Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementation about ‘when’
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Wed, 25 September 2019 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480DA120013 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 wtTnucHaay02 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC070120019 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id m13so6206695ljj.11 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jaYO2ejGzID1m2a8e1hHuz+8Oo9TiHHogKzt9xQWBpI=; b=sjPGdKwSWhPync+uyj2nohQFBRmybBfiPSIQp6MXthzYlJbMZ5EtUnAgfj+WZo1zoG Vf28Tl0TjVYUP/ZtcQ7Qg3yqHpNYkqVaHO2rTkpMwO3a847NBL+YtyskqdDWSnATASDT B9phgREvewFs4YoeejZQD70Q/rutlRc6UT4wqZsZsf1ZaNMAhkTjeri3WBkljFzEnG42 DQ6whxsKbvwvDnj2+NNZlB7oifwReKZSIJbKsWV229BNnOtP7FtqbEB3XdLdWCqax7Cb XKVR6MGvU2Bt19ighuA1eFjetudr7SNUCaoLNoe4/J5VwcFVJAOW46rH5xmKbCssvtXi Qawg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jaYO2ejGzID1m2a8e1hHuz+8Oo9TiHHogKzt9xQWBpI=; b=Qy8ufn31nWNLT/CBrpOxmBIrWM3s+JpxwaXu93tZyzVsUMBrm2gjuXkMzK376rMTDk P+L6lFw8OazQG4hLnP1LPfz3y9NAGZUQTVcYEoBUTKoT0s/dEVpr3yVLNnYtgofUeDVV gWAbGgo+TzcUZH967ZhysxX8SPKThAtHTis+zksyoO7aA0G/Z7LF4Plbfmu0CP7eGJ2i hR7iIn1q+hAbxYoP0MyC19cTwmvj4pvcSLbL7puEoZUyFV2LCBAwcUaAVxb2+bIqYKjh jKmJ+ilfHixO0GYJvC9Y87Y3/3D4iaIIbJ9e/nMbbx0VB6i8M+JEXM6xhKPMkZjbqAGE GerA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWoHXIfW7NTYgMcYC+Q5cXNjafcJJI2i16s2/DgLI4Up6dY6cZY Y93b1VqiRQVL7a7LdvGImaONvYGtAyh+e61fehW6BQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyhDVytlUxmWwlEI/Zo7zxt0sN1B4Z9mZjj4ITNA6JbhPmf9n9yzgKAYzxAlcAN3EMeKT+MbDCmjgEOpvQ/hTs=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b00b:: with SMTP id y11mr6904526ljk.50.1569427173654; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5756FB984666AD4BB8E1D63E2E3AA3D001F20F2C@dggemm513-mbs.china.huawei.com> <MN2PR11MB4366224F81AD9884FA130B37B5B70@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHRc2R0ZBV25LRO6-FxV4GOf6HfN2NWzk9dEeNby3XVdUw@mail.gmail.com> <5756FB984666AD4BB8E1D63E2E3AA3D001F2CBA8@dggemm513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CABCOCHQCs093B0j6XpGvNH+idrs+PZHAcOhe=KYDN3RpccqgZw@mail.gmail.com> <5756FB984666AD4BB8E1D63E2E3AA3D001F2CBE4@dggemm513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CABCOCHRGzVpSOLue5bOx=5-ONWE=d1Hcn4RZ1=ZRAOx_sRqQLg@mail.gmail.com> <5756FB984666AD4BB8E1D63E2E3AA3D001F2D325@dggemm513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA92F70D5@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com> <VI1PR07MB398192BDD1C0BD1212FA15A69B870@VI1PR07MB3981.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB398192BDD1C0BD1212FA15A69B870@VI1PR07MB3981.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:59:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQRReksw-TWqdVLPEpuB05Un4bHts7asHxQtb9YKcvMMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
Cc: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "Fengchong (frank)" <frank.fengchong@huawei.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, Yangang <yangang@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="00000000000030233c059362bd6b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/JgqEUpt5CFE6NTRqePvEma4c1y4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementation about ‘when’
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:59:42 -0000
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:44 AM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) < jason.sterne@nokia.com> wrote: > Processing order should not matter. The evaluation of the 'when' statement > should be done assuming an atomic application of the edit-config. > > > > I agree that a standards compliant server should do as Rob said: > > > > - For “scene 1”, the config change is accepted because the result of the > config datastore after the edit-config has been applied is valid. > > - For “scene 2”, the config change is rejected because the result of the > config datastore after the edit-config has been applied is invalid. > > > > From an implementation that may indeed mean processing the 'when' after a > first pass that sets the various leafs to tentative values. But that's > implementation detail. > > > > IMO the auto-clearing behavior of 'when' may be complicated but that is > how it is defined (same with 'choice'). Clients can and should depend on > things being automatically deleted. If you want validation errors (i.e. > force the client to clear all the dependant leafs instead of auto-clearing) > then use a 'must' statement. > > > +1 YANG clearly defines "must" and "when" with different behavior. A server that does not implement the auto-delete aspects of when-stmt is not compliant to the RFC. > Jason > Andy > > > *From:* netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Qin Wu > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:33 PM > *To:* Fengchong (frank) <frank.fengchong@huawei.com>; Andy Bierman < > andy@yumaworks.com> > *Cc:* netmod@ietf.org; Yangang <yangang@huawei.com> > *Subject:* [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementation about ‘when’ > > > > Why processing order matter? My interpretation is both leaf node values > (i.e.,leaf a, leaf b) should be validated together and commit as a whole, > > RFC6241 said: > > “ > > If the device is unable to commit all of the changes in the > > candidate configuration datastore, then the running > > configuration MUST remain unchanged. > > ” > > So validate the leaf node value in the edit-config request (message > content validation) is not important, validate the leaf node value that is > applied to <running> (datastore validation) is the key. > > > > I think what you want to raise is the server should hold on to send reply with an "unknown-element" <error-tag> in the <rpc-error> during payload parsing phase and NETCONF <edit-config> > > Processing until all validation complete, otherwise it seems server will > > Send multiple rply with "unknown-element" <error-tag> in the <rpc-error> which seems not reasonable. > > > > -Qin > > *发件人**:* netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org <netmod-bounces@ietf.org>] > *代表 *Fengchong (frank) > *发送时间**:* 2019年9月11日 9:29 > *收件人**:* Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> > *抄送**:* netmod@ietf.org; Yangang <yangang@huawei.com> > *主题**:* [netmod] 答复: Please clarify implementation about ‘when’ > > > > Andy, > > > > Whether different result would occur according different process order? > > According 8.3.2 > > if server process ‘a= 3’ firstly, b will be deleted by system and becomes > a non-exist schema node, and then when ‘b=5’ is processed , server will > report a ‘unknown-element’ error. > > But if server process ‘b=5’ firstly, it will be accepted by server, and > then when ‘a=3’ is processed, b will be deleted by system, but report OK. > > > > If sec 8.3.2 is not right. What is the right? > > When node a and node b in the same request, and b tagged when condition, > a’s value will cause b’s condition is evaluated to false, which is more > prior? > > According you and Rob’s interpretation , maybe node ’a’ is more prior? If > yes, why node ‘b’ should be processed later? > > > > I think whether in edit-config processing phase the configuration tagged > when should not be evaluated and be delayed to commit or validate? > > When commit or validate operation is issued, the data node tagged when > will be evaluated, and if it’s evaluated to false, this data will be > deleted by system immediately, server should not report any error. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > 华为技术有限公司 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. > > [image: Company_logo] > > 个人签名:冯冲 > 手 机:13776612983 > 电子邮件:frank.fengchong@huawei.com > 公司网址:www.huawei.com > ------------------------------ > > 本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息,仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁 > 止任何其他人以任何形式使用(包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发)本邮件中 > 的信息。如果您错收了本邮件,请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件! > This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from > HUAWEI, which > is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. > Any use of the > information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, > total or partial > disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the > intended > recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please > notify the sender by > phone or email immediately and delete it! > > > > *发件人**:* Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@yumaworks.com <andy@yumaworks.com>] > *发送时间**:* 2019年9月10日 10:56 > *收件人**:* Fengchong (frank) <frank.fengchong@huawei.com> > *抄送**:* Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; netmod@ietf.org; > Yangang <yangang@huawei.com> > *主题**:* Re: [netmod] Please clarify implementation about ‘when’ > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 7:40 PM Fengchong (frank) < > frank.fengchong@huawei.com> wrote: > > Andy, > > Whether all constraints on content in <config> parameter will not be > evaluated in payload parsing phase, for example, a leaf’s value exceed > range? > > Netconf server should treat it as a block data? > > > > > > Field validation and datastore validation are 2 different things. > > when-stmt processing is neither. It is by far the hardest part of an > automated server to get right. > > > > Another question: > > > > In edit-config processing phase, whether constraints on content in > <config> parameter needs be evaluated? > > If yes, when configuration modification cause when condition is evaluated > to false, the node tagged when will be automatically deleted by system. > > Then, in scene 2, whether different result would occur according different > process order? > > > > > > Since the <config> parameter is anyxml, the YANG constraints defined on > datastore contents > > are not enforced as part of RPC input validation. > > > > It would be nice if NETCONF defined behavior for providing <config> data > that will get deleted > > immediately by the server. We have a CLI parameter for this since some > vendors want to > > treat this as an error and other just silently delete nodes. Note that > when-stmt can silently > > delete existing nodes not included in the edit. (Lada does not agree this > is how it should work, > > so we need yang-next to decide. Maybe NETCONF needs a --force parameter > for this purpose.) > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > 华为技术有限公司 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. > > [image: Company_logo] > > 个人签名:冯冲 > 手 机:13776612983 > 电子邮件:frank.fengchong@huawei.com > 公司网址:www.huawei.com > ------------------------------ > > 本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息,仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁 > 止任何其他人以任何形式使用(包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发)本邮件中 > 的信息。如果您错收了本邮件,请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件! > This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from > HUAWEI, which > is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. > Any use of the > information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, > total or partial > disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the > intended > recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please > notify the sender by > phone or email immediately and delete it! > > > > *发件人**:* Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@yumaworks.com] > *发送时间**:* 2019年9月10日 10:19 > *收件人**:* Fengchong (frank) <frank.fengchong@huawei.com> > *抄送**:* Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; netmod@ietf.org; > Yangang <yangang@huawei.com> > *主题**:* Re: [netmod] Please clarify implementation about ‘when’ > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 7:10 PM Fengchong (frank) < > frank.fengchong@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi andy, > > > > You only talk about the constraints on rpc operation’s parameter? > > > > Do you have any opinion about my question? > > > > 8.3.1 does not apply to leaf 'b'. > > The RPC parameter is called 'config'. > > It has no when-stmts to evaluate. > > Rob is correct. > > His example shows what 8.3.1 would cover. > > > > Andy > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > 华为技术有限公司 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. > > [image: Company_logo] > > 个人签名:冯冲 > 手 机:13776612983 > 电子邮件:frank.fengchong@huawei.com > 公司网址:www.huawei.com > ------------------------------ > > 本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息,仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁 > 止任何其他人以任何形式使用(包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发)本邮件中 > 的信息。如果您错收了本邮件,请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件! > This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from > HUAWEI, which > is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. > Any use of the > information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, > total or partial > disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the > intended > recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please > notify the sender by > phone or email immediately and delete it! > > > > *发件人**:* Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@yumaworks.com] > *发送时间**:* 2019年9月10日 1:14 > *收件人**:* Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> > *抄送**:* Fengchong (frank) <frank.fengchong@huawei.com>; netmod@ietf.org; > Yangang <yangang@huawei.com> > *主题**:* Re: [netmod] Please clarify implementation about ‘when’ > > > > Hi, > > > > None of the operations that accept or return datastore contents expose the > datastore objects > > in the RPC parameters. They are always anyxml or anydata. This means that > > there are no descendant data nodes defined at all according to the RPC > operation > > and therefore the constraints on those nodes do not exist in the RPC > operation either. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 6:41 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> > wrote: > > Hi Frank, > > > > My interpretation of what the expected behaviour is as follows. > > > > For “scene 1”, the config change is accepted because the result of the > config datastore after the edit-config has been applied is valid. > > > > For “scene 2”, the config change is rejected because the result of the > config datastore after the edit-config has been applied is invalid. > > > > My interpretation is that the block of text in 8.3.1 payload parsing is > primary intended to refer to RFC input. E.g. if the RPC was defined > something like below, then the ‘when’ rule in 8.3.1 would enforce that a > zip-code can only be provided if the country is the USA. > > > > rpc rock-the-house { > > input { > > leaf country { > > type string; > > } > > leaf zip-code { > > when “../country = ‘usa’”; > > type string; > > } > > } > > } > > > > Thanks, > > Rob > > > > > > > > *From:* netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Fengchong (frank) > *Sent:* 06 September 2019 08:19 > *To:* netmod@ietf.org > *Cc:* Yangang <yangang@huawei.com> > *Subject:* [netmod] Please clarify implementation about ‘when’ > > > > Hi all, > > > > In RFC7950 secton 8, several description about when: > In section 8.2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-8.2>. > Configuration Data Modifications > > o If a request modifies a configuration data node such that any > > node's "when" expression becomes false, then the node in the data > > tree with the "when" expression is deleted by the server. > In 8.3.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-8.3.1>. Payload > Parsing > > o If data for a node tagged with "when" is present and the "when" > > condition evaluates to "false", the server MUST reply with an > > "unknown-element" <error-tag> in the <rpc-error>. > > In 8.3.2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-8.3.2>. NETCONF > <edit-config> Processing > > Modification requests for nodes tagged with "when", and the "when" > > condition evaluates to "false". In this case, the server MUST > > reply with an "unknown-element" <error-tag> in the <rpc-error>. > > > > YANG module: > > module foo { > > namespace “http://foo.com”; > > prefix “foo”; > > Leaf a {…} > > Leaf b { > > When “a = 10”; > > } > > } > Scene 1: > > The first edit-config request: > > <edit-config> > > <target> > > <candidate/> > > </target> > > <config> > > <a xmlns= “http://foo.com”>3</a> > > </config> > > </edit-config> > > This request will set a = 3. > > > > The second request: > > <edit-config> > > <target> > > <candidate/> > > </target> > > <config> > > <a xmlns= “http://foo.com”>10</a> > > <b xmlns= “http://foo.com”>5</b> > > </config> > > </edit-config> > > > > According 8.3.1, in rpc payload parsing phase, the a’s value in candidate > datastore is 3,so leaf b’s when condition is evaluated to false, server > will report ‘unknown-element’ error. > > Is it expected by user? > Scene 2: > > The first edit-config request: > > <edit-config> > > <target> > > <candidate/> > > </target> > > <config> > > <a xmlns= “http://foo.com”>10</a> > > </config> > > </edit-config> > > This request will set a = 10. > > > > The second request: > > <edit-config> > > <target> > > <candidate/> > > </target> > > <config> > > <a xmlns= “http://foo.com”>3</a> > > <b xmlns= “http://foo.com”>5</b> > > </config> > > </edit-config> > > According 8.3.1, in rpc payload parsing phase, the a’s value in candidate > datastore is 10, so leaf b’s when condition is evaluated to true, server > will accept this request in payload parsing phase. > > > > In edit-config request processing phase, if leaf a’s modification is > processed firstly, the a’s value will be changed to 3, so the b’s when > condition will be false, when server process b’s modification, b will be > treated as unknown-element, the edit-config request will fail. > > If leaf b’s modification is processed firstly, server will accept this > modification ,because b’s when condition is true, and when server process > a’s modification , this modification will be accepted, and b’s when > condition will be evaluated to false, leaf b will be deleted automatically, > the edit-config request will be OK. > > > > How server should process this situation? > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > >
- [netmod] Please clarify implementation about ‘whe… Fengchong (frank)
- [netmod] FW: Please clarify implementation about … Fengchong (frank)
- Re: [netmod] Please clarify implementation about … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] Please clarify implementation about … Andy Bierman
- [netmod] 答复: Please clarify implementation about … Fengchong (frank)
- [netmod] 答复: Please clarify implementation about … Fengchong (frank)
- Re: [netmod] Please clarify implementation about … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Please clarify implementation about … Andy Bierman
- [netmod] 答复: Please clarify implementation about … Fengchong (frank)
- [netmod] 答复: Please clarify implementation about … Fengchong (frank)
- Re: [netmod] Please clarify implementation about … Andy Bierman
- [netmod] 答复: Please clarify implementation about … Fengchong (frank)
- [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementation ab… Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Andy Bierman
- [netmod] 答复: 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementatio… Andy Bierman
- [netmod] What's the problem with NMDA? was Re: 答复… tom petch
- Re: [netmod] What's the problem with NMDA? was Re… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] What's the problem with NMDA? was Re… Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] What's the problem with NMDA? was Re… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] What's the problem with NMDA? was Re… tom petch
- Re: [netmod] What's the problem with NMDA? was Re… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] What's the problem with NMDA? was Re… Andy Bierman