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, 03 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>; 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. > > 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 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