Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 15 August 2012 22:09 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 1166921E8041 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, 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 WVcpgz67k5aH for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C789521F85C7 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so2519219yen.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:09:07 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yAVib4r0FGboMgapaXnZFUHv7JJZ1JpFTNAV8OVDQ4I=; b=Cnv5qVadcjXTSSmGp5HXVZvIBYEVMg+zY9fwfyA1ebIMo/pB1BWkC4zhhY8B6UmGXy FWHpmGtDJCSBFI8OlgytNQPs3BH03VfBngdDHgNk8MBgqaLIbILGBRekwivWgHmy22DO PqCKe7nK/KyaFP5HefgFh/tRwl2rWuCyEbRCnKHCywb+sXTfXPVRPmwAoSMbNlR8ODV/ /bCpsK5zLxub/MV1HkmJ7s4UybqUBwKTEYLWg9NjZcCDSQ9yOtWDa3c9WHWuP3YFVu6i 8dW9DIIQAr7uPPN/Jq3+m428ZTBwqKrzJM0ccWh+dmq8eI974dLpDQHCwCvQOYTaPgJ5 OAnA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.151.71 with SMTP id d7mr15335146icw.18.1345068547094; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.91.135 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACKN6JEBj7AuOn9H_rdn4gSbMoiV5ZNL806yVrakMRKjE1qTVA@mail.gmail.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> <CACKN6JEBj7AuOn9H_rdn4gSbMoiV5ZNL806yVrakMRKjE1qTVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:09:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdVr8UE3HKmrfXHyGF2dkZzi5RgMLEVbzbSCX+ncuXOOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "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: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:09:09 -0000
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com> wrote: > It's not clear to me that IRS has 'tentacles' (;)) in the LFIB... Perhaps the correct term is the LIB rather than the LFIB.... This is the control plane's mapping of incoming MPLS label to next-hops with associated label operations. (I think of them as puppet strings rather than tentacles - but if you prefer a more aquatic description...) > Is this the case? And if so, I guess I'll repeat the question I asked after > Alia's presentation in the RTG meeting: will there be a mechanism to > negotiate and specify encapsulation types as well as form FECs etc? I think of a next-hop as including the outgoing interface and encapsulation type, with associated details. I've got that in the IRS framework draft in the RIB sub-interface description. Could you take a look and tell me what, at a high level, you see as missing? > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, 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 >> >> >> >> > >
- 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