Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 16 August 2012 02:54 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D68521F84FB for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.563
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64cCiBZXWsV5 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098D421E8048 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so2359170vbb.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ae5OYcMLknCEjAXhh1oig5OVKdp7LNQrMr+W/lXsGE4=; b=ohlOtx8/ReA1NpHsaFT1d7+4GwuhMh06vXDoaOq0j3GdaahJH8UDJ80AjeBkUELX29 emQjbJE6kCyR9wN+/t+oZWBSz+B+0/mv/1LMD8xVNZIlik/d+l5quoohbHotVlkHFvKV otuwbfaaVAPRI35ZsMfMU6qqDKl9/aYVIRqqm0rFiBA6KrV4EdchiRxa7/55i4CEqPa3 MZMJYm4KS11zIWMqxTfA68UyRu08X/DNCTEo611SzlYUiNIcWxb+2EkhJegFsxVSHPbL pyQC0Uzt9mug+BqA4JycshKOD6FSmypovrkYmT7KXfNEtuCY3sP+aFlIuKMb768u3U7h Laiw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.102.83 with SMTP id fm19mr15788291veb.24.1345085696344; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.49.204 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550FB7B7B6@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <812700A304640D4292205D5E83FC59E1061C211D@p-embx01-eq.jnpr.net> <CAG=JvvjYk_E6+Qdidyyjc5oDss9HeA2aq2pt5ciQeX06fuiWsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1reLL2_4KRb6yseJK9WTB47YzumMBGdu+UwcOWXxmE0M8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAG=JvvjVhGsVcSzEFxDKKfNckQxgQiWeezWvwpcoAOSgOP--Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rd_p6x_+PsHWtsYU=oOCT-GnmnZNL+MHcJf4NEG5boP7A@mail.gmail.com> <B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE38014A33BC4A@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com> <CAG4d1reWGjUU-z=9Gx_MvetAWF6wM8oUMpQRc9hxOg1MU37X_w@mail.gmail.com> <A3C4E51A53661B4EBEE7C5F5E6FCDEB5025AB94FE6D2@USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com> <CAG4d1rfD8_0WgzRqH-OVAxfn1RYNfY_ynwkcmqN3MBYyrn5TnQ@mail.gmail.com> <3512BB31280C39448A9880F61DD54CEB09C07E@xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com> <CAG4d1rcvk1RmRmrpCwiAGx9s0v3X9aPECdeF1Wz7WSuYwzdFKA@mail.gmail.com> <CACKN6JH8eiYty3QOZ+E5Nt0wO3nYn87yB3pKixJK-3dnaOXfLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACKN6JFMZqOnHU=vEkx8WxwSLjg5MYY=-VoJ7uOt8SAzvbAT6Q@mail.gmail.com> <A3C4E51A53661B4EBEE7C5F5E6FCDEB5025AB94FE847@USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com> <B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE38014A33C0A0@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com> <CAG4d1rehfWk-HX27eysze8zdDzjNk4h4wwj2zV6_WJWxoNxY8Q@mail.gmail.com> <B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE38014A33C26F@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com> <B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550FB7B7B6@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:54:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rerVHXs5XAtFaQ0afsUkn8nhg7eDsJ+PCGf-==W3oXVSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
X-BeenThere: irs-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <irs-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 02:54:58 -0000
Definitely agree - an IRS client has specific authorization and scope for what it can do - and that includes what prioritization it can specify for its static routes and so on.. Alia On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:50 PM, UTTARO, JAMES <ju1738@att.com> wrote: > Inject routes yes, but I would not assume that implies that all state from IRS is prioritized.. I think an important point to remember is that how IRS interfaces with routing state learned via network protocols needs to be part of this effort.. > > Jim Uttaro > > -----Original Message----- > From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shah, Himanshu > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:57 PM > To: Alia Atlas > Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments > > OK - So that I am clear... > > IRS would provide interface to RIB such that routes can be injected with priority > and the local routing table manager on the node would then apply precedence rules, select the route, > do ARP resolve (if ETH) and inject the prefix with next-hop info into the FIB. > > The next step is then programming the FIB on the line card (if applicable). > > Would make sense for IRS to not provide interface to the FIB on the second step. > But you are saying that it would also not provide interface to FIB of the first step. > > Is that correct? > > /himanshu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:05 PM > To: Shah, Himanshu > Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments > > I don't see IRS going below the RIB layer to FIB. > > Alia > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Shah, Himanshu <hshah@ciena.com> wrote: >> I will let Ed clarify on what he means by "controller" . >> >> >> >> But here is my view of "application", "controller", "use-case" etc >> etc, >> >> >> >> When an XaaS processes a request it takes into consideration of >> availability of the CPU, memory, application data, cost of power, etc. >> to instantiate a VM on some host machine. >> >> One additional resource taken into consideration is the availability >> and/or requirement of the network connectivity between the resources >> >> such as VM, application data, requester, etc. >> >> >> >> The provider of XaaS thingy is the application server. >> >> (Centralized) Network "Controller(s)" knows current state of network >> infrastructure and (to be decided how much it) controls member network >> nodes using IRS. >> >> The "use case" here is to be able to dynamically create L2/L2.5/L3 >> connectivity with specific TE characteristics between the (perhaps >> geographically dispersed) resource points. >> >> >> >> In hierarchical fashion: Application server <- (application interface) -> >> Network Controller <- (IRS) -> Network Node >> >> >> >> As we heard at IETF, IRS has tentacles in network nodes from BGP >> policies, all the way down to FIBs/LFIBs/ACL. >> >> >> >> So we need use cases for which applications would require >> accessibility to - >> >> BGP Policies >> >> RIB >> >> LSDB ( I saw an email which talks about reducing IGP to link >> distribution protocol and running SPF in centralized network >> controller) >> >> LIB >> >> FIB >> >> ACL (this is perhaps obvious) >> >> Etc etc >> >> >> >> I broad brushed and simplified a lot here to express my view - not >> sure if this jives with others. >> >> >> >> /Himanshu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Olen Stokes >> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:30 PM >> To: Edward Crabbe; Alia Atlas >> Cc: David Lake (dlake); irs-discuss@ietf.org >> >> >> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments >> >> >> >> Thanks. Can you also give us what you mean by "controller". >> >> >> >> Olen >> >> >> >> From: Edward Crabbe [mailto:edc@google.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:24 PM >> To: Alia Atlas >> Cc: David Lake (dlake); Olen Stokes; irs-discuss@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments >> >> >> >> s/wg/pre-BOF proto-wg :P/g >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com> wrote: >> >> +1 Alia. There's been a lot of confusion over this term. Having gone >> +a few >> rounds with folks on this one in other forums, I'll point out that >> what most people mean by application (myself included) is some set of >> control software (a scheduler, a path optimizer etc) that provides >> instructions to the controller, which are in turn translated to the appropriate PDUs. >> >> >> >> Having 'end user' applications request/make changes to forwarding >> state without an intermediate broker/aggregator acting on their behalf >> sounds like a recipe for disaster for operational networks, or, as is >> more likely, a quick hike to the protocol grave yard (followed by a >> long grave-side party >> :P) for the wg. >> >> >> >> my 2c. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi David, >> >> We do need to clarify what is meant by an application. I would not >> expect that real user-land applications would talk directly to routing >> devices via IRS. I can see that going through an intermediary. The >> IRS abstractions are unlikely to be as high-level as user-land >> applications would want and the security and policy issues would get >> exciting. >> >> Clarifying what applications are more in-scope initially is part of >> where use-cases will help. Can you write up ones to >> categorize/describe your thoughts? >> >> Alia >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:40 AM, David Lake (dlake) <dlake@cisco.com> >> wrote: >>> As another newbie to this, I have some questions about "application >>> vendors." >>> >>> Who is the target audience here ? That will determine what functionality >>> and abstraction of the network we need to expose to that "application." >>> >>> This presently appears to be a little confused - at least in my mind. >>> The draft talks very much as if the application we are addressing is >>> an OSS/BSS system, essentially provisioning from the domain owner. >>> >>> However, linking this to the wider goals of SDN as voiced by >>> customers/users at the first Open Network Summit, there appears to be >>> a desire for cross-domain and user-land application integration. >>> >>> At this level - as an example giving a content cache the ability to >>> ensure delivery of an HD video to an end user - the application will >>> not be interested in the underlying topology of the network; it will >>> need to know that application X can be delivered with parameters Y between reading from >>> the content store to delivery to the user's browser. How the stream >>> traverses the infrastructure is immaterial. >>> >>> Are we intending that IRS satisfies BOTH these requirements (i.e. for >>> ALL applications ?), or should we be more prescriptive about which >>> application space we are addressing ? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> David >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org >>> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] >>> On Behalf Of Alia Atlas >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:23 AM >>> To: Olen Stokes >>> Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments >>> >>> I have not specifically heard from application vendors about this. >>> My current plan is that we focus on a Use-Cases draft and define >>> within that some motivating use-cases that we agree are good first >>> targets. Those can drive which subset of functionality we focus on. >>> >>> More use-cases are, of course, quite welcome. Posting them to the >>> mailing list is a good first start. Russ White is starting the >>> general use-cases draft based on the three use-cases that he sent to the list. >>> >>> Alia >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Olen Stokes >>> <ostokes@extremenetworks.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Are there applications vendors out there that already have specific >>>> requirements for what this " subset of the data-models for sub-interfaces" >>>> should be? >>>> >>>> Olen >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org >>>> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:08 AM >>>> To: Shah, Himanshu >>>> Cc: Gert Grammel; irs-discuss@ietf.org; Lenny Giuliano; Thomas >>>> Nadeau; Alia Atlas; Scott Whyte >>>> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments >>>> >>>> Hi Himanshu, >>>> >>>> Welcome. I agree that IRS isn't going to spring into being fully >>>> formed - I expect that we'll focus on a subset of the data-models >>>> for sub-interfaces along with an associated protocol (whether that >>>> is a new one or extending an existing one). >>>> >>>> Alia >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Shah, Himanshu <hshah@ciena.com> wrote: >>>>> Newbie to this discussions list and have read only a last couple of >>>>> mails, so pardon the repeat if somebody has already raised the >>>>> following as a concern. >>>>> >>>>> I realize we are early in IRS architecture definition but one thing >>>>> to keep in mind is the user experience. >>>>> We need to make sure that exposed interface to >>>>> RIB/LFIB/FIB/IGPs/BGP/LSDBs etc etc provide a consistent >>>>> predictive action/response/events even when different >>>>> implementations has varying capabilities. >>>>> >>>>> At the moment it seems like a wild wild west. >>>>> Perhaps IRS can be defined in phases starting with a simpler, >>>>> limited version.. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> himanshu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org >>>>> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas >>>>> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:41 AM >>>>> To: Scott Whyte >>>>> Cc: Thomas Nadeau; Gert Grammel; Alia Atlas; Lenny Giuliano; >>>>> irs-discuss@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments >>>>> >>>>> ...snip... >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Scott Whyte <swhyte@google.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> I do think it is important to have the RIB as an arbitration mechanism >>>>>>> on the device. Russ's suggestion that for the RIB sub-interface, the >>>>>>> IRS agent might communicate logically to an IRS routing process >>>>>>> gives good semantics and interactions. Obviously, >>>>>>> implementations may differ. >>>>>> >>>>>> As long as the arbitration mechanism is reconfigurable by the >>>>>> operator to whatever precedence they want, I agree. Its not clear >>>>>> to me if various RIB implementations treat all proffered routes >>>>>> the same, nor if they store the same meta-data with all protocol sources. >>>>>> So there needs to be some way for the operator to leverage exposed >>>>>> protocol-specific optimizations, without conflict from the other >>>>>> routing processes, if they so desire. OTOH if it can all be done >>>>>> via static routes, it seems much simpler. :) >>>>> >>>>> Clearly the IRS sub-interface for the RIB needs to introduce/define >>>>> the different precedences; my assumption is that it would be per >>>>> route with a well-defined small set of meta-data. This is part of >>>>> where having good use-cases will help us understand what behavior >>>>> is necessary. The static routes do seem like a simpler case to start with. >>>>> >>>>> Alia >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> irs-discuss mailing list >>>>> irs-discuss@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> irs-discuss mailing list >>>> irs-discuss@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss >>> _______________________________________________ >>> irs-discuss mailing list >>> irs-discuss@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> irs-discuss mailing list >> irs-discuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > irs-discuss mailing list > irs-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Susan Hares
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Robert Raszuk
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Scott Whyte
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Susan Hares
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Scott Whyte
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Olen Stokes
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments David Lake (dlake)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments David Lake (dlake)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Olen Stokes
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments David Lake (dlake)
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Olen Stokes
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Robert Raszuk
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Ramon Casellas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- [irs-discuss] 答复: IRS comments Mach Chen
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Mach Chen
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Alia Atlas
- [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: 答复: IRS comments Mach Chen
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Acee Lindem
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Susan Hares
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau