Re: [hybi] hybi Digest, Vol 94, Issue 1

Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 15:49 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@adligo.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599141201C3 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pP_aCP66sLd2 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56F6812025F for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id z4so42449082qtc.3 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=K+gSG9MQX1Oz4e4wlhwMx+IlejsiLvkHFyqUgwX2isw=; b=XdiP/aBWMBO2JnCT2wYQYPViqne/1lwEnRFKRmvH215eiyVY+KSOth+dAsP6Lz6K17 xDggxgFYZbGu7IZiQChZTjqpTSsnmZx5eRzfebDObcMdkjpvVmKmpvIwhVRR8IGy8gGV WXruI+vlvw3pfTkAuAJ9JrDdQ6RGw3T3rY0G/NitcvbzSOiuK7+xXAPEBnoS6m8XKMAM sqYb23SeALJW35f9IgCfZFJR6rB8g6HDFvII3RALsqyIfGFGz5qk+kAuOI9S6geXpeBO OtBXrGIAC3QL4l+fyxDHBQHb7jH0klk4yy2DKKB0tlUqtr2KLQsZSgd7R/qPup21mcs6 gUuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=K+gSG9MQX1Oz4e4wlhwMx+IlejsiLvkHFyqUgwX2isw=; b=qXDoZmdFBwz4GNdMM6UML5Nl3y6lyG8NI00qiX6R1/wxoGq5OjFJFm2MRK9WqVhaQI KIpnkz9HLPjionGv/vCy0P6y8Vx6XFX8XH7NPwD3/djKguaJ2kgEUoZEfaQpiB0xvenn UxIGJMJFqSPVyHZ03woH3+gcjWrE3DevYYKXmftK3TvvAcXRcNPREnMAOcWzYCpF5ZgK fklaCy92a5qw9djIxWURJXfLT3L/NKytoOieiCZKti7ovFk1HxhaPMEa4xdzSEGuOodZ 6KyNlDVKdlGRhVOrvltg+W9SiC/TISLGPOiAd5QPlbFFfH/NokEBU4tjrvyuDV5wKzmm c4cQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAURmb5T0P6Cfw5f3CBQttRJhT+doN7NiNt7XljoP8zx2wGFHcr1 f7/VQ5NAYMD3CKaJ7vsf+W4BOTqlob7IRgL78b9ExaM2
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLE77JqpdiaANm+7ibIPsFvZPOMuguTS2wDt0iPQhXEqLXaRbwqJGxMwjvA6Fb8Y6bUeRsWljx+uV143OZDqw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:47:: with SMTP id c7mr1140069qvr.3.1563896939869; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.2148.1563896276.9467.hybi@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2148.1563896276.9467.hybi@ietf.org>
From: Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:48:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CANEdHmjGCG0-gvAYTkLQs=ErSFc3DQP+3wNNOMdwvB25Bbom1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: hybi@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000910d60058e5b217a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/BX_XTSqf_D2jq5PeOLFcVTmUbfE>
Subject: Re: [hybi] hybi Digest, Vol 94, Issue 1
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hybi/>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:49:07 -0000

+1 to WebTransport, I have been building that sort of thing in to
applications directly, so it would eventually reduce code that I need to
manage/maintain.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-adligo-hybi-asbp-02

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:39 AM <hybi-request@ietf.org>; wrote:

> Send hybi mailing list submissions to
>         hybi@ietf.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         hybi-request@ietf.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         hybi-owner@ietf.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of hybi digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. WebTransport Side Meeting (Tuesday, 15:20) (Victor Vasiliev)
>    2. Re: WebTransport Side Meeting (Tuesday, 15:20) (Andy Green)
>    3. Re: WebTransport Side Meeting (Tuesday, 15:20) (Eric Kinnear)
>    4. Re: [dispatch]  WebTransport Side Meeting (Tuesday, 15:20)
>       (Peter Thatcher)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:36:19 -0400
> From: Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com>;
> To: dispatch@ietf.org, David Schinazi <dschinazi@google.com>;
> Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>;, HTTP Working Group
>         <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>;, hybi@ietf.org
> Subject: [hybi] WebTransport Side Meeting (Tuesday, 15:20)
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAAZdMacqbqYVs4MeoE-ahukgLzf0+nNhNip4HTGThobXhqCceQ@mail.gmail.com>;
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Today, at the dispatch working group meeting (18:10), I am going to present
> WebTransport. WebTransport is a protocol framework that allows multiplexed
> and datagram-oriented transport protocols to be used by the web
> applications (think ?WebSocket for UDP?).
>
> Since it?s quite likely we will run out of time during dispatch, I
> scheduled a side-meeting to discuss this in more depth. Below are the side
> meeting details.
>
> *Time:* Tuesday, 15:20 ~ 16:50
> *Place:* Room C2 (21st floor)
> *Organizers:* Victor Vasiliev, David Schinazi
> *Agenda:*
>
>    1. A more in-depth overview of WebTransport.
>    2. Discussion of the overall design and the use cases.
>    3. As time permits, some of the major outstanding design issues in Web
>    transport, e.g.:
>       - What fallback protocol to use?
>       - How to multiplex streams and datagrams within a single connection?
>       - Can we let web applications do their own congestion control?
>       - Should WebTransport sessions have URLs associated with them?
>
> As usual, here are some helpful links:
>
>    - WebTransport overview:
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-overview-00
>    - QuicTransport:
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-quic-00
>    - Http3Transport:
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-http3-00
>    - Web API Spec draft: https://wicg.github.io/web-transport/
>    - Discussion on use cases:
>    https://discourse.wicg.io/t/webtransport-proposal/3508
>
> Cheers,
>   Victor.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hybi/attachments/20190722/f43b7819/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:59:57 -0700
> From: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>;
> To: Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>;,
>         dispatch@ietf.org,  David Schinazi <dschinazi@google.com>;
> Cc: hybi@ietf.org, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>;, HTTP Working Group
>         <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>;
> Subject: Re: [hybi] WebTransport Side Meeting (Tuesday, 15:20)
> Message-ID: <5c631764-25e2-ce37-3f84-8eca5a8378eb@warmcat.com>;
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> On 7/22/19 1:36 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Today, at the dispatch working group meeting (18:10), I am going to
> > present WebTransport. WebTransport is a protocol framework that allows
> > multiplexed and datagram-oriented transport protocols to be used by the
> > web applications (think ?WebSocket for UDP?).
>
> "Historically, web applications that needed bidirectional data stream
>     between a client and a server could rely on WebSockets [RFC6455], a
>     message-based protocol compatible with Web security model.  However,
>     since the abstraction it provides is a single ordered stream of
>     messages, it suffers from head-of-line blocking (HOLB), meaning that
>     all messages must be sent and received in order even if they are
>     independent and some of them are no longer needed.  This makes it a
>     poor fit for latency sensitive applications which rely on partial
>     reliability and stream independence for performance."
>
> The HOLB isn't really entirely the case... RFC6455 ws allows arbitrary
> fragmentation of messages allowing interleaving with control frames.
>
> ws-over-h2 allows you to can the h2 stream when you want as well.
>
> " Each new stream would require a WebSocket handshake to agree on
>        application protocol used, meaning that it would take at least one
>        RTT for each new stream before the client can write to it."
>
> Yes it was knowingly done as a hack to try to encourage uptake from
> browser vendors... it's not really integrated into the encapsulating
> protocol.
>
> >   * WebTransport overview:
> >     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-overview-00
> >   * QuicTransport:
> >     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-quic-00
> >   * Http3Transport:
> >     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-http3-00
>
> There's no h2 transport implementation?
>
> Not everything that might want to use this will get h3 capability in a
> reasonable timeframe.  If there's more momentum behind it than RFC8441
> there's probably room for a generic long-lived bidirectional extension
> to h2 either reusing DATA or a new frame type.
>
> It's a good idea to have it ride on other protocols.  Not doing this
> really hurt RFC6455 ws since deploying it usually needed extra,
> different servers with the attendant difficulties interoperating with
> other protocols.
>
> I really suggest thinking through the effects of not having an RFC6455
> type subprotocol (unless I failed to spot it).  It really makes an
> implicit assumption about what the stream will carry that doesn't scale
> beyond one server carrying one thing.  That's not how things tend to pan
> out if the protocol is useful.  The url path could be hacked to imply
> the subprotocol but if that's not standardized it's still a mess.  And
> the subprotocol binding may be orthogonal to the url layout complicating
> things needlessly.
>
> -Andy
>
> >   * Web API Spec draft: https://wicg.github.io/web-transport/
> >   * Discussion on use cases:
> >     https://discourse.wicg.io/t/webtransport-proposal/3508
> >
> > Cheers,
> >  ? Victor.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hybi mailing list
> > hybi@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:29:09 -0400
> From: Eric Kinnear <ekinnear@apple.com>;
> To: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>;
> Cc: Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>;,
>         dispatch@ietf.org,  David Schinazi <dschinazi@google.com>;,
>         hybi@ietf.org, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>;, HTTP Working Group
>         <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>;
> Subject: Re: [hybi] WebTransport Side Meeting (Tuesday, 15:20)
> Message-ID: <E8ABA72D-541E-45BE-B032-237CAC37F3A8@apple.com>;
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 2019, at 4:59 PM, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>; wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/22/19 1:36 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> >> Hello everyone,
> >> Today, at the dispatch working group meeting (18:10), I am going to
> present WebTransport. WebTransport is a protocol framework that allows
> multiplexed and datagram-oriented transport protocols to be used by the web
> applications (think ?WebSocket for UDP?).
> >
> > "Historically, web applications that needed bidirectional data stream
> >   between a client and a server could rely on WebSockets [RFC6455], a
> >   message-based protocol compatible with Web security model.  However,
> >   since the abstraction it provides is a single ordered stream of
> >   messages, it suffers from head-of-line blocking (HOLB), meaning that
> >   all messages must be sent and received in order even if they are
> >   independent and some of them are no longer needed.  This makes it a
> >   poor fit for latency sensitive applications which rely on partial
> >   reliability and stream independence for performance."
> >
> > The HOLB isn't really entirely the case... RFC6455 ws allows arbitrary
> fragmentation of messages allowing interleaving with control frames.
> >
> > ws-over-h2 allows you to can the h2 stream when you want as well.
> >
> > " Each new stream would require a WebSocket handshake to agree on
> >      application protocol used, meaning that it would take at least one
> >      RTT for each new stream before the client can write to it."
> >
> > Yes it was knowingly done as a hack to try to encourage uptake from
> browser vendors... it's not really integrated into the encapsulating
> protocol.
> >
> >>  * WebTransport overview:
> >>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-overview-00
> >>  * QuicTransport:
> >>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-quic-00
> >>  * Http3Transport:
> >>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-http3-00
> >
> > There's no h2 transport implementation?
> >
> > Not everything that might want to use this will get h3 capability in a
> reasonable timeframe.  If there's more momentum behind it than RFC8441
> there's probably room for a generic long-lived bidirectional extension to
> h2 either reusing DATA or a new frame type.
>
> Definitely agree! I know that we?ve been chatting a bit with Victor about
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport/
> which aims to provide this, and I think it would be worth making sure that
> this works nicely with WebTransport.
> -00 for that document covers effectively what you?d get with a new frame
> type, and -01 extends 8441 to cover more than just WebSockets with the
> extended CONNECT handshake.
> I don?t have a particularly strong preference for the mechanism used, but
> rather care more about the outcome ? very much agree that this is a useful
> component.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
> >
> > It's a good idea to have it ride on other protocols.  Not doing this
> really hurt RFC6455 ws since deploying it usually needed extra, different
> servers with the attendant difficulties interoperating with other protocols.
> >
> > I really suggest thinking through the effects of not having an RFC6455
> type subprotocol (unless I failed to spot it).  It really makes an implicit
> assumption about what the stream will carry that doesn't scale beyond one
> server carrying one thing.  That's not how things tend to pan out if the
> protocol is useful.  The url path could be hacked to imply the subprotocol
> but if that's not standardized it's still a mess.  And the subprotocol
> binding may be orthogonal to the url layout complicating things needlessly.
> >
> > -Andy
> >
> >>  * Web API Spec draft: https://wicg.github.io/web-transport/
> >>  * Discussion on use cases:
> >>    https://discourse.wicg.io/t/webtransport-proposal/3508
> >> Cheers,
> >>   Victor.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> hybi mailing list
> >> hybi@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:37:04 -0400
> From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>;
> To: Eric Kinnear <ekinnear=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>;
> Cc: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>;, Victor Vasiliev
>         <vasilvv=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>;, hybi@ietf.org,  David
> Schinazi
>         <dschinazi@google.com>;, dispatch@ietf.org,  HTTP Working Group
>         <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>;, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [hybi] [dispatch]  WebTransport Side Meeting (Tuesday,
>         15:20)
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAJrXDUE2P8WiM783AXg2BgCXi_goHFMbYTP9PkPa4mof0MJYaA@mail.gmail.com>;
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> At a quick glance,
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport/?include_text=1
> seems
> like a decent fit for the WebTransport  API.  It seems better than trying
> to fit the WebSocket API.  But do we expect people to implement it on
> servers before they implement QUIC?  I suppose even if it takes longer, it
> may have the advantage of working on more networks than QUIC and HTTP/3
> potentially (for networks that still block UDP, for example).
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 5:29 PM Eric Kinnear <ekinnear=
> 40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 22, 2019, at 4:59 PM, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>; wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/22/19 1:36 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> > >> Hello everyone,
> > >> Today, at the dispatch working group meeting (18:10), I am going to
> > present WebTransport. WebTransport is a protocol framework that allows
> > multiplexed and datagram-oriented transport protocols to be used by the
> web
> > applications (think ?WebSocket for UDP?).
> > >
> > > "Historically, web applications that needed bidirectional data stream
> > >   between a client and a server could rely on WebSockets [RFC6455], a
> > >   message-based protocol compatible with Web security model.  However,
> > >   since the abstraction it provides is a single ordered stream of
> > >   messages, it suffers from head-of-line blocking (HOLB), meaning that
> > >   all messages must be sent and received in order even if they are
> > >   independent and some of them are no longer needed.  This makes it a
> > >   poor fit for latency sensitive applications which rely on partial
> > >   reliability and stream independence for performance."
> > >
> > > The HOLB isn't really entirely the case... RFC6455 ws allows arbitrary
> > fragmentation of messages allowing interleaving with control frames.
> > >
> > > ws-over-h2 allows you to can the h2 stream when you want as well.
> > >
> > > " Each new stream would require a WebSocket handshake to agree on
> > >      application protocol used, meaning that it would take at least one
> > >      RTT for each new stream before the client can write to it."
> > >
> > > Yes it was knowingly done as a hack to try to encourage uptake from
> > browser vendors... it's not really integrated into the encapsulating
> > protocol.
> > >
> > >>  * WebTransport overview:
> > >>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-overview-00
> > >>  * QuicTransport:
> > >>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-quic-00
> > >>  * Http3Transport:
> > >>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-http3-00
> > >
> > > There's no h2 transport implementation?
> > >
> > > Not everything that might want to use this will get h3 capability in a
> > reasonable timeframe.  If there's more momentum behind it than RFC8441
> > there's probably room for a generic long-lived bidirectional extension to
> > h2 either reusing DATA or a new frame type.
> >
> > Definitely agree! I know that we?ve been chatting a bit with Victor about
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport/
> > which aims to provide this, and I think it would be worth making sure
> that
> > this works nicely with WebTransport.
> > -00 for that document covers effectively what you?d get with a new frame
> > type, and -01 extends 8441 to cover more than just WebSockets with the
> > extended CONNECT handshake.
> > I don?t have a particularly strong preference for the mechanism used, but
> > rather care more about the outcome ? very much agree that this is a
> useful
> > component.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eric
> >
> > >
> > > It's a good idea to have it ride on other protocols.  Not doing this
> > really hurt RFC6455 ws since deploying it usually needed extra, different
> > servers with the attendant difficulties interoperating with other
> protocols.
> > >
> > > I really suggest thinking through the effects of not having an RFC6455
> > type subprotocol (unless I failed to spot it).  It really makes an
> implicit
> > assumption about what the stream will carry that doesn't scale beyond one
> > server carrying one thing.  That's not how things tend to pan out if the
> > protocol is useful.  The url path could be hacked to imply the
> subprotocol
> > but if that's not standardized it's still a mess.  And the subprotocol
> > binding may be orthogonal to the url layout complicating things
> needlessly.
> > >
> > > -Andy
> > >
> > >>  * Web API Spec draft: https://wicg.github.io/web-transport/
> > >>  * Discussion on use cases:
> > >>    https://discourse.wicg.io/t/webtransport-proposal/3508
> > >> Cheers,
> > >>   Victor.
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> hybi mailing list
> > >> hybi@ietf.org
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dispatch mailing list
> > dispatch@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hybi/attachments/20190723/6a4ac121/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of hybi Digest, Vol 94, Issue 1
> ***********************************
>


-- 
Regards,
Scott Morgan
President & CEO
Adligo Inc
http://www.adligo.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-morgan-21739415
A+ Better Business Bureau Rating
<https://www.bbb.org/chicago/business-reviews/computer-software-publishers-and-developers/adligo-inc-in-chicago-il-88381256>
https://github.com/adligo

By Appointment Only:
1-866-968-1893 Ex 101
scott@adligo.com
skype:adligo1?call
Send Me Files Securely:
*https://www.sendthisfile.com/f.jsp?id=ewOnyeFQM18IDRf7MMIdolfI
<https://www.sendthisfile.com/f.jsp?id=ewOnyeFQM18IDRf7MMIdolfI>*