>>>>>>>>>> Section 3.3.1 states that the "block" decision occurs when the CLE >>>>>>>>>>> (excess over total) rate exceeds the configured limit. However, >>>>>>>>>>> section >>>>>>>>>>> 3.3.2 states that the decision node must take further stapes if >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> excess rate is non-zero in further reports. Is this inconsistency >>>>>>>>>>> deliberate? If so, please explain. If not, please fix. (If it is >>>>>>>>>>> important to drive the excess rate to 0, then why is action only >>>>>>>>>>> initiated when the ratio is above a configured value, rather than >>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>> non-zero value? I can conceive of various reasons. But none are >>>>>>>>>>> stated.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [PTT] We aren't driving the excess rate to zero, but to a value >>>>>>>>>> equal to >>>>>>>>>> something less than (U - 1)/U. (The "something less" is because of >>>>>>>>>> packet dropping at interior nodes.) The assumption is that (U - >>>>>>>>>> 1)/U is >>>>>>>>>> greater than CLE-limit. Conceptually, PCN uses two thresholds. >>>>>>>>>> When the >>>>>>>>>> CLE is below the first threshold, new flows are admitted. Above >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> threshold, they are blocked. When the CLE is above the second >>>>>>>>>> threshold, >>>>>>>>>> flows are terminated to bring them down to that threshold. In >>>>>>>>>> the SM >>>>>>>>>> mode of operation, the first threshold is specified directly on a >>>>>>>>>> per-link basis by the value CLE-limit. The second threshold is >>>>>>>>>> specified >>>>>>>>>> by the same value (U - 1)/U for all links. With the CL mode of >>>>>>>>>> operation >>>>>>>>>> the second threshold is also specified directly for each link. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nits/editorial comments: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> Gen-art@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > >
- [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviou… Joel M. Halpern
- [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2011… Mary Barnes
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Michael Menth
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Michael Menth
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… David Harrington
- [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviou… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Russ Housley
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Tom Taylor
- [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rf… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-sipcor… Adam Roach
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-sipcor… Alexey Melnikov