Re: [sacm] Request for participants - Content Repository Specification Development

[<[e-mail]>]

Sean - please do chime in.

My .02:   When MILE was INCH, the WG had thought SOAP and BEEP were good solutions to fit the protocol (so the WG can drive what they think is needed).  But the IETF saw that the direction at the time was HTTPS, which would seem to agree with the statement below.  There really were not many BEEP implementations, so it didn't seem practical even if the protocol design was a better fit.  REST wasn't popular then, so we also took the approach to separate out the protocol from the binding to allow for changes later (add new bindings).  With this approach, you can build in the security at the protocol so that you don't rely fully on the binding for authentication and encryption.

Discussions in some WGs have been debating XML or JSON and there are 2 camps here, but the theory of having a data model approach and selecting one for the WG seems to be the go-forward decision.

Best regards,
Kathleen

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 3:24 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [sacm] Request for participants - Content Repository Specification Development

Hi Sean,

Can you help here?  I too have heard that but I want to make sure we are not being confused by hearsay...

Thanks.

Kent Landfield
Director Content Strategy, Architecture and Standards

McAfee | An Intel Company
5000 Headquarters Dr.
Plano, Texas 75024

Direct: +1.972.963.7096
Mobile: [phone]
Web: www.mcafee.com<http://www.mcafee.com/>

From: <Waltermire>, David Waltermire <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, SCAP-DEV <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [sacm] Request for participants - Content Repository Specification Development

One problem with SOAP web services is that they are often considered very heavy weight.  From what I have seen, the IETF tends to prefer lighter weight protocols (e.g. REST, standardized messages over HTTP, etc).  Anyone else have any insights on this?

Sincerely,
Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Chandrashekhar B
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 2:43 AM
To: SCAP-DEV; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [sacm] Request for participants - Content Repository Specification Development

Having a standard access interface is really important for content repository. I had proposed a simple WSDL in a presentation I shared with Kent, last year's ITSAC. We are looking forward to take active participation in it.

Thanks,
Chandra.
www.secpod.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gunnar Engelbach
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:33 PM
Cc: SCAP-DEV; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [sacm] Request for participants - Content Repository Specification Development


It would be great to have as many of these considerations as possible in mind from the start as the actual work begins.  As another example, I'd like to see active participation from vendors that have commercial content repositories so those concerns also don't have to be later addressed with major changes.

But we also see a lot of these type of topics come up on the lists, get discussed for a bit, then languish.  If reducing the problem set is what it takes to spur some action, let's get started.

It kinda sounds like this is headed towards having a dedicated working group to take it on, which is what I'd prefer to see, so I'm avoiding making specific comments until then.

And my apologies to Dave:  I'd like to see how much you've already addressed, but I just haven't had a chance to look through your draft yet.



--gun

ThreatGuard, Inc.


On 5/11/2012 1:13 PM, Waltermire, David A. wrote:
Kent,

I have already started work on a draft specification in this area.  My
hope is that this work could be used as an initial draft within SACM
at the appropriate time.  Count me in.

I mostly agree with what you are describing below.  The only area I
disagree with is in regards to federation.  If we do not implement the
specification for an organizational repository in the right way, we
may need to make major changes to support federation.  This is not
good for anyone.  In my mind these two concepts cannot be decoupled.
We need to insure that any work towards supporting an organizational
repository provides a foundation for supporting a federated repository network.
Imagine if DNS was designed with a single organization mindset first
without thinking about federation.  Top Level Domains (TLDs) and
subdomains would not likely exist as concepts.  An individual DNS
server would likely not support caching, time-to-live and delegating
capabilities that are necessary for federation to happen.  All of
these things would need to be retrofitted.  To prevent this, we need
to address the building blocks of federation in the basic design.

Sincerely,

Dave

*From:*[e-mail]<mailto:*[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]]
*Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2012 12:36 PM
*To:* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Waltermire, David A.; SCAP-DEV;
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
*Subject:* Request for participants - Content Repository Specification
Development

Mike I love it when you tee something up like that.. ;-) Thank you. ;)

Mike wrote:

I still think that any specification for a repository is wishful
thinking until someone builds one and learns the lessons it will just
be another whitepaper spec. I believe the DoD needs to incorporate a
metadata repository as part of it and other customizations that may
not be useful for everyone.

We need to talk more.

If you are talking about a holistic, complete federated approach to a
content repository, I some what agree. If you are talking about an
organizational repository, I totally disagree. But you knew I would.
;)

Here is how I see the problem. There is an immediate need for SCAP and
other related content to be served up inside an organization. Today we
have situation where the standards allow us to provide sites the
capability to have a single SCAP implemented policy they call official
for their environment. Yes this is a rather simplistic since there are
things such as targeting specific platforms, specific operational use
needs, but for now lets agree SCAP is a massive improvement over the
proprietary situations of the past. While we have created this
standard content so that sites can implement their local site security
once and then assure they are measuring all appropriately targeted
devices the same way, we have failed to support the operational needs of the sites.
We have a situation where no two vendors distribute content the same
way. This causes massive problems for the administration staff when
they need to incorporate a new SCAP enabled product into their architecture.
They need to discover how the new product supports distributing SCAP
content to it's various components. If they have one product then they
do this one and they are done. If they have multiple products they
will have to figure out how to minimize the impact by incorporating
the update process for the new product into the existing SCAP security
content processes. Now when the inevitable happens and the site staff
needs to make a change to their security policy, they have to make the
modifications to the benchmark or checks or both and then distribute
those updates across their network. For each SCAP enabled product they
have in place, they have doubled, tripled or more the work needed to
make those updates available.

There is another content repository problem and that is the Federated
Content Distribution. If you think global DNS you have a general frame
of reference. The guidance authors need to be able to publish content
in an authoritative manner so their content is updated in a timely fashion.
This is a much harder problem to solve if there is no local
organizational infrastructure to support it. ;)

So here is what I am thinking. We should consider addressing these as
two separate but integrated efforts. I believe the Organizational
Content Repository is the more critical piece that is actually easier
to address. The Federated Content Distribution should be a subsequent
effort integrating / augmenting the Organizational repository
specification.

Mike, to your point that we need someone to build one first. That has
happened already. I have one as do other vendors but what we don't
have is the access specification. Ours are focused on our specific
product needs. Additionally there is a company that has developed a
commercial SCAP content repository that will be announced later this
month. I won't steal their thunder but I was recently given a sneak
peek at it and I must admit I was very impressed. Again, to your point, it has been done.
What is needed to address the initial operational problem is to
develop a specification that provides a consistent means for all SCAP
products to retrieve the appropriate content as configured and managed
but the
site.

TO THAT END..

I am requesting participation from those in the community that see the
need and want to put in the work to make this specification happen. I
have talked to a couple of you but I do not want to assume your
participation. If you are interested please contact me so we can get
this started.

Thanks!

*Kent Landfield*
Director Content Strategy, Architecture and Standards

*McAfee | An Intel Company*
5000 Headquarters Dr.
Plano, Texas 75024

Direct: +1.972.963.7096
Mobile: [phone]
*Web: *www.mcafee.com <http://www.mcafee.com/>

*From: *<Kinney>, Michael A <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]%3e>>
*To: *David Waltermire <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]%3e>>, SCAP-DEV <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]%3e>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]%3e>"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]%3e>>
*Subject: *Re: [sacm] [OVAL-DEVELOPER-LIST] Security Automation
Developer Days: Summer 2012 at MITRE in Bedford, MA

     Dave,

     I have no problem with webinars, I do want to keep developer days
     actionable and use it to make decisions, and vote and accomplish
     things good or bad. I do not want this to be an informational
     briefing conference.

     Thanks for the links.

     I still think that any specification for a repository is wishful
     thinking until someone builds one and learns the lessons it will
     just be another whitepaper spec. I believe the DoD needs to
     incorporate a metadata repository as part of it and other
     customizations that may not be useful for everyone.

     We need to talk more.

     -Mike

     *From:*Waltermire, David A. [mailto:[e-mail]]
     *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:44 AM
     *To:* Kinney, Michael A; SCAP-DEV; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]>
     *Subject:* RE: [OVAL-DEVELOPER-LIST] Security Automation Developer
     Days: Summer 2012 at MITRE in Bedford, MA

     Mike,

     What about having webinars in-place of the 30 minute briefs?

     Regarding content management, we are building the prototype content
     repository for use in a production environment. As an open source
     project, it will be free for use by anyone interested. My thinking
     is that this project can bridge the gap until commercial solutions
     are available to augment it. This is a similar path that was
     followed with DNS (bind) and HTTP (apache). When it is ready for
     use, I am hoping to use it to host USGCB content. You would be
     welcome to use it for your needs.

     It is good that OCIL is moving forward. This is an important piece
     of supporting risk management and aspects of continuous monitoring.
     I would also like to see some discussion on OCIL at Developer Days.
     With the proposals we will likely have a sense of what needs to be
     discussed and what we can achieve consensus on outside the meeting.

     Remediation is a topic near and dear to my heart. I too would like
     to see it move forward.

     We just published the draft ASR specification for public comment.
     This specification supports enterprise aggregate reporting which
     greatly reduces the data volumes needed verses detailed host-based
     reports. This specification has been designed as a more robust
     replacement for LASR. It can be used in continuous monitoring
     applications to support aggregate data reporting needs (e.g. FISMA
     reporting, CyberScope).

     Here are the links:

     http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsDrafts.html

     http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsNISTIRs.html#NIST-IR-7848

     The primary reason we have suggested waiting on XCCDF is not the
     internationalization issue. Many vendors have commented that they
     are still working on implementing the XCCDF 1.2.1 specification. We
     will be in a better place in a few months once more development
     around XCCDF has occurred. As we consider changes to the SCAP stack
     to address OCIL and other issues, we will identify areas that need
     improvement in XCCDF. These are good and necessary discussions to
     have now, but we have a good deal of work to do before we are ready
     to open up XCCDF. My suggestion is to work on these related areas
     and then work up change proposals for XCCDF as needed. By that time
     we should be ready to work on a new revision of XCCDF.

     I am also looking forward to the discussions at the conference. It
     has been too long.

     Sincerely,

     Dave

     *From:*Kinney, Michael A [mailto:[e-mail]]
     *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:09 AM
     *To:* SCAP-DEV
     *Cc:* Waltermire, David A.
     *Subject:* RE: [OVAL-DEVELOPER-LIST] Security Automation Developer
     Days: Summer 2012 at MITRE in Bedford, MA

     Kent,

     It's good to read your thoughts, and a realistic actionable approach
     is indeed needed. Since all the activity hasn't been on the lists a
     brief 1Ž2 hour recap may be in order to bring everyone up to speed
     since there has been a lot of activity on CPE/SWID, OCIl, MAEC/CybOX
     CEE and others.

     We could write a content repository specification, but without
     someone willing to stand one up it will be as valuable as the CCSS
     specification is today. I've been trying for two years to get my
     management to get a coordinated effort together for the DoD to stand
     up a repository, it is a tough problem and will require funding with
     a tail, I'm not sure a specification will solve that problem.

     We (DoD) have been putting a lot of effort into OCIL over the last
     year trying to make it useful in an enterprise environment and will
     be posting our ideas to the list before developer days it should
     have already started, we need to get consensus and a vote on how the
     community wishes to proceed.

     Remediation is stalled but I'm making every effort to get it kick
     started from our perspective. I hope to assist in getting the draft
     ERI finished this year. We are writing some new STIG content and
     intend to used the draft CRE specification to insert CRE into the
     content so we (DoD) can do some automatic configuration fixes, part
     of a self healing network concept. It is just a start but the best
     we can do at this point.

     Enterprise reporting is an interesting subject, since XML adds size
     to and content to roll up reporting, in any enterprise of size the
     problem gets greater, I look forward to your thoughts on that subject.

     I am concerned that the internationalization efforts are detracting
     from efforts to meet use cases, we have some things we would like
     changed in XCCDF to support our OCIl use case and I have been told
     that I need to wait. I didn't think that a move to
     internationalization should impede efforts to move forward with use
     cases.

     I look forward to talking with you at the conference.

     v/r

     Mike Kinney

     Project Director

     Computer Network Defense Research and Technology (CND R&T) Office

     9800 Savage Road Ste 6767
     Ft Meade, MD 20755-6767
     Phone: [phone]
     NSTS: 968-8886
     Fax [phone]

     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>

     *From:*[e-mail]<mailto:*[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
     [mailto:[e-mail]] <mailto:[mailto:[e-mail]]> *On
     Behalf Of *Waltermire, David A.
     *Sent:* Monday, May 07, 2012 7:09 PM
     *To:* Multiple recipients of list
     *Subject:* RE: [OVAL-DEVELOPER-LIST] Security Automation Developer
     Days: Summer 2012 at MITRE in Bedford, MA

     Kent,

     I like what you are saying here. We are also in support of this type
     of approach. We would like to see some community discussion around
     what are the key areas/priorities that the community would like to
     see discussed at Dev Days. Your topics below look like a good start.
     The SACM list might be a better venue than the OVAL list for this
     discussion. For each area we should focus the discussion around
     developing objectives for each session. The sessions can be time
     boxed based on what would be a reasonable amount of time to
     accomplish each objective. For example if continuous monitoring is a
     priority and collectively it takes 3 days to work through all the
     objectives, I see no problem with that. We can also keep a few
     sessions "on deck" if all the objectives are reached and we complete
     all the scheduled sessions early.

     Thoughts?

     Sincerely,

     David Waltermire

     SCAP Architect

     National Institute of Standards and Technology

     [phone]

     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>

     *From:*[e-mail]<mailto:*[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
     [mailto:[e-mail]] <mailto:[mailto:[e-mail]]> *On
     Behalf Of *[e-mail]<mailto:*[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]>
     *Sent:* Monday, May 07, 2012 4:25 PM
     *To:* SCAP-DEV
     *Subject:* Re: [OVAL-DEVELOPER-LIST] Security Automation Developer
     Days: Summer 2012 at MITRE in Bedford, MA

     All,

     I would like to discuss the format for the SCAP Developer Days that
     seems to be listed below.

     I see this appears to follow a path we have discussed in the past as
     the way not to hold a Dev Days event. We have been trying to get
     away from 'Death by Powerpoint' and back to the type of event we
     held years ago when we were highly productive. In the past we had a
     topic to be discussed and a time box to work within. That allowed us
     to have very active brainstorming sessions in a high bandwidth
     environment.

     At past Summer events we have got into a pattern of lots of
     powerpoint, lots of status of the efforts and very little discussion
     about things that need active discussions. We need to keep moving
     forward and making progress as an effort. We can get status from
     various places such as the lists, a presentation being sent out in
     advance, a webinar if it is felt there will be questions and answers
     from those that are new to the efforts. We have a limited amount of
     time and all who are attending are investing a great deal of time
     and money to be there. We should not be spending a great deal of
     time reeducating everyone when we could be focused on advancing
     needed efforts.

     The type of approach to a Dev Days event was discussed at the last
     Summer Dev Days. I have seen the following work quite well in other
     efforts.

      1. Presentations are sent out to the attendees and the lists a week
         in advance.
      2. Status for any effort is limited to 30 minutes
      3. Focused brainstorming time should be established for certain
         areas that need real work by the community
      4. Efforts to be discussed should be based on needs of the security
         automation space to move existing efforts to completion.

     For example:

     Continuous monitoring is a major direction the efforts are becoming
     involved with. There are going to be things we need to do as a
     security automation community to be able to accomplish what is
     listed in the CAESARS FE. There are interfaces that need to be
     worked and established. That is one area that is not listed below.
     CM will have a major impact on all of us in the next couple years
     and it is being ignored. We can't keep trying to solve what has
     already been solved. We need to address the needed interface
     development now. This is an effort that could take nearly a whole
     day by itself.

     Operationally we have a real need to be able to deliver SCAP content
     internally within an organization. Today the SCAP vendors cannot
     share a single local site security policy (XCCDF + OVAL + CPE +.)
     without the site staff having to go to each of the individual
     products and figuring out how to inject that new or updated policy
     into that products delivery mechanisms. That is limiting sites from
     wanting to buy multiple focused SCAP products since they are such a
     pain to manage from a content perspective. It is easier to buy from
     one vendor that has a single means for distributing content than it
     is to deal with the management issues that having multiple SCAP
     products presents. We need to have at least an entire 1/2 a day on
     the development of a Content Repository specification.

     OCIL is a positive and a negative at the same time. It has real
     value that is being underutilized and under implemented because of
     the limitations of how it addresses uses in an enterprise
     environment. People don't need security automation to do things
     on/for a single host. They need security automation to focus on the
     enterprise issues that reduce their costs and improve their
     efficiencies. OCIL is failing in the enterprise and we all
     understand that. We need to address developing a definitive solution
     for incorporating OCIL into the enterprise and that means into the
     existing specifications. Scheduling and tracking are key to it's
     success. We need to make that happen. This too needs a focused
     brainstorming time box to discuss options.

     I am really disappointed that Remediation is not on the list below.
     Yes, last Summer Dev Days, the time spent on Remediation was wasted
     time but that does not mean we should ignore it and not try to make
     some real progress. As far as I am concerned we need to reboot the
     remediation effort. We cannot keep being the set of specifications /
     tools that act as the little boy crying "Wolf" in the night. We need
     to be able to find and fix issues if we are going to really make a
     difference in organizational security postures. But today we think
     it is too hard so we don't try ? I think we need a couple hours to
     discuss the reboot of the effort even if that means minimizing work
     already done.

     A focused discussion on enterprise reporting is also critically
     needed. For the vendors here, we have all gone through the
     Cyberscope goat rope, delivering limited capabilities to specific
     data call requirements of the Federal Agencies. The initial effort
     was a mess, did little more than prove it was possible and cause the
     vendor community a great deal of thrashing to put a kludgey
     'solution' in place. Reality is all our customers need roll up
     reporting and an infrastructure that supports it. A data call should
     not be special to anyone other than the agencies responding. The
     tools should be able to select the types of data needed and deliver
     that on a scheduled basis automatically. Enterprise Reporting
     pertains to commercial as well as Federal customers. We need to
     focus some time on what that would look like using the ARF and ASR
     as the foundational pieces. But there are missing pieces.. We need
     this discussed.

     I would hope we can make this summer's SCAP Dev Days useful in
     advancing the security automation efforts by addressing some of the
     more critical issues our customers are facing now or will be facing
     in the very short term. Status presentations are not interesting to
     those active in the efforts. Let's try to do those before we get to
     Bedford so we can real make some progress while we are all in the
     same room. This is always a big event for the 'consensus of the
     willing' that assemble and driven to see security automation make a
     difference. Let's see if we can have an event that, when we all walk
     out the last day, we all feel that every minute was well spent and
     moves us forward.

     Thanks.

     *Kent Landfield*
     Director Content Strategy, Architecture and Standards

     *McAfee | An Intel Company*
     5000 Headquarters Dr.
     Plano, Texas 75024

     Direct: +1.972.963.7096
     Mobile: [phone]
     *Web: *www.mcafee.com <http://www.mcafee.com/>

     *From: *<Boczenowski>, Steve <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]%3e>>
     *Reply-To: *"OVAL Developer List (Closed Public Discussion)"
     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]%3e>>
     *To: *"[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]%3e>"
     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]%3e>>
     *Subject: *Re: [OVAL-DEVELOPER-LIST] Security Automation Developer
     Days: Summer 2012 at MITRE in Bedford, MA

         Frank;

         We hope to have the registration site up next week. The event
         will be during the week of July 9 - starting Monday at 10:00 AM
         and ending on Friday at 12:00.

         Meanwhile, we are working on the agenda and are currently
         considering this list of topics:

         CCE

         CPE/SWID

         CEE

         XCCDF

         OVAL

         ASR

         Enterprise OCIL

         CybOX/MAEC

         Federated Content Repository Spec

         Endpoint Reporting for Continuous Monitoring and Compliance
(ERCC)

         MILE

         TAXII

         IF-M for SCAP

         IF-MAP

         SCAP Releases

         SCAP and IETF

         NETCONF and SCAP

         Steve

         *From:*Frank Lindsay Acker [mailto:[e-mail]]
         *Sent:* Tuesday, May 01, 2012 9:32 AM
         *To:* oval-developer-list OVAL Developer List/Closed Public
         Discussion
         *Subject:* Re: [OVAL-DEVELOPER-LIST] Security Automation
         Developer Days: Summer 2012 at MITRE in Bedford, MA

         Steve....

         Has there been any additional information regarding this event?

         Thanks,
         Frank Acker


------------------------------------------------------------------------

         *From:*Boczenowski, Steve [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
         <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]%3e>]
         *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2012 16:38
         *To:* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
         <mailto:[e-mail]>
         *Subject:* [OVAL-DEVELOPER-LIST] Security Automation Developer
         Days: Summer 2012 at MITRE in Bedford, MA

         Save the Date: week of July 9, 2012

         This year's MITRE-hosted Security Automation Developer Days
         event will be held during the week of July 9, 2012 at MITRE's
         facility in Bedford, MA.

         Details to follow.

         Regards,

         Steve

         ______________________________________________

         /Stephen P. Boczenowski/

         The MITRECorporation

         Office: [phone]

         Cell: [phone]

         [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>

         To unsubscribe, send an email message to
         [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> with
         SIGNOFF OVAL-DEVELOPER-LIST in the BODY of the message. If you
         have difficulties, write to
         [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
         <mailto:[e-mail]>.

         To unsubscribe, send an email message to
         [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> with
         SIGNOFF OVAL-DEVELOPER-LIST in the BODY of the message. If you
         have difficulties, write to
         [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
         <mailto:[e-mail]>.

         To unsubscribe, send an email message to
         [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> with
         SIGNOFF OVAL-DEVELOPER-LIST in the BODY of the message. If you
         have difficulties, write to
         [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
         <mailto:[e-mail]>.



_______________________________________________
sacm mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm
_______________________________________________
sacm mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

_______________________________________________
sacm mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm
_______________________________________________
sacm mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm