Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Tue, 03 September 2019 20:56 UTC
Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C22512004E; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=gmail.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 JSpgzNSJKIin; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (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 A84BE120045; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id k2so922551wmj.4; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Q9Mj4c5vjMJbkjA17exn+Ze0sMXMpuFfx1077dcfvNE=; b=QXaafm8tOqxj5nr0Jvak0dajNp3bDF92+ZMqjyVCVvH4fynHCbnQ7VrPejTapxdD4u YECE0EDBlREhYPDYN0LWsBlpchrg2yp/UNabh4Zx+zQT4b4ruNROBlYj36HZ8OBLvcSs JIbDUCGQA6yr0cTmx0u7LYEIbFlvAmrcmBgH3sd9mNFCBCxPUX8mLHDkzKATW1eSMICQ 6IkBbEeZSGKBmdK8bnh3U2MI0pngCD34yeZxqQF7MmRiHjjCm9Oxa88YYBrgpAoI9F+k mN25yr0n4vCpqn7rXuEIsVrdFI9va/8dN3isDZ+HAJh7+6iymRt9gMdfa3waOEWsQVf+ /IKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Q9Mj4c5vjMJbkjA17exn+Ze0sMXMpuFfx1077dcfvNE=; b=O6lH3IrA8Zp5gBTms3XIZq8be3Nq/YCHAwt9lVRW3hlND1stWCpu9LgoMbNWCqvqyB L0ra9FfdGUo6MulmUPp/oMMsWOejuJjjrAY8rp+QQIb+/ukTZKUGXyc7gkpDFupJe7wv H2KNS6JfdOAxIDbkA62oYpzML2wgGBlhbw4URGIy1FQ1HunWtHX5oVirNNs5YB663uXh Ojks1XpqTt8hH4EZpWtJvEzQcHdgsWBjeio9ntXgeF0dQIsjVuwgxgAEM6eo5/IgviSM l41G5+VVXnVfDFFAOidjLp8JPoFciwRgxcb3rWytdTyiB/U1gLVDNADJg1B/VSUjB19G lahw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVeP0qqbTypBS9rLpf07hcovsyW4r4PqydlT5MP0iGYMYHeZ5cR K5gl/aPcCesoXMlFhX08yRU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz4w31vHPBGZF8Yof12lPg02JayxTK0LJnYKpwSiP2EBAvsrhsJ4brLfpBhe93EmVZfaDyacg==
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c094:: with SMTP id r20mr1398102wmh.134.1567544214073; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.199] (c-24-5-53-184.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.53.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q19sm36677742wra.89.2019.09.03.13.56.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <A8A10E03-6EEC-4F60-A213-7D66084BA754@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BDF8224F-9907-426D-8C75-B77D6EF640B5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:56:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37xhhS5ezhJu6-HQmftwY9cBzuCxeaW9thTbKBa2hizcw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
References: <156751558566.9632.10416223948753711891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <B7C5DF29-92B2-477B-9C30-F47E338038EE@strayalpha.com> <efabc7c9f72c4cd9a31f56de24669640@boeing.com> <9331E721-F7F8-4C22-9BE4-E266726B3702@gmail.com> <7bfbaf5fa12c4a9bac3e46ece5dfdcde@boeing.com> <0BF34BFA-5F30-4EE1-9F5E-18D9ECA8D424@gmail.com> <CALx6S37xhhS5ezhJu6-HQmftwY9cBzuCxeaW9thTbKBa2hizcw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/JRGazqBGcJ8raVzLeyymPZ5rzpE>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 20:56:59 -0000
Tom, > On Sep 3, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote: > > Bob, > > I agree with Fred. Note, the very first line of the introduction: > > "Operational experience [Kent] [Huston] [RFC7872] reveals that IP > fragmentation introduces fragility to Internet communication”. Yes, that text in in the first paragraph of the Introduction > > This attempts to frame fragmentation as being generally fragile with > supporting references. However, there was much discussion on the list > about operational experience that demonstrates fragmentation is not > fragile. In particular, we know that fragmentation with tunnels is > productively deployed and has been for quite some time. So that is the > counter argument to the general statement that fragmentation is > fragile. With the text about tunneling included in the introduction I > believe that was sufficient balance of the arguments, but without the > text the reader could be led to believe that fragmentation is fragile > for everyone all the time which is simply not true and would be > misleading. Yes, but we are discussing some text from the Introduction that to my read didn’t say anything useful so I removed it. The substantive text about tunneling in in Section 3.5. The Introduction, is just the introduction. The text was: This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]. Therefore, this document makes no additional recommendations regarding IP-in-IP tunnels. Why is that more useful than what is in 3.5? If it’s not making a recommendation, why call this out in the introduction. There are lot of other things it doesn’t make recommendations about that aren’t in the Introduction either. Bob > > Speaking of balance, the introduction also mentions that: > > "this document recommends that upper-layer protocols address the > problem of fragmentation at their layer" > > But the "problem" of fragmentation is in intermediate devices that > don't properly handle it as the draft highlights. So it seems like > part of addressing the problem should also be to fix the problem! That > is implementations should be fixed to deal with fragmentation. IMO, > this should be another high level recommendation that is mentioned in > the introduction. I am serving as document editor. This to my understanding has been through w.g. last call and now IESG review. > > Tom > > > > Tom > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:01 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Fred, >> >>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: >>> >>> Bob, >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 9:10 AM >>>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> >>>> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>; Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>; Joel Halpern >>>> <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; intarea- >>>> chairs@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT) >>>> >>>> Fred, >>>> >>>>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Why was this section taken out: >>>>> >>>>>> 1.1. IP-in-IP Tunnels >>>>>> >>>>>> This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be >>>>>> fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]. >>>>>> Therefore, this document makes no additional recommendations >>>>>> regarding IP-in-IP tunnels. >>>> >>>> This text in the Introduction was removed because, as noted in Warren Kumari >>>> Comment (2019-08-07 for -15), this didn’t need to be in the introduction, and it didn’t say very much that isn’t described later in the >>>> document. >>>> >>>> The normative text in Section 5.3. "Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations” is unchanged. I think Section 5.3 covers the topic. It includes the >>>> reference to [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]. >>> >>> While I agree that both passages supply a working vector to 'intarea-tunnels', >>> the two strike very different tones. The former gives a balanced citation, while >>> the latter calls it a "corner case" - twice! >>> >>> Whether we like it or not, fragmentation and encapsulation will continue to >>> be associated with each other no matter what gets documented here. So, >>> a respectful handoff to 'intarea-tunnels' would be appreciated. >> >> You are talking about text in the Introduction of the document. >> >> The important substance relating to tunnels is in Section 5.3. The text is: >> >> 5.3. Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations >> >> In this document, packet-in-packet encapsulations include IP-in-IP >> [RFC2003], Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784], GRE-in-UDP >> [RFC8086] and Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 [RFC2473]. [RFC4459] >> describes fragmentation issues associated with all of the above- >> mentioned encapsulations. >> >> The fragmentation strategy described for GRE in [RFC7588] has been >> deployed for all of the above-mentioned encapsulations. This >> strategy does not rely on IP fragmentation except in one corner case. >> (see Section 3.3.2.2 of RFC 7588 and Section 7.1 of RFC 2473). >> Section 3.3 of [RFC7676] further describes this corner case. >> >> See [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] for further discussion. >> >> Seems fine to me, in tone and substance. >> >> Bob >> >> >>> >>> Fred >>> >>>> Bob >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tunnels always inflate the size of packets to the point that they may exceed >>>>> the path MTU even if the original packet is no larger than the path MTU. And, >>>>> for IPv6 the only guarantee is 1280. Therefore, in order to robustly support >>>>> the minimum IPv6 MTU tunnels MUST employ fragmentation. >>>>> >>>>> Please put this section of text back in the document where it belongs. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks - Fred >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 7:06 AM >>>>>> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> >>>>>> Cc: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; The IESG >>>> <iesg@ietf.org>; >>>>>> intarea-chairs@ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> So let me see if I understand: >>>>>> >>>>>> Alissa issues a comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> We discuss this on the list and come to a rare consensus on a way forward. >>>>>> >>>>>> The new draft is issued that: >>>>>> >>>>>> a) ignores the list consensus >>>>>> b) removes a paragraph not under the DISCUSS (1.1) >>>>>> c) now refers to vague “other documents” without citation >>>>>> d) most importantly: >>>>>> >>>>>> REMOVES a key recommendation that we MAY use frag where it works >>>>>> >>>>>> Asserts the false claim that IP fragmentation “will fail” in the Internet, >>>>>> despite citing evidence that the *majority of the time* it does work >>>>>> e.g., for IPv6, sec 3.9 >>>>>> >>>>>> What happened? Why is a change this substantial not reflecting the *list consensus*? >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:59 AM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >>>>>>> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: No Objection >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>>>>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> COMMENT: >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Int-area mailing list >>>>>>> Int-area@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Int-area mailing list >>>>>> Int-area@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> Int-area@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
- [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Black, David
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fred Baker
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fred Baker
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Warren Kumari
- [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Warren Kumari
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fred Baker
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Geoff Huston
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Fred Baker
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Fred Baker