Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter
Frank Xia <xiayangsong@huawei.com> Wed, 12 March 2008 18:52 UTC
Return-Path: <mipshop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-mipshop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mipshop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34DF28C711; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, DIET_1=0.083, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M1PaK45jlA57; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360DF3A6EC8; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: mipshop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mipshop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB15A3A67E2 for <mipshop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e04s7-eq6cSF for <mipshop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga01-in.huawei.com (usaga01-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AC33A6F12 for <mipshop@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga01-in [172.18.4.6]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JXM00BGYSB78X@usaga01-in.huawei.com> for mipshop@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ny3104051930 (dhcp-30ec.ietf71.ietf.org [130.129.48.236]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JXM0012ASB3IN@usaga01-in.huawei.com> for mipshop@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:53:32 -0500
From: Frank Xia <xiayangsong@huawei.com>
To: Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com>, zfaqeer@hotmail.com
Message-id: <00cb01c8847a$c0412330$a36512c6@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <47CF3864.40905@azairenet.com> <47D703C2.3040603@azairenet.com> <019001c883cf$f5e629f0$ec308182@china.huawei.com> <47D707DA.1080404@azairenet.com> <01d301c883d1$13b71bf0$ec308182@china.huawei.com> <BAY112-W19FB07CB6F82560B42B7B9B1080@phx.gbl> <F60A3CE9E807BE49B5F56BD80B894D200145B1EA@sc-exch03.marvell.com> <BAY112-W14FDB7DBE8D34E3AB81B6B1080@phx.gbl> <47D8239A.40701@azairenet.com>
Cc: Mipshop <mipshop@ietf.org>, christian.wietfeld@tu-dortmund.de
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter
X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <mipshop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mipshop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Vijay I would like to suggest that PMIPv6 is in the scope. BR Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com> To: <zfaqeer@hotmail.com> Cc: <christian.wietfeld@tu-dortmund.de>; "Mipshop" <mipshop@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter > Hello Zarrar, > > I believe the current scope of work is about reducing the tunneling > overhead over the air due to protocols like MIPv6 and HMIPv6. This > work had a lot of consensus in the MEXT WG and then transferred here. > > My personal opinion is that I think we should stick to that scope > for now. Expanding the scope of the work would require more > discussions and consensus in the MIPSHOP WG. Until then we should > not expand the scope. > > Vijay > > zfaqeer@hotmail.com wrote: > > Hello Stefano, > > > > Thanks for your comments and your feedback. I agree with your argument > > but on the other hand, IMHO, the duration of the tunnel existence is > > also a resource consuming phenomena in which resources are reserved on > > both ends of the tunnel and the tunneling/de-tunneling of packets > > (in both directions) will not only add extra overhead but also incur > > processing delay and this will impact real time communication sessions > > and fast moving users (with smaller dwell times) in terms of jitter and > > delays. > > I very much agree that a holistic and across-the-board approach towards > > optimizing the tunneling function is required (so that MIPv6 can also be > > optimised) but I would also suggest that this aspect (of finding ways to > > reduce tunneling duration) should also be made part of the new charter, > > as I see FMIPv6 a good candidate for providing near-seamless handovers > > for "fast moving users". > > > > take care > > > > Zarrar Yousaf > > Communication Networks Institute, > > Dortmund University of Technology (TU Dortmund) > > Germany > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter > > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:01:17 -0700 > > From: smfaccin@marvell.com > > To: zfaqeer@hotmail.com; vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com > > CC: mipshop@ietf.org > > > > Dear Zarraf, > > thanks for the email. Interesting draft. My understanding of the > > tunnel optimization in the charter is however slightly different. In > > fact the charter refers to "negative impact on the protocol > > efficiency which is translated in the data packet size, bandwidth > > usage and battery power consumption. Therefore, a mechanism which > > enables reducing the tunneling overhead would benefit the mobile > > node and optimize the bandwidth usage. The MIPSHOP WG will > > standardize such a mechanism." Therefore the charter refers to > > optimizations to the way tunneling is performed to e.g. reduce the > > size of the packets. IMO it does not refer to the temporary tunnel > > created in FMIPv6 between the PAR and the NAR, but to the tunneling > > present through the whole connection. > > Cheers, > > Stefano > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* mipshop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of zfaqeer@hotmail.com > > *Sent:* Wed 3/12/2008 1:32 AM > > *To:* Frank Xia; Vijay Devarapalli > > *Cc:* 'Mipshop' > > *Subject:* Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter > > > > Hello, > > > > Regarding Tunnel optimization in FMIPv6, a draft has already been > > submitted called "Proactive Bindings in FMIPv6" > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-yousaf-ietf-mipshop-pbfmipv6/) > > in which a proposal regarding the reduction of the tunnel > > duration has already been proposed. > > > > At the moment we are performing simulation and measurement tests and > > the initial results are very encouraging, however i will be able to > > share more details after about one month. > > > > BR > > > > Zarrar Yousaf > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:38:52 -0500 > > > From: xiayangsong@huawei.com > > > To: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com > > > CC: mipshop@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter > > > > > > Hi Vijay > > > > > > Please see my reply.. > > > > > > BR > > > Frank > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com> > > > To: "Frank Xia" <xiayangsong@huawei.com> > > > Cc: "'Mipshop'" <mipshop@ietf.org> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:29 PM > > > Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter > > > > > > > > > > Frank Xia wrote: > > > > > Hi Vijay > > > > > > > > > > For Tunnel Optimization, why should we limit in Mobile IPv6 > > and HMIP6? > > > > > > > > It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list of protocols that > > > > tunnel. > > > Frank=>IMO, it is a little bit ambiguous. For example, > > > why is HMIP6 is highlighted? why isn't FMIP6 highlighted? > > > It will be helpful if you make it clearer. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is also possible for PMIPv6 and Mobile IPv4. > > > > > > > > We have not taken on any work related to Mobile IPv4 so far. > > > > > > > > Vijay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR > > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com> > > > > > To: "'Mipshop'" <mipshop@ietf.org> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:12 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hello, > > > > >> > > > > >> The MEXT working group has asked to take on some additional > > work. > > > > >> This is about a mechanism to reduce the tunneling overhead > > due to > > > > >> MIPv6 and HMIPv6. So we modified the charter to include this > > work > > > > >> too. Here is the revised charter. Please review. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >> > > > > >> Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and Handoff > > Optimization (MIPSHOP) > > > > >> > > > > >> Description of Working Group: > > > > >> > > > > >> Mobile IPv6 enables IPv6 mobile nodes to continue using a given > > > > >> "home address" in spite of changes in its point of attachment to > > > > >> the network. These changes may cause delay, packet loss, and > > also > > > > >> represent overhead traffic on the network. The MIPSHOP WG has so > > > > >> far worked on two technologies to address these issues. > > > > >> Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) reduces the amount and latency > > > > >> of signaling between a MN, its Home Agent and one or more > > > > >> correspondent nodes. Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) > > > > >> reduces packet loss by providing fast IP connectivity as soon as > > > > >> the mobile node establishes a new point of attachment at a new > > > > >> link. > > > > >> > > > > >> The MIPSHOP WG will continue to work on HMIPv6 and FMIPv6, and > > > > >> the necessary extensions to improve these protocols. The MIPSHOP > > > > >> WG will also identify missing components that are required for > > > > >> deploying these protocols and standardize the necessary > > extensions. > > > > >> The WG will also address interworking of these protocols > > with other > > > > >> mobility management protocols in the IETF, including > > network-based > > > > >> mobility management protocols. > > > > >> > > > > >> The IEEE 802.21 Media Independent Handoff (MIH) working > > group aims > > > > >> at providing services to assist with handoffs between > > heterogeneous > > > > >> link-layer technologies, and across IP subnet boundaries. MIH > > > > >> services can be delivered through link-layer specific solutions > > > > >> and/or through a "layer 3 or above" protocol. MIPSHOP will > > define > > > > >> the delivery of information for MIH services for this latter > > case. > > > > >> A L3 based mechanism to identify a valid information server > > is also > > > > >> required. The MIPSHOP will work on developing a protocol for > > > > >> transport of MIH services information and mechanisms for > > discovering > > > > >> the MIH server. Security for the transport of MIH > > information will > > > > >> also be addressed. > > > > >> > > > > >> The widespread use of different forms of IP tunneling mechanisms > > > > >> in mobile environment, e.g., MIPv6, HMIPv6, has a negative > > impact > > > > >> on the protocol efficiency which is translated in the data > > packet > > > > >> size, bandwidth usage and battery power consumption. > > Therefore, a > > > > >> mechanism which enables reducing the tunneling overhead would > > > > >> benefit the mobile node and optimize the bandwidth usage. The > > > > >> MIPSHOP WG will standardize such a mechanism. > > > > >> > > > > >> The MOBOPTS Research Group in the IRTF is chartered to work on > > > > >> optimizations related to Mobile IPv6 and IP handoffs among other > > > > >> things. The MIPSHOP WG will take mature proposals from the > > MOBOPTS > > > > >> group and standardize them in the IETF on a case-by-case basis. > > > > >> > > > > >> The MIPSHOP WG will also consider and standardize > > optimizations for > > > > >> the Mobile IPv6 protocol and IP mobility in general. > > > > >> > > > > >> Scope of MIPSHOP: > > > > >> > > > > >> The working group will: > > > > >> > > > > >> 1. Complete the current set of documents with the IESG > > > > >> - HMIPv6 (draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis) > > > > >> - FMIPv6 (draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis) > > > > >> - FMIPv6 over IEEE 802.16e (draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e) > > > > >> - FMIPv6 over 3G CDMA 2000 (draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh) > > > > >> - MIH problem statement (draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps) > > > > >> > > > > >> 2. FMIPv6 Mobile Node - Access Router security using the AAA > > > > >> infrastructure > > > > >> > > > > >> Currently MIPSHOP has produced a standards track protocol for > > > > >> setting up security between the mobile node and access router > > > > >> for security FMIPv6 signaling messages. However, the protocol > > > > >> depends on SeND (Secure Neighbor Discovery) to be available on > > > > >> the mobile node and the access router. An alternate mechanism > > > > >> that leverages the AAA infrastructure is required. Many target > > > > >> systems where FMIPv6 is likely to be used use a AAA > > > > >> infrastructure to authenticate and authorize network access. > > > > >> > > > > >> 3. Prefix Management for point-to-point links > > > > >> > > > > >> Using FMIPv6 over point-to-points like requires some additional > > > > >> considerations with respect to managing and allocating prefixes > > > > >> for the mobile node on these point-to-point links. Therefore > > > > >> the WG will work on a BCP to document these considerations. > > > > >> > > > > >> 4. Use of FMIPv6 with Proxy Mobile IPv6 > > > > >> > > > > >> Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network-based mobility > > > > >> management protocol where a node in the access network, called > > > > >> the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) handles mobility on behalf of > > > > >> the mobile node. It has been proposed to use FMIPv6 to > > > > >> optimize the handover in terms of reducing the packet loss and > > > > >> transferring relevant context from the old MAG to the new MAG. > > > > >> The working group will work on specifying FMIPv6 extensions to > > > > >> enable fast handovers for PMIPv6. > > > > >> > > > > >> 5. Work on protocols and extensions for transporting information > > > > >> related to IEEE 802.21: > > > > >> > > > > >> The work includes the layer 3 protocol for transporting MIH > > > > >> related information and DHCP and DNS extensions for discovery > > > > >> the information servers. > > > > >> > > > > >> 6. IP Tunneling Optimization > > > > >> > > > > >> Work on a mechanism to reduce the tunneling overhead associated > > > > >> with protocols like Mobile IPv6 and HMIPv6. > > > > >> > > > > >> 7. Standardize mature proposals from the MOBOPTS IRTF Group > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Goals and Milestones: > > > > >> > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-hmip-xx.txt > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on > > > > >> draft-ietf-mipshop-lmm-requirements-XX.txt > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-xx.txt > > > > >> Done Discuss Last Call comments and security analyses at IETF 58 > > > > >> Done Submit draft draft-ietf-mipshop-lmm-requirements-XX.txt > > to IESG > > > > >> for publication as Informational > > > > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-xx.txt to IESG for > > publication > > > > >> as Experimental > > > > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-hmip-xx.txt to IESG for > > publication > > > > >> as Experimental > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on > > draft-ietf-mipshop-80211fh-xx.txt > > > > >> for Informational > > > > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-80211fh-xx.txt to IESG for > > > > >> publication as Informational > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on > > draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-XX.txt > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps > > > > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba to the IESG for > > publication > > > > >> as Proposed Standard > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on > > draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on > > draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-send > > > > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps to the IESG for > > publication as > > > > >> Informational RFC > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc4041bis > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e > > > > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis to the IESG > > for > > > > >> publication as Proposed Standard > > > > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-send to the IESG > > for > > > > >> publication as Proposed Standard > > > > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh to IESG for publication as > > > > >> Informational RFC > > > > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e to IESG for > > publication as > > > > >> Informational RFC > > > > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-mih-support > > > > >> Apr 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis to the IESG for > > > > >> publication as Proposed Standard > > > > >> Apr 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-mih-support to the IESG for > > > > >> publication as Proposed Standard > > > > >> May 2008 Working Group Last Call on > > draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery > > > > >> May 2008 Working Group Last Call on > > draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options > > > > >> Jun 2008 Working group last call on > > draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-ptp > > > > >> Jun 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery to the > > IESG for > > > > >> publication as Proposed Standard > > > > >> Jun 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options to the > > IESG for > > > > >> publication as Proposed Standard > > > > >> Jul 2008 Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6 > > > > >> Jul 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-ptp to the IESG for > > > > >> publication as Best Current Practice > > > > >> Aug 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6 to the IESG for > > > > >> publication as Proposed Standard > > > > >> Aug 2008 Working Group Last Call on > > draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-aaa-key > > > > >> Oct 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-aaa-key to the > > IESG for > > > > >> publication as Proposed Standard > > > > >> Nov 2008 Working Group Last call on > > > > >> draft-ietf-mipshop-tunneling-optimization > > > > >> Jan 2009 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-tunneling-optimization to > > the the > > > > >> IESG > > > > >> > > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> > > > > >> Vijay > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> Mipshop mailing list > > > > >> Mipshop@ietf.org > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Mipshop mailing list > > > Mipshop@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge > > with star power. Play now! > > <http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! Learn more. > > <http://biggestloser.msn.com/> > > _______________________________________________ > Mipshop mailing list > Mipshop@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop > _______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing list Mipshop@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Hidetoshi Yokota
- [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Frank Xia
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Frank Xia
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter zfaqeer
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Stefano Faccin
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter zfaqeer
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Frank Xia
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Frank Xia
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Stefano Faccin
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Frank Xia
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter zfaqeer
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Stefano Faccin
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Alper Yegin
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Alper Yegin
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Rajeev Koodli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Michael.G.Williams
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Marco Liebsch
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter zfaqeer
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Mohamed Khalil
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Frank Xia
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Rajeev Koodli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Jean-Michel Combes
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Rajeev Koodli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Rajeev Koodli
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter Behcet Sarikaya