Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 04 September 2019 14:23 UTC
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 6A534120130; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GBYurPn5OuNj; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74BD312004F; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id x84ENcFT013301; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:23:38 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-07.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.109]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x84ENVT9012621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:23:31 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:23:29 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:23:29 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
CC: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.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>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVYleCBj1oQLuY7U2rnGqsdj7a9acaci8A//+QwwCAAJHEgP//wU8wgAAZmpyAAAHqEIAAqL2AgAB4AjA=
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:23:29 +0000
Message-ID: <25c7130ecf734692a4f6746141d96038@boeing.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> <A8A10E03-6EEC-4F60-A213-7D66084BA754@gmail.com> <09d0dc428430407f8154f40d47a417dc@boeing.com> <3AF76A3A-E18D-4CC2-8FA8-6A465FD06E28@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3AF76A3A-E18D-4CC2-8FA8-6A465FD06E28@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 588EC8086A7104B7FCDFB4CA9BE869BB9394E1C893A5B2D4813A102D8895C4D62000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/MJyneLjPweNWB0JkgVTyPRVLzrs>
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: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:23:45 -0000
Bob, > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 5:08 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> > Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>; int-area@ietf.org; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; Joel > Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@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 2:10 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 1:57 PM > >> To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> > >> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>; int-area@ietf.org; IESG > >> <iesg@ietf.org>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org; intarea-chairs@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT) > >> > >> 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. > > > > Yes - good text that should be retained. > > > >> 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. > > > > Because it sets a more appropriate tone and lets the reader know from the onset that > > fragmentation and encapsulation go hand in hand. And tunnel fragmentation avoids the > > issues raised by others in this thread. > > I don’t know how to evaluate “tone” in an IETF specification. > > How about if I move this text to section 5.3? I think that’s better than in the Introduction. > > The section would be: > > 5.3. Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations > > This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be > fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels. Therefore, this document makes no > additional recommendations regarding IP-in-IP tunnels. > > 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. Paragraph #1 beginning "This document acknowledges" looks good, but then why include paragraphs #2 and #3 since 'intarea-tunnels' is the place to discuss IP-in-IP encapsulation. So, why not shorten Section 5.3 and have it as simply: 5.3. Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels. Therefore, this document makes no additional recommendations regarding IP-in-IP tunnels. See [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] for further discussion. Fred > Bob > > > > > > Thanks - Fred > > > >> 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