Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Tue, 03 September 2019 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <David.Black@dell.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 5B2B5120137; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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=dell.com header.b=aPGzZYXy; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=emc.com header.b=bWUDECXE
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 KtDx8b8-pigu; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com (mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com [148.163.137.20]) (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 D95F3120152; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0170395.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x83LsXkW024546; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:59:19 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dell.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=smtpout1; bh=U90WbXL/xV6WiqdOtiHkd7o1TQRiolDt0j7VJ3HT0ZY=; b=aPGzZYXyEeOyKIPf3XDRB/kn+OT3N1/k7cTeDpxyTgVy1AgmVab9gWIVZrPiorWMUwRN DLXe1hYj+9NU2dvqdkcr5HHAS2eE2XArPN28I8Ny5W2Bq8KeKyYumBsCDdnawWIExXSg uDtBuAH0TE4ffm14KXffj10mRNOUAEj//dX7KsBUpgZhNrnjlN//YNuRRDAr8dCGBl/4 YSwwq/1jBrzSvPHuN3q3eYGT3DCgCqMovraxSMyFY4U+mcz44XqgZ74c90k62f95TNYf jLoRFLXi05RgcgSlfPptuUTt4q8BrRXQ3RSpNFO5KR1QbyopkJxZjv8xmbh4YHrgAyLz zw==
Received: from mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com [67.231.157.37]) by mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uqnjpcawe-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 03 Sep 2019 17:59:19 -0400
Received: from pps.filterd (m0134318.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x83Lvswo135301; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:59:19 -0400
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com [128.221.224.79]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uqkhea19c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 03 Sep 2019 17:59:19 -0400
Received: from maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.158]) by mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id x83LwwcZ028866 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:59:17 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com x83LwwcZ028866
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1567547958; bh=LB3XXxHg6W+7XmI8W4rlXQhMBeM=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=bWUDECXEqdlustWUVuWrtxrYuPqtz6jxmwbRyfPakn8g8VU/D2NdJStNfe3pZexgc Cvr6+BXewvkLnNksZlb0yGRA+F+oCqF0QvmfVa0UZ6GB5mqrbQy4eA8J4GOMg70lbP EGCoo9yU2xBAAOsgt2GpXUWQJ1M3a250fvJHIwAU=
Received: from mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.22]) by maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:58:18 -0400
Received: from MXHUB315.corp.emc.com (MXHUB315.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.93]) by mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id x83LwDeM002773 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:58:18 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB315.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.93]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:58:16 -0400
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
CC: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVYld+yFe6yUs7fUCDM9CD18d0j6caP+QAgAAHm4CAABrsgIAAPEMAgAAESoCAAAk1AIAABl8AgAAD1gD//8mCcA==
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 21:58:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936306D5015@MX307CL04.corp.emc.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>
In-Reply-To: <09d0dc428430407f8154f40d47a417dc@boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Enabled=True; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_SiteId=945c199a-83a2-4e80-9f8c-5a91be5752dd; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Owner=david.black@emc.com; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_SetDate=2019-09-03T21:58:15.2430943Z; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Name=External Public; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Application=Microsoft Azure Information Protection; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Extended_MSFT_Method=Manual; aiplabel=External Public
x-originating-ip: [10.238.21.131]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.70,1.0.8 definitions=2019-09-03_05:2019-09-03,2019-09-03 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1011 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1906280000 definitions=main-1909030218
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1906280000 definitions=main-1909030217
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/QfxHdjfK1hdAQETaZXfGd17HIkk>
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 21:59:28 -0000

+1 (agreeing with Tom and Fred) on retaining this text:

> >    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.

... for the reasons described below - e.g., "tone" matters in the introduction to this sort of BCP.

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Int-area <int-area-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred
> L
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 5:10 PM
> To: Bob Hinden; Tom Herbert
> Cc: Joel Halpern; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org;
> IESG; intarea-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-
> frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> 
> 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>om>; Templin (US), Fred L
> <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>om>; int-area@ietf.org; IESG
> > <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>om>; 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.
> 
> 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>om>; Joe Touch
> <touch@strayalpha.com>om>; Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>in>; Joel
> > Halpern
> > >>>> <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>om>; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-
> fragile@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; 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>om>; draft-ietf-intarea-
> frag-fragile@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; The IESG
> > >>>> <iesg@ietf.org>rg>;
> > >>>>>> 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 mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area