Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks"
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 11 April 2022 07:36 UTC
Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D02D3A1DD8; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 00:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 jeLmWJvLM5fy; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 00:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DBB33A1DF0; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 00:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10336; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1649662595; x=1650872195; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8vXHKCzra16CNDTf6nj9x2OLWIg/pA3jCEeVZAo0O40=; b=bKlCGR3Gb1T+HHijm74K/V6FRnIl5ChyLXl8e+WuosrT+FWDE3/S4we6 ON+3k7BEUlorbZ4bul82V3ziMzP+yG+UHuhqvTmnH0diCnFA8TdaYxBGf hjjUfD+UEVZA1FYnVrzFCfxaITKGJ6CAFyk640gAo4KA+gYoM0dIZGkPr 4=;
X-IPAS-Result: A0ANAABE2lNilxbLJq1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQFAgUYHAQELAQGDJFYBKBJEhFWIJmCIEwOQRowlFIFoCwEBAQ8sDQoEAQGEfQEJAoRzJjQJDgECBAEBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQEDAQEFAQEBAgEHBBQBAQEBAQEBAQkbBgwFEDWFaA1AAQEECwGFcAEBAQECAQEBGwYPAQU2BAcQCxgCAhEOBAMCAicfEQYBDAYCAQGDAAGCdSQPrVl6gTGBAYNjQYNzgV8GgRAsAYYUWIdoQ4FJRIEUAScMgkcwPoJjAQECAYEWHmiDF4JlBJoNEFtqBDIGEwYCBEsMIFkGBAsUFh8BCAINLZFsMax9gTCDU4QWhwGHAY1SBg8FLoN0jDmGLo5kghh6ll4ggimKU5Q7BASFMoFhghUzGggbFTuCaVEZD4gAhjkeiE+FTD8DMQI2AgYBCgEBAwmIM4Eqgy+CSAEB
IronPort-Data: A9a23:9+e75q8RwCvD8zd9AcFMDrUDin6TJUtcMsCJ2f8bNWPcYEJGY0x3y zRJXDqOMvyNMGOne9kka4yx8x4O7JGAzYMwHgdkrn1EQiMRo6IpJzg2wmQcns+2BpeeJK6yx 5xGMrEsFOhtEjmE4E3F3oHJ9RGQ74nQLlbHILOCa3gZqTNMEn9700o/wrdh2+aEvPDga++zk YKqyyHgEAfNNw5cagr4PIra9XuDFNyr0N8plgRWicJj5TcypFFJZH4rHpxdGlOjKmVi8kFWc M6YpF2x1juxEx7AkbpJmJ6jGqEBaua60QRjFhO6VoD66iWuqBDe3Y4pMddCVlsNmgyZ3Ntv1 9xTiZ/oS1o2a/ikdOQ1C3G0Egl3MLcD87jdLD3m98eS1EbBNXDrxp2CDmlvYtZeobYxWzkVs 6ZCQNwORkjra+ae2KqgR+9lhewoLdLgO8UUvXQIITTxV618H8uZK0nMzcFmwgYxn/pRJP3fZ 8wiNQZOXCvAJDQabz/7D7pnzLv32RETaQZwpEicq7Zy4mXPwkl1y6KoMcKQdNiHVcxRkUGwp 2/a8SL+GB5yHNiE0xKE/26iwOjVkkvTUYkfGejkrvVrm1aUgGcUDTUaUFKhqr+4h1KwHdVFJ CQ8+ScypK4usk2mUtfVUBixoXrCtRkZM+e8CMUz5RvIy7LT+RrcAGEYCDVAc9ch8sQxQFTGy 2Nlgfv7ABExj6HPWEuNtbyKsjqsBStNLzIdMHpsoRQ+3/Hvp4Q6jxTqR9llEbKogtCdJQwc0 wxmvwBl2OpO1Z9jO7GTuAGY02j19/AlWyZsvl2PNl9J+D+Vc2JMWmBJ1bQ5xasYRGp6ZgDf1 JThpyR5xLlfZaxhbATXHI0w8EiBvp5pygH0j191BIUG/D+w4XOldo04yGggeBY3a5tYIWa3P BW7VeZtCHl7YSfCgUhfPt3ZNijW5fSI+SnND6qNNYMePvCdiifep301DaJv44wduBF8zf5gU XtqWc2tFn0dQb921ya7Qvx17FPY7n5W+I8nfriil07P+ePHPBa9EO5VWHPTPrFRxP7V+239r ocAX/ZmPj0CCYUSlAGMqtVNRb3LRFBmba3LRzt/KrbYclU7Qjl4YxITqJt4E7FYc21uvr+g1 hmAtoVwkTITWVWvxd22V01e
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:abd/LKyUp2ZvjI1v5rtXKrPwHb1zdoMgy1knxilNoNJuA6+lfr OV/cjzsiWE7gr5OUtQ/uxoV5PsfZqxz+8R3WBVB8bHYOCEggeVxeNZh7cKqgeIc0bDH6xmpM VdmsNFZuEYY2IbsS+32maF+xJK+qj+zEhu7t2utktQcQ==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,251,1643673600"; d="scan'208";a="232632"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 11 Apr 2022 07:36:33 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 23B7aWe9026443; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 07:36:33 GMT
Message-ID: <b6250861-a35d-2a47-6701-194b074e7233@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:36:32 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo@ietf.org>
References: <36E526F2-34CB-4C0A-84C2-79A50D9D4C36@cisco.com> <CAH6gdPwrshSVGNsjJVqND8kpNBTBQWicggEz_qyP0DtMYY5wjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH6gdPwrshSVGNsjJVqND8kpNBTBQWicggEz_qyP0DtMYY5wjg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/SJS-Qmz01Eg9X93JvCv8q-lT9aI>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks"
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 07:37:02 -0000
Hi Ketan, please responses to some of your comments inline (##PP): On 11/04/2022 08:25, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > Hello All, > > Following are some comments on this draft: > > 1) Is this draft about opening the use of all IGP Algorithms for IP > (Algo) Routing or intended to be specific to Flexible Algorithms (i.e. > algo 128-255) alone. I think it is important to specify the scope > unambiguously. Perhaps it makes sense to restrict the usage in this > particular document to FlexAlgorithms alone. If not, the draft probably > needs an update and we need to also cover algo 1 (Strict SPF) > applicability and update the text to refer more generically to > algo-specific IP routing. ##PP the intent is to use FlexAlgorithms only. > > 2) The relationship between the algo usage for IP FlexAlgo and other > data planes (e.g. FlexAlgo with SR) is not very clear. There arise > complications when the algo usage for IP FlexAlgo overlap with other > (say SR) data planes since the FAD is shared but the node participation > is not shared. While Sec 9 suggests that we can work through these > complications, I question the need for such complexity. The FlexAlgo > space is large enough to allow it to be shared between various data > planes without overlap. My suggestion would be to neither carve out > parallel algo spaces within IGPs for various types of FlexAlgo data > planes nor allow the same algo to be used by both IP and SR data planes. > So that we have a single topology computation in the IGP for a given > algo based on its FAD and data plane participation and then when it > comes to prefix calculation, the results could involve programming of > entries in respective forwarding planes based on the signaling of the > respective prefix reachabilities. The coverage of these aspects in a > dedicated section upfront will help. ##PP I strongly disagree. FAD is data-pane/app independent. Participation is data-plane/app dependent. Base flex-algo specification is very clear about that. That has advantages and we do not want to modify that part. Topology calculation for algo/data-plane needs to take both FAD and participation into account. You need independent calculation for each data-plane/app in the same algo. The fact that the same FAD is shareable between all apps has it advantages and use cases - e.g. if the participation for algo X is the same in SR and IP data-planes, one can use SR to protect IP in that algo. > > 3) This draft makes assertions that IGP FlexAlgo cannot be deployed > without SR. This is not true since the base IGP FlexAlgo spec explicitly > opens it up for usage outside of the SR forwarding plane. We already > have BIER and MLDP forwarding planes as users of the IGP FlexAlgo. My > suggestion is to remove such assertions from the document. It is > sufficient to just say that the document enables the use of IGP FlexAlgo > for IP prefixes with native IP forwarding. ##PP where do you see such assertion? Each flex-algo data-plane/app can be deployed independently. > > 4) The draft is mixing up "address" and "prefix" in some places. IGP > path computation is for prefixes and not addresses. There are a few > instances where "address" should be replaced by "prefix". References to > RFC791 and RFC8200 seem unnecessary. > > 5) The draft does not cover the actual deployment use-case or > applicability of IP FlexAlgo. The text in Sec 3 is not clear and > insufficient. What is the point/use of sending traffic to a loopback of > the egress router? Perhaps it makes sense in a deployment where IP-in-IP > encapsulation is used for delivering an overlay service? If so, would be > better to clarify this. The other deployment scenario is where > "external" or "host/leaf prefixes" are associated with a FlexAlgo to > provide them a different/appropriate routing path through the network. > Yet another is the use of IP FlexAlgo along with LDP. Sec 9 does not > address the topic well enough. I would suggest expanding and clarifying > this and perhaps other such deployment use cases (or applicability) in > the document in one of the earlier sections to provide a better context > to the reader. > > 6) It would be better to move the common (i.e. not protocol specific) > text from 5.1 and 5.2 under 5. This might also apply to some extent to > the contents of sec 6. > > 7) Most of the text with MUSTs in sec 5 doesn't really make sense in > repeating - this is covered in the base FlexAlgo spec already. The only > key/important MUST is the one related to using separate algo for IP > FlexAlgo over SR data planes. See my previous comment (2) above. > > 8) Sec 5.1, the SHOULD needs to be MUST in the text below. > > A router receiving multiple IP Algorithm > sub-TLVs from the same originator SHOULD select the first > advertisement in the lowest-numbered LSP and subsequent instances of > the IP Algorithm Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. > > > 9) Sec 5.1, I would suggest changing the following text as indicated. > Also, perhaps add that the algo 0 MUST NOT be advertised and a receiver > MUST ignore if it receives algo 0. > OLD > > The IP Algorithm Sub-TLV could be used to advertise > support for non-zero standard algorithms, but that is outside the > scope of this document. > > NEW > > The use of IP Algorithm Sub-TLV to advertise support for algorithms > > outside the flex-algorithm range is outside the > scope of this document. > > > 10) Sec 5.1, the SHOULD needs to be MUST in the text below > > The IP Algorithm TLV is optional. It SHOULD only be advertised once > in the Router Information Opaque LSA. > > > 11) Sec 6. The following text is better moved into the respective > protocol sub-sections. OSPFv3 is not covered anyway by it. > > Two new top-level TLVs are defined in ISIS [ISO10589 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo#ref-ISO10589>] to advertise > prefix reachability associated with a Flex-Algorithm. > > * The IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV > > * The IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV > > New top-level TLV of OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7684>] is > defined to advertise prefix reachability associated with a Flex- > Algorithm in OSPFv2. > > 12) Sec 6.1 & 6.2. There is no discussion regd the use of the Prefix > Attribute Flags sub-TLV with the new top-level TLVs. > > I think their usage MUST (or at least SHOULD) be included as it helps > determine the route type and prefix attributes that > > have proven to be quite useful for various use cases and deployments. > > > 13) Sec 6.2 what happens when the same prefix is advertised as SRv6 > Locator as well as IPv6 Algo Prefix (same or conflicting algos). Perhaps > both must be ignored? > > The same applies for OSPFv3 as well. > > > 14) Sec 6.3, OSPFv2 MT-ID reference should be RFC4915. Perhaps the range > of MT should be mentioned since it is a 8 bit field here. > > > 15) Sec 6.4, the metric field in the sub-TLV has to be 32-bit. While > 24-bit is ok when the FAD uses IGP metric, it will not suffice for other > IGP metric types. > > > 16) Sec 6.3 & 6.4, the conflict checking with base algo 0 prefix > reachability cannot be limited only to the OSPFv2/3 Extended LSAs but > should also cover the base fixed form > > OSPFv2/v3 LSAs. We could use a more generic term like "normal prefix > reachability" advertisements perhaps to cover the different LSAs? > > > 17) Sec 7 and 8, suggest to not use the term "application" to avoid > confusion with ASLA. My understanding is that there is a single FlexAlgo > application when it comes to ASLA. > > Perhaps the intention here is "data plane" ? > > > 18) The relationship between the BIER IPA and this draft needs some > clarifications - should the BIER WG be notified if they want to update > draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa? ##PP what is the relationship? I see none. > > This (in some way) goes back to my comment (2) above. > > > 19) Sec 8, what prevents the use of IP FlexAlgo paths programmed by LDP > as well. Or if the intention is to use them strictly for IP forwarding only > > then this needs to be clarified. > > > 20) The following text in Sec 9 is about using the same FlexAlgo (with a > common definition) for multiple data-planes at the same time. The key is > that we only are able to use > > prefix in one algo/data-plane? I am wondering if we can improve this > text to bring this out in a better way. Or altogether remove this if we > agree to not allow sharing of algo > > between different data planes to keep things simple. > > Multiple application can use the same Flex-Algorithm value at the > > same time and and as such share the FAD for it. For example SR-MPLS > and IP can both use such common Flex-Algorithm. Traffic for SR-MPLS > will be forwarded based on Flex-algorithm specific SR SIDs. Traffic > for IP Flex-Algorithm will be forwarded based on Flex-Algorithm > specific prefix reachability announcements. ##PP above text does not talk about the same prefix. It talks in general how forwarding works in presence of multiple data-planes/apps using the same algo. thanks, Peter > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) > <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > > This begins a WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04. The > draft had a lot of support and discussion initially and has been > stable for some time. Please review and send your comments, support, > or objection to this list before 12 AM UTC on April 22^nd , 2022.____ > > __ __ > > Thanks, > Acee____ > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr> >
- [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Huzhibo
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… John E Drake
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Parag Kaneriya
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] Re: W… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… John Scudder
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… John E Drake
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang