Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Wed, 25 October 2017 19:07 UTC
Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3ED13836A for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 wYbKJJ_9VBDN for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0118.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 863B513F450 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=kWoYvGWnfejrvQqFrnPnS5sGt7BrhMgUJzDl1mhcrQc=; b=Uh1V0dHr4QAaXnanycP7hszHyeAGUcs34BEYewsOtUJHOYdLIsswSVViL3GibpG80JUfpqUdCINFltS+1yHel2P4aijgXpAZBb21bkPRH3gTSx6FqALl1gSccjEaQRZaJUZeAy5nD7uxCx2CeK/leKFtXLqJSWyaMAykwtMkAek=
Received: from MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.250.154) by CO2PR05MB970.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.226.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.156.4; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:06:51 +0000
Received: from MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.174.250.154]) by MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.174.250.154]) with mapi id 15.20.0178.003; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:06:50 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
CC: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, Adrian Farrel <afarrel@juniper.net>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
Thread-Index: AQHTPxYFUwJcolHO7EG6GrrssrIWLqLs3W6AgAG/rwCAAtYeAIAAD/qAgAM8RgCAAEUfgIAAA6uw
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:06:50 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR05MB3551D8ACB148C096A357885DC7440@MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <87infr1xw0.fsf@chopps.org> <849fc9ab-afe8-b708-de9d-8b628b57c74c@orange.com> <c2211554298f416591415d9d25b5e355@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <dc1ee623-bc4c-5e0c-cae8-793254334f14@orange.com> <f6b6d0d7f09146e08e4c954690bb544f@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <60aa5abe-eb20-8639-e3fe-0093c5456d50@orange.com> <fe72c37b0b934f6d9adf07ff4ea2d7a3@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe72c37b0b934f6d9adf07ff4ea2d7a3@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jdrake@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CO2PR05MB970; 6:hrE58B80XxtmdXug20C4lEZzJ7oT+l+Qy1lIfCKbMYUCivA8/b0TwegufzpJbNGxrvEK53xzHvZtwpiPxbMKFu81xBWmLFUObu5HH54TEVCJOB78p1nLNZNZjjA8F1RF7yKc9ML+SlS0jMmnchkTZVY8MHSflLoROy3OHt4vBrmfE0TNNMRw6RtIIxagsZ7kJkrbIx8IIDkmzkojXgewlaWt+ad9FWpDw+cH8gDwDk7zbjHEoDnN4xCzsRnmh5RPgQZ28SXmrNAnAllbHMg/nEQmhYHvQJDNKNnADARPwBdiuvfXQSoWkW3aHGVDQZnqli0fnRUjxGci54QCcLssbA==; 5:MNcCv40LCYlgWwNaTgNR+/Tuvf+myVJKg1fVzUSJoYksbS5AmVRelWo4KEf/01oSyZHvmKGiIW2+ZpULFuOtWX5YFaDw45ww/v0mCIdDSkKICWsaBfwbWdI90J+JIJbbCAdwfEnEgC3H+wkxtkPj0w==; 24:mvX7CB1AEEiMPXsWf/kq9HzGGBQLkvYiY6xdTum+ORTovokn1JPtG9LINexitngoZfR7pbWbzoYH5qs+/Ev/HBXfZqR7t1qQgnXCDe/nskk=; 7:qt9vGCxEOFg/2VX5d3vpC1Y8eZ6sNmWejUBr0zE4c2YOqIfMEGZUaVUMCNZK4rYxd6mcCk+XtxlTT4RABb21FP4UKE0zIfz9Bvf9WMDfIiRgj5GXr2JX4cd7LyKao9Pfj4c+UZZIYoF8YVc1jL4UcVzO+jINmrFRjr0ZcOfyOcUaoTkQ69wBKCyJAeghRc941p7GPcX7gjPowhGhv3spEnMw0mUzaecYAGqtB7ob90Y=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;SSOR;
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(376002)(39860400002)(346002)(57704003)(13464003)(189002)(37854004)(199003)(189998001)(68736007)(3846002)(8676002)(102836003)(101416001)(6116002)(2906002)(99286003)(7736002)(6506006)(7696004)(33656002)(77096006)(561944003)(53546010)(6306002)(966005)(229853002)(305945005)(74316002)(55016002)(316002)(14454004)(25786009)(53936002)(9686003)(93886005)(105586002)(2900100001)(106356001)(8936002)(81166006)(5660300001)(230783001)(6246003)(478600001)(81156014)(97736004)(2950100002)(66066001)(110136005)(4326008)(6436002)(3280700002)(3660700001)(54906003)(54356999)(86362001)(575784001)(50986999)(76176999)(19627235001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR05MB970; H:MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7a00b04d-2914-4b5c-890e-08d51bdb8bdf
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081)(4534020)(4602075)(4627075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603199); SRVR:CO2PR05MB970;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CO2PR05MB970:
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(10436049006162)(100405760836317)(95692535739014)(18271650672692);
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO2PR05MB970B3F176C4C9E8462BEBD5C7440@CO2PR05MB970.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3231020)(100000703101)(100105400095)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123558100)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:CO2PR05MB970; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:CO2PR05MB970;
x-forefront-prvs: 0471B73328
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7a00b04d-2914-4b5c-890e-08d51bdb8bdf
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Oct 2017 19:06:50.0326 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO2PR05MB970
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/9Fm48El5umKcgQ0qUGWPB1V6Jh4>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:07:04 -0000
Julien, Perhaps what is needed is an MPLS/GMPLS capabilities advertisement which lists explicitly what are the advertising node's capabilities. I seem to remember some work years ago regarding the migration from MPLS to GMPLS and their attendant coexistence, and that might be useful as a starting point. I am copying Adrian and Lou w/ the expectation that their memories are better than mine. Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:45 PM > To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com> > Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te- > protocols > > Julien - > > I point out the newly added Section 6 in > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Disis-2Dte- > 2Dapp_&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawlv4L7W0R > FNJ-Y&s=iiYJ0nRe9SlDwIoqwDZMGaiHCU4VYT_QsXyoGhaKOJc&e= . > If you have not read this new section please do so. It may help explain why I > think draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols is unneeded. > > As regards advertising RFC 3473 support and/or other RSVP related capabilities, > my opinion is unchanged. This first needs to be discussed in the appropriate > WG (teas, ccamp, mpls - I leave that to yourself and others to choose) so that > consensus on this requirement is first established. Then, if needed, an > appropriate way to advertise this support (both in IS-IS and OSPF) would be > defined. But IMO this does not belong in either of the two drafts mentioned > above. > > I understand that you may still disagree. > > Les > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 7:38 AM > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com> > > Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for > > draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te- protocols > > > > Hi Les, > > > > My original post was discussing two parallel items: > > - my unconditional support to the adoption of > > draft-hegde-isis-advertising- te-protocols (irrespective of the > > decision about my following proposal), > > - a candidate use case, to be discussed "once WG document". > > > > For clarification, let me try to summarize the open questions: > > > > 1- Do we need to advertise RFC 3473 support on a per link basis? > > You seem to argue that combining RSVP link advertisement and 3473 > > support as a node advertisement (RFC 5073) may address the issue. Fair > > enough, provided implementations do support all necessary TLVs. > > [Otherwise, collocated bits are not a big deal: RFC 5073 did not block > > on a "qualitative" boundary between the M bit and the G bit.] > > > > 2- Should we restrain ourselves from improving an in-progress > > specification where presence/absence of advertisement imply a support > > that "depends upon the application"? > > You say yes, I say no (you say goodbye...). Application-specific > > semantics are an error-prone way to convey a basic binary information. > > [To map it onto the example above, combining advertisement with > > application-specific semantics before linking it to a barely > > implemented node-related TLV would clearly limit the number of > > implementations actually able to identify if a 3473-compliant RSVP > > message can be sent to control a given link.] > > > > 3- When the poll in progress concludes, if the rough consensus on "2" > > favors explicit capability advertisement, what solution should we progress? > > The more I think about it, the more I believe that requesting a flag > > allocation (e.g. 0x04) from sub-TLV 19 (created by RFC 5029) deserves > > to be considered as part of the solution space for draft-hegde-isis- > advertising-te-protocols. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Julien > > > > > > Oct. 23, 2017 - ginsberg@cisco.com: > > > Julien - > > > > > > My position on WG adoption of > > > draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols > > (opposed) and the reasons why have been stated in an earlier post to > > the list. > > > > > > draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols is discussing how to > > > signal > > whether an application which makes use of link attribute > > advertisements is enabled on a link. For the purposes of this > > discussion the application is specifically RSVP. > > > > > > Your post is discussing a quite different thing. Given that RSVP is > > > enabled > > you are asking/suggesting that we might want to also signal certain > > specific capabilities of RSVP - which is a qualitatively different thing. > > > I believe that is out of scope for > > > draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols > > (and draft-ietf-isis-te-app). > > > > > > Les > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com] > > >> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 5:16 AM > > >> > > >> Hi Les, > > >> > > >> I am not sure I am following you. > > >> > > >> As per the abstract in draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols, > > >> all I am talking about is "a mechanism to indicate which traffic > > >> engineering protocols are enabled on a link in IS-IS." At this > > >> stage, are you questioning the relevance of the poll to the IS-IS > > >> WG? (In case we really had considered another WG for this I-D, we > > >> would certainly have ended up in TEAS, not in CCAMP nor MPLS). > > >> In case mentioning the node counterpart is confusing, please ignore > > >> RFC 5073. > > >> In case joining Chris B's open discussion about renaming the "TE > > >> protocol sub- TLV" is not obvious, please do not consider that as a > > >> prerequisite to adopt the I-D. > > >> > > >> You suggest RFC 5029 as a candidate solution for > > >> draft-hegde-isis-advertising- te-protocols (section 3). That would > > >> save us a sub-TLV codepoint and leave us 14 bits instead of 32. > > >> This looks > > like a reasonable way forward to me. > > >> > > >> By the way, the suggested value for the sub-TLV in > > >> draft-hegde-isis- advertising-te-protocols is already allocated! > > >> Shraddha/Chris, could you please drop suggested codepoints from the > > >> I- > > D? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Julien > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Oct. 21, 2017 - ginsberg@cisco.com: > > >>> Julien - > > >>> > > >>> I think the issue you raise first needs to be discussed in CCAMP > > >>> (or perhaps > > >> MPLS) WG. If there is agreement that this is a problem which needs > > >> to be addressed then a draft can be written. Perhaps this is RFC > > >> 5073bis > > >> - perhaps something else. > > >>> > > >>> As far as link level signaling, in IS-IS there is already > > >>> provision for that using link attributes sub-TLV defined in RFC 5029: > > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iana.org_ > > >>> assignments_isis-2Dtlv-2Dcodepoints_isis-2Dtlv- > 2Dcodepo&d=DwICAg&c > > >>> =HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LG > > >>> hEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawlv4L7W0R > F > > >>> NJ-Y&s=j3pCfLzDhjBl4INO9pPA-Ml_3plUlQfcL_Nln7apnbk&e= > > >>> in > > >>> ts.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-19of22 > > >>> If signaling is required to address the issue you raise that would > > >>> be the > > >> most appropriate place to do it. > > >>> > > >>> I don't think your issue is in scope for either > > >>> draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te- > > >> protocols or draft-ietf-isis-te-app. > > >>> > > >>> Les > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > >>>> Julien Meuric > > >>>> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 7:15 AM > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> I support the adoption of > > >>>> draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols > > >>>> as a foundation for a WG item. A per-link "Capability sub-TLV" > > >>>> (the term "protocol" might be too specific here) really adds a > > >>>> missing piece after RFC 5073. > > >>>> > > >>>> Once WG document, we may discuss an additional use case suggested > > >>>> by that RFC: on top of RSVP-TE support, distinguish between > > >>>> 3209-only and 3473-capable. Indeed, there are parameters like > > >>>> SRLGs that were defined as part of GMPLS extensions: an > > >>>> implementation > > >>>> (wildly) guessing RFC > > >>>> 3473 support from that would not be fully wrong. Similarly, an > > >>>> implementation may perfectly support 3473 even if it has not > > >>>> explicitly advertise a PSC switching capability on a given link. > > >>>> Let us make these explicit! > > >>>> > > >>>> My 2 cents, > > >>>> > > >>>> Julien > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Oct. 07, 2017 - Christian Hopps: > > >>>>> Hi Folks, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The authors have requested the IS-IS WG adopt > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker > > >>>>> .ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dhegde-2Disis-2Dadvertising-2Dte-2Dp&d=DwIC > > >>>>> Ag&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0c > > >>>>> T-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawl > > >>>>> v4L7W0RFNJ-Y&s=urLF6Ya-h-JyUcprEz- > 6Wi8Xa0TYy4wjOrn_Ek21tl8&e= > > >>>>> ro > > >>>>> to > > >>>>> cols/ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> as a working group document. Please indicate your support or > > >>>>> no-support for taking on this work. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Authors: Please indicate your knowledge of any IPR related to > > >>>>> this work to the list as well. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>> Chris & Hannes. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> Isis-wg mailing list > > >>>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org > > >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.or > > >>>>> g_mailman_listinfo_isis- > 2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBX > > >>>>> eMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5V > > >>>>> E&m=vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawlv4L7W0RFNJ- > Y&s=0uBaEWzChU8vMa > > >>>>> X_gnFWcaHmV_ScWM7cZMZtSoIkgEI&e= > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> Isis-wg mailing list > > >>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org > > >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org > > >>>> _mailman_listinfo_isis- > 2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeM > > >>>> K-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m > > >>>> =vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawlv4L7W0RFNJ- > Y&s=0uBaEWzChU8vMaX_gn > > >>>> FWcaHmV_ScWM7cZMZtSoIkgEI&e= > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_isis- > 2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawlv4L7W0R > FNJ-Y&s=0uBaEWzChU8vMaX_gnFWcaHmV_ScWM7cZMZtSoIkgEI&e=
- [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-a… Christian Hopps
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Chris Bowers
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Chris Bowers
- [Isis-wg] 答复: WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Imtiyaz
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Paul Mattes
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… prz
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… John E Drake