Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization
Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Tue, 10 February 2009 14:19 UTC
Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449503A6B5F for <rai@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:19:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.604
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 IVpQ3ekJGCUL for <rai@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19.inmotionhosting.com [205.134.252.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3343A67E2 for <rai@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [75.68.112.157] (port=63132 helo=[192.168.45.106]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1LWtSk-0002QB-Ah; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:19:46 -0800
Message-Id: <AD19766B-980C-4CF4-9B2B-4863EB7C3349@standardstrack.com>
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
To: Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei@adobe.com>, rai@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1C137240@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-61-417831603"; micalg="sha1"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:19:45 -0500
References: <498A0FE8.5040307@neustar.biz> <C5AFB3D5.B32D%hsinnrei@adobe.com><XFE-SJC-211ABeBJZL40000bcca@xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com> <498A9F64.5010901@ericsson.com> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1C137240@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization
X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" <rai.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai>, <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai>
List-Post: <mailto:rai@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai>, <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:19:50 -0000
While tempting to combine the core SIP documents, I would offer it would be a mistake, from an engineering and a practical perspective. From an engineering perspective, many of the features stand alone, even within core SIP. As people use SIP for things other than POTS replacement, we will see more implementations that use less of the spec. If you want to build a messaging appliance, for example, you do not need INVITE and probably do not need PUB/SUB. The computer engineering world is littered with projects where people took monolithic architectures and spent lots of effort to break them apart. Since we had the foresight/luck to start that way, let us not lose that advantage. The practical perspective is easy: instead of 5 core documents of 269, 14, 17, 25, and 38 pages, we would have one document with 269+14+17+25+38 pages, probably with five chapters. OK, so I exaggerate: the combined document would be 8 pages shorter due to consolidated boilerplate. On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: > I do agree that obsoleting stuff that hasn't been implemented is a > really good idea, although I don't think that will make a tremendous > difference in terms of the size of documents. > > On this topic of how many documents (or pages of specs) one must > read, I will note that there are some wonderful books, written by > our own experts, that folks can read to get a really good overview. > I do think Hitchhikers guide is very useful for this, as well. But, > for folks that need the big picture, the books are excellent. > > I will also note that this is really no different (sorry) than other > telecomm systems (both voice and data). Back in the old days, > everyone coveted their GSM books, which were far, far more compact > than the 4 feet of protocol specs. And, within Nortel, we had a > book that described our DMS product (another coveted book) and you'd > need a fair size library to house all of the detailed specs - I have > about 1/4 of an 8x10 office with boxes stacked 2 high of documents > describing the functionality and protocols that I developed (all > associated with code that is still running in several commercial > systems today ;) And, I think there are other protocols in IETF that > are in the same situation (e.g., Mobile IP, which started with a > single "simple" spec and also has some nice books). > > So, I don't know if we need any other overview documents. And, if > folks really believe we do, I wonder if this wouldn't better be done > by SIP Forum. > > IMHO, what we have now is the reality of commercial systems and we > can debate till the cows come home as to whether this should be the > case in IETF. On the other hand, I do think documents like Henry's > draft-sinnreich-sip-tools-04 is also appealing to a subset of users/ > developers. This dichotomy of views on how one should use SIP is due > IMHO to the extensible, generally generic and reusable nature of the > core SIP protocol (and extensions). It's been well stated at the RAI > meeting in Minn. that we are the "victims of our own success" > > Regards, > Mary. > > -----Original Message----- > From: rai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Gonzalo Camarillo > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:12 AM > To: James M. Polk > Cc: Henry Sinnreich; rai@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization > > Hi, > > having a good guide to the documents, it does not make much > difference if one has to read one or five documents; the number of > pages is going to be roughly the same. The problem is the amount of > stuff one has to read (regardless of how we structure that stuff) in > order to understand SIP. Right now, it is a lot of pages. So, in > addition to having a guide, it would be good to obsolete some of the > RFCs that were never implemented... or highlight in the guide which > RFCs are widely implemented and which ones are not. That would allow > new implementors to focus on the most relevant documents and get up > to speed more quickly. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > James M. Polk wrote: >> At 09:06 PM 2/4/2009, Henry Sinnreich wrote: >>> Content-Language: en >>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >>> boundary="_000_C5AFB3D5B32Dhsinnreiadobecom_" >>> >>> This proposal looks very timely and can solve most problems >>> experienced with SIP today (unless my hopeless optimism is out of >>> place): >>> >>> * Internet-centric Core SIP - happy to see the IETF works for the >>> Internet and not for closed networks, legacy emulation, etc. >>> * Mention of "running code" (is there a way to limit the I-Ds that >>> don't have running code and test results?) >>> * Most of all: Only 5 (five) core SIP RFCs 3261-3265. >>> >>> So please forgive my naïve question: Why not consolidate the 5 core >>> SIP RFCs into one single document? >> >> This seems like the discussion about whether or not to bis 3261, or >> progress 3261 to DS. And -- that brings up the idea of just how many >> other RFCs ought to be folded back into this grand-unifying-doc RFC. >> >> Also... IMO -- as useful as 3265 is, I'm not sure SUB/NOT should be >> mandated for any and every implementation that wants to claim to be >> *this new (merged) RFC number* compliant, and have some customer >> ask for >> proof. >> >> now, I could be wrong here... >> >> >>> Here is an example why a single SIP RFC would be beneficial: >>> Metadata on the web enables powerful new services, but requires >>> reference to a URI, such as a SIP RFC. See >>> <http://metadata-stds.org/>http://metadata-stds.org/ >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Metadata_Platform >>> SIP referencing in metadata is only one of many problems caused by >>> not >>> having a single SIP standard document. >>> There are plenty of other. >>> >>> How about having a deliverable a single SIP standard document? >>> >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> On 2/4/09 4:00 PM, "Jon Peterson" >>> <<jon.peterson@neustar.htm>jon.peterson@neustar.biz> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Since the open area meeting in Minneapolis, Cullen and I have >>> given some >>> thought to the best way to try to act on the discussion and >>> suggested >>> changes. As a continuing part of that process, though certainly >>> not the >>> last step, we'd like some input from the community on the following >>> proposal and accompanying draft. >>> >>> We have long heard concerns about the perennially overworked SIP and >>> SIPPING WGs, to say nothing of the general structure of long-lived >>> working groups that serve as a standing army to attack problems as >>> they >>> arise. The main drawback of this structure is that these groups >>> assume >>> responsibility for rosters of known "hard" problems which seemingly >>> never complete, while easier and more tactical work struggles for >>> attention and participate energy gradually depletes. One wouldn't >>> have >>> to look hard in either of those groups for evidence of this >>> phenomenon. >>> >>> Our proposal is therefore to end the current SIP and SIPPING working >>> groups and replace them with a different structure. This will >>> include >>> one continuing long-lived working group called SIPCORE, but unlike >>> SIP, >>> SIPCORE will have a more narrow mandate of handling only updates or >>> revisions to the core SIP specifications (which we define here, >>> somewhat >>> arbitrarily, as RFC3261 through RFC3265). This means that work >>> previously tied to SIP, such as ongoing security work, would find >>> a new >>> home in this structure. In this proposal the SIPPING working group >>> will >>> be replaced by a more radical departure, a working group called >>> DISPATCH. DISPATCH will function much more like the "open area" >>> groups >>> one sees in other areas - a forum where new issues and ideas can be >>> presented. DISPATCH will be tasked with identifying the right >>> venue for >>> new work in the RAI area; the deliverables of the group might be a >>> BoF >>> charter or an initial problem statement document, but no protocol >>> work >>> as such. We hope to use the DISPATCH WG as an incubator for >>> narrowly-scoped, short duration BoF or working group efforts to >>> solve >>> particular problems. Ideally, we could emulate structures like the >>> RTPSEC BoF or the recent P2Pi workshop, both of which were far >>> lighter-weight than a traditional WG, to address specific issues a >>> more >>> timely manner than we might have with our previous structure. >>> >>> Since this proposal would require a revision to RFC3427, we have >>> begun >>> work on one, which can now be found here: >>> >>> <http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/fluffy/draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-01a.txt >>> >http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/fluffy/draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-01a.txt >>> >>> >>> (Sorry, we can't submit this yet due to new RFC 5378 rules but will >>> submit as soon as that gets fixed) >>> >>> In addition to describing the new role of the SIPCORE and DISPATCH >>> WG, >>> this document also makes a significant change to the header >>> registration >>> policies, as was recommended in Jonathan's modest-proposal >>> document. The >>> "P-" header process is deprecated in RFC3427bis in favor of a more >>> open >>> IANA policy requiring only expert review for Informational headers >>> - in >>> a nutshell, this means that new proposals for headers that would >>> have >>> used the "P-" prefix are directed to omit it, and that these >>> headers can >>> be registered with the IANA without an Internet-Draft if desired. >>> Note >>> that this does not mean that we will rename PAID to AID - existing >>> headers will continue as they are, only the process for new >>> registrations would change. It is hoped that this change will enable >>> more work to be done at the "edges" of the RAI area without >>> depending on >>> winning the approval of everyone at the core. >>> >>> Before we undertake any change this radical, however, we'd like some >>> input from the community about the overall direction. Comments on >>> the >>> document are also welcome, though do not consider this a last call >>> review, but more of an overall conceptual read. We do aim to >>> implement >>> some changes before the end of March, however, to facilitate the >>> transition to the new Area Director. >>> >>> Cullen & Jon >>> _______________________________________________ >>> RAI mailing list >>> <RAI@ietf.htm>RAI@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> RAI mailing list >>> RAI@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RAI mailing list >> RAI@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai > > _______________________________________________ > RAI mailing list > RAI@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai > _______________________________________________ > RAI mailing list > RAI@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization James M. Polk
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Jon Peterson
- [RAI] RAI reorganization Jon Peterson
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization James M. Polk
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Dan York
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Tom Taylor
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization James M. Polk
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization James M. Polk
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Mary Barnes
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Mary Barnes
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Alan Johnston
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Adam Roach
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Francois Audet
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Eric Burger
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Dan Wing
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Adam Roach
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Ted Hardie
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Dan York
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - allocation of exis… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Jiri Kuthan
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Adam Roach
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Adam Roach
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Richard Shockey
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Adam Roach
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Adam Roach
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Jon Peterson
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Adam Roach
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Cullen Jennings
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - allocation of exis… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Cullen Jennings
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Francois Audet
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Roni Even
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Roni Even
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Cullen Jennings
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Salvatore Loreto
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Henning Schulzrinne
- [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Eric Burger
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Mary Barnes
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Mary Barnes
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Mary Barnes
- [RAI] Software as open source (was RAI reorganiza… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Eric Burger
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Jon Peterson
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Mary Barnes
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Tom Taylor
- [RAI] Code -- was RE: RAI reorganization Hannes Tschofenig
- [RAI] SIP to Draft -- was RAI reorganization Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] SIP to Draft -- was RAI reorganization Mary Barnes
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Francois Audet
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Ben Campbell
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Ben Campbell
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Ben Campbell
- [RAI] SIP and Open Source (was Re: RAI reorganiza… Adam Roach
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] SIP and Open Source (was Re: RAI reorga… Adam Roach
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Francois Audet
- Re: [RAI] SIP and Open Source (was Re: RAI reorga… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Mike Hammer (hmmr)
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Elwell, John
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [RAI] Code -- was RE: RAI reorganization Eric Burger
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Francois Audet
- [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganization… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] Code -- was RE: RAI reorganization Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - role of SIP Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - allocation of exis… Elwell, John
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization Jiri Kuthan
- Re: [RAI] SIP to Draft -- was RAI reorganization James M. Polk
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [RAI] SIP to Draft -- was RAI reorganization Mary Barnes
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - allocation of exis… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters Cullen Jennings
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [RAI] RAI reorganization - Clusters James M. Polk
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Elwell, John
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Elwell, John
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Elwell, John
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Schmidt, Christian 1. (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Michael Procter
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Dan York
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Roni Even
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Michael Procter
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Elwell, John
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Elwell, John
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Schmidt, Christian 1. (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Dan York
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Lars Eggert
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] The Cluster Idea ... was RAI reorganiza… Mike Hammer (hmmr)
- [RAI] Combining the use of SIP and XMPP in an end… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Scott Lawrence
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Dan York
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Richard Shockey
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Dean Willis
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Richard Shockey
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Dean Willis
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Cullen Jennings
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Christer Holmberg
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Christer Holmberg
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Christer Holmberg
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Scott Lawrence
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hans Erik van Elburg
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Peterson, Jon
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Scott Lawrence
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Dean Willis
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Christer Holmberg
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Dean Willis
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Adam Roach
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Elwell, John
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Christer Holmberg
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Christer Holmberg
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Dean Willis
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Christer Holmberg
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Dean Willis
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Dean Willis
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Adam Roach
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [RAI] Option-tag registration Adam Roach