Re: [sop] SOP Requirements

Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 13 March 2012 00:12 UTC

Return-Path: <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6449721E80CB for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.93
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.93 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.332, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rpsn+a0EJGkk for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C6C21E802A for <sop@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so3635974yen.31 for <sop@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=vGKhVZhR8n0orl0slPqjuS7q+rH7JPKtbTk0oAVAMNM=; b=yplwYL0qE31qWiotHGtZq8rcYUx2YrTNB6qwc/22r91m+bUAyS4RxyHF/EvQD6VG7f D5jRQDKKM57hPrYQKBXZ/ZyZV/F0w9PjZTAWydiSNuWpHdpr4kyDgO39YtoEHdALoVAn TXVpFwbRnXE1jaOO171rZOwZ9kuKYVY8sw2hq8mPvNJw6FeFUEi5DVFkmHzEIeCp2uBK 5sBGj6vH01XHCFPRCi5sBENIt6UqbfVySBQrBWXzA7rKFKLAb/y10+BfWqFCn8qffUsP UTG+KcYx+Vd67j6oHZEblAAXj/J/flWU3O+Ye+TOh8ZMoKcy8sbFIuHAW7UHdBE3VJd/ hztw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.1.104 with SMTP id 8mr9802538obl.19.1331597573721; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.134.73 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BCFC2@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
References: <CAOyVPHQ-iESaD2osxsWguTw1Ru92JYacSsqbD+1rECPzy1eGfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA3wLqV+YeGJH2pFQ80s=PgQC2RsodPMm8qUw3a-VtCzhETkOg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOyVPHTXWPyt5aHL2ehd_upS-DEAcfugVMcUpUm_oO5Ov04rUw@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51030E1263@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAOyVPHTDaVXJTskXMxQ0MBr+4MbC1St6+YOhOpv6MUww+QbH8w@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BC437@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAOyVPHTgfyEDM5Xq9GF+zxcLCY6AAzTdn2s9c1z7529rDO8LGQ@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BC9CC@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAOyVPHQLmndMyNmDqKFugyaL11T0p7Wi5vz9-z4WLH2ETfKHuQ@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BCFC2@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:12:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOyVPHRY89Uo5Cd8JqxE=eDeoY8F95WzuQ99n-3Vx5Ba1PkYNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <adalela@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044631665d8f0904bb14b84b
Cc: sop@ietf.org, Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [sop] SOP Requirements
X-BeenThere: sop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Service Orchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services <sop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sop>, <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sop>
List-Post: <mailto:sop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop>, <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:12:57 -0000

Hi Ashish,

Yes, I was talking about UPnP/ SSDP. For hijacking prevention, we used a
protocol like IKE called AKE (though I am sure we could use IKE too).

I am not trying to say the protocol you invented is wrong, but based on the
top level information, it looks similar to what is achievable now.

So if the problem is multicast for discovery, can we optimize the discovery
part instead of doing the whole protocol itself. I think we need to propose
a tighter problem statement.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Ashish Dalela (adalela)
<adalela@cisco.com>wrote:

> Hi Vishwas,****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m supposing that you are talking about SSDP (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Service_Discovery_Protocol)? Let me
> know if that is correct.****
>
> ** **
>
> In any large network, multicast isn’t the right way to scale. If every
> network element has to do a IGMP join to receive ADVERTISE then it becomes
> a scaling issue. It also becomes a security problem where some rogue
> element can start sending multicast ADVERTISE and hijack the orchestration
> sessions. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Broadcast doesn’t scale either, but we can convert it to a directed
> unicast (like DHCP for example). There are other reasons as well, such as
> if there are multiple service specific controllers then you have to choose
> different multicast groups for each. It seems like we should use broadcast
> for this to be light-weight, and multicast could be an option in case of L3
> networks, but with additional access controls.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regarding which existing protocol to extend, there are multiple options:**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> HTTP – has CRUD, but doesn’t support ADVERTISE, DISCOVER, REGISTER,
> NOTIFY, SUBSCRIBE, COMMIT, CANCEL etc. So, just adding a NOTIFY, as you
> suggest through SSDP, is still not going to be enough. Orchestration also
> needs “identities” such as device@provider.com, which HTTP doesn’t have.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> XMPP – has PUBLISH, SUBSCRIBE, and identities, but not all of the above.
> Service requests will require a “VIA” and dynamic injection of path
> elements, especially when a request forks into multiple requests or is
> re-directed to a different provider / location.****
>
>                                                                   ****
>
> AMQP – this is designed for messaging and again lacks many of the
> constructs.****
>
>
>    ****
>
> So wherever we look, the extension curve is long. It seemed like the
> problem space is big enough to warrant a new protocol.****
>
>                ****
>
> The other issue is how easily we can implement the security for
> orchestration. E.g. if we use IPSec end-to-end then how do hops in the
> middle route the request differently (the nearest location, the cheapest
> location, location with capacity, the location allowed by law, etc.). The
> right model seems to be that we embed integrity within the protocol rather
> than into IPSec. Privacy can be implemented separately between the edges
> using IPSec. That security model requires another set of issues to be
> solved in the current protocols (if we extend them).****
>
> ** **
>
> Besides security, there are other types of issues. For instance, a network
> might use UDP internally to get broadcast but use TCP for unicast
> externally for higher reliability. That change between TCP and UDP causes
> loss of transaction identity, and transactions have to be built part of the
> protocol. Likewise, with overlays, and overlay translations, the location
> information could be easily lost. Hence, you need location in the
> orchestration protocol. NAT may obfuscate real topology, and we lose
> information about the actual distance between two end-points. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Given these challenges, we choose to define a protocol that can be tweaked
> over time for orchestration specific needs without having to worry about
> backward compatibility, and/or how this gets broken by overlay, firewalls,
> or NAT’d networks. SIP already went over this hump and providers have
> learnt (somewhat painfully) on how to do this in a way that works. That
> entire learning can be leveraged for cloud.****
>
>                                                                   ****
>
> In any case, not sure if you have seen it, but there is a draft for SOP
> that describes just what I’m talking about.****
>
> ** **
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dalela-sop-00****
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dalela-sop-flows-00****
>
> ** **
>
> Look forward to your comments.****
>
>                         ****
>
> Thanks, Ashish****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Vishwas Manral [mailto:vishwas.ietf@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2:30 AM
>
> *To:* Ashish Dalela (adalela)
> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org; Michael Hammer
> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Ashish,
>
> Thanks for the mail.
>
> So I looked at some of the reasons you mentioned you want to go in for SOP
> instead of HTTP.
>
> I however have worked in the past with the DLNA stack, where we extended
> HTTP and used protocols like SOAP to get behaviors you mention - like
> service discovery, transaction support etc.
>
> If that is what we want, we should look at the DLNA stack and see how we
> can leverage existing mechanisms for the same.
>
> I however think finalizing the requirements is a good start.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas****
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) <adalela@cisco.com>;
> wrote:****
>
> Hi Vishwas,****
>
>  ****
>
> It is better if you comment on the drafts because there is a section
> dedicated to this very topic.****
>
>  ****
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dalela-orchestration-00#section-8 ****
>
>  ****
>
> This describes what you can’t do with web-services (assuming that’s what
> you mean by APIs). This is **not** the shortcoming of the APIs, but that
> of the underlying **protocol** (HTTP). So, if you changed the underlying
> protocol to fix issues with HTTP, then the APIs would be more powerful.
> That protocol we propose to be SOP.****
>
>  ****
>
> You are mistaking me in pitching API against protocols. I’m pitching
> protocol (HTTP) against protocol (SOP). Unfortunately, application
> developers abuse the term API to mean HTTP web-services, and the discussion
> is then messed up into thinking protocol against API.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks, Ashish****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* sop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sop-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Vishwas
> Manral
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:19 AM
> *To:* Ashish Dalela (adalela)
> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org; Michael Hammer****
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Ashish,
>
> My point was very simple.
>
> You had talked about cases where protocol is more flexible than an API,
> and I was trying to help you understand that anything that can be done in
> an East West manner (with protocols), can be done in North-South manner
> with API's. If you say we can do something with protocols with only X
> packets, we can do the same with just X API's too. That was my point and
> not the fact that we have only 1 API or more.
>
> Also API's on which base services sit and ones which end users use could
> be different.
>
> Am I missing the point altogether?
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas****
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) <
> adalela@cisco.com>; wrote:****
>
> Hi Vishwas,****
>
>  ****
>
> What everyone calls API today uses a protocol – HTTP. APIs survive on the
> interoperability provided by that protocol, and I don’t think anyone can
> get away from that. The real question is – what is the right protocol on
> top of which to build APIs? That’s the question SOP is raising. Once you do
> that, then we can talk of one or many APIs.****
>
>  ****
>
> Limitations of using HTTP as the underlying protocol for any API have been
> described in detail in the requirements draft. I would like to hear your
> comments on that. That section describes what APIs can’t do. Some of the
> limitations are because API is always unicast, and there are many things
> for which you need a manycast and broadcast. Other limitations because APIs
> are synchronous and you need to be asynchronous in some cases. Yet other
> issues because APIs are single complete transaction, but some transactions
> will spread over multiple such APIs. ****
>
>  ****
>
> The total amount of information in a message is unchanged whether you put
> it inside a protocol header or the content body. Putting some things in the
> protocol header saves you having to reinvent them in the content for every
> type of service. In other words, a protocol saves you from increasing
> information across various services. As an example in SIP, we put From and
> To in the protocol header. Could we not put it in the body? Sure we could.
> In that case we would be repeating that for voice and video and chat
> content. ****
>
>  ****
>
> To your point, you can have a single API for doing anything. As the
> service evolves and complexity grows, the number of parameters to that API
> increases. And yes, you can make that backward compatible in terms of
> implementation. But, nobody does that – especially when the interface is
> end-user facing. If this was an acceptable design, then we would not have
> object inheritance and there won’t be hundreds of APIs being opened up by
> cloud providers today. You might want to suggest one API to Amazon or other
> cloud providers. ****
>
>  ****
>
> A practical operational issue with APIs is that users don’t understand all
> the details. A user understands a server memory and CPU, but don’t
> understand VLAN and LUN, and zillions of other complicated things. Exposing
> them through APIs is useless because they can’t use it. Why would a user
> buy an expensive TV when they can’t use most of the features, because the
> remote is too complicated? The need is to reduce complexity through
> automation, not expose it all to the user via APIs. In other words, you
> need a more sophisticated policy engine not a sophisticated API system. **
> **
>
>  ****
>
> For any problem there is a cure and there is a prevention. Building API
> bridges is a cure to diverse APIs, it’s not a prevention. Once you
> recognize a problem, you build a short-term cure and a long-term prevention
> (at least ideally). Then, a single API is neither a cure nor prevention;
> its side-effects are so severe that we might be living with the original
> problem as well. ****
>
>  ****
>
> APIs have always existed and will continue to exist. The goal is to
> interoperate diverse APIs without a translation bridge. That happens all
> the time with network protocols, when one vendor’s APIs works with another
> vendor’s APIs without a translation bridge. I think not having a bridge is
> always better than having a bridge. Agree?****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks, Ashish****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Vishwas Manral [mailto:vishwas.ietf@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:45 PM
> *To:* Ashish Dalela (adalela)
> *Cc:* Michael Hammer; sop@ietf.org****
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Ashish,****
>
>  ****
>
> As the number of services increase or the complexity in a given service
> grows, this becomes very hard. Assume there is a service with N tunable
> parameters. You need at least N APIs that modify these parameters
> individually. Then permutations and combination of these parameters create
> hundreds of more APIs. That’s just API bloat. And if you have to
> interoperate multiple instances of these APIs through bridges, it’s just
> inviting more complexity. Another limitation is that when APIs have
> semantic incompatibilities, it becomes even harder to interoperate (syntax
> incompatibility is easier).****
>
> Not true at all.For N parameters you can have one API. The API can be made
> forward compatible by using simple things like unions. Having worked in a
> software company, where we have to extend our software without breaking
> previous API's I am well aware of the fact.
>
> If you give an exact example I can try to help you see how we can make an
> extensible API for the same.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas ****
>
>  ****
>
> From an operational standpoint, every new API introduction requires
> software upgrades to the controllers. That eventually hinders the rate of
> service creation.****
>
>  ****
>
> >> I know as services proliferate there could be a proliferation of
> distict API's but the same is true of the protocol layer too.
>  ****
>
> That won’t happen if we separate service-independent and service-dependent
> pieces. An example of that is SNMP. SNMP is device/service independent. MIB
> defines the specific service/device. If you have a standard protocol to
> manage a device, then you just have to add a new MIB to start managing it.
> You don’t need to upgrade all the intermediate systems – hardware or
> software. ****
>
>  ****
>
> BTW, I’m not advocating SNMP here because SNMP has many shortcomings in
> terms of network discovery, capability discovery, advertisements,
> transactions, etc. But, we need to keep in mind that API proliferation is
> inevitable as services proliferate. Protocol proliferation is not
> inevitable. Similar separation has been done in the past in SIP/SDP,
> HTTP/HTML, SMTP/MIME. That separation allows anyone to send any content in
> email to anyone. Or download any web-page, or have any type of codec (voice
> or video) use the same protocol.****
>
>  ****
>
> If you compare the success and widespread use of above mentioned protocols
> the value of separation between service-independent and service-dependent
> seems pretty convincing.****
>
>  ****
>
> >> Correct but the draft seems to differ.****
>
>  ****
>
> Service and instance of service are (and can be) interchangeably used. Is
> bandwidth a service or an instance of a service? I think this is more
> semantics.****
>
>  ****
>
> >> The requirement seems contradictory to what we agree. Similar for
> points below.****
>
>  ****
>
> The requirement is really that services are portable across providers. I
> think it is fair to say (as you also agree) that a user must know where
> they are going for a service. After all, they will have to pay for the
> service and they ought to know in advance who are they going to receive a
> monthly check from. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks, Ashish****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* sop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sop-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Vishwas
> Manral
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:26 AM
> *To:* Michael Hammer
> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Sounds like we agree on most of the things, though I see the draft
> contradicting what we agree on.****
>
> 1. Do we really see incompatibilities in the API's soar for say IaaS? The
> AWS API's seem to be the default standard adopted by most providers. From
> the little I know OpenStack based API's may be the alternative way and
> companies have built bridging layers to inter-operate between the same.***
> *
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Seem?  May be?  Bridging layers?  I think you are making the case for us.
> :)****
>
> I'm sure Ashish will have more to say about APIs, but I would prefer there
> be a de jure than a default, which in the long run is likely to change at
> the whim of a single company, and perhaps not in a direction that everyone
> would like.****
>
> What I am saying is we have 2 sets of API's and there are layers used to
> bridge the same. I know as services proliferate there could be a
> proliferation of distict API's but the same is true of the protocol layer
> too.
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 2. Instead of the term customer/ user can we instead use the term
> "consumer". Something like "cloud subscriber" etc could be used. All I am
> saying is can we use standard terms here.****
>
>  ****
>
> We can settle on specific terms to use, just so long as we keep the
> distinction between the entity (enterprise?) that provisions the software
> in the cloud, and the user of that software, which could be an employee or
> a user in the general public.  Using a SIP Proxy as a Service, the operator
> of the Proxy provisions it with a CREATE, but the user is the one sending
> INVITEs through it.  Make sense?****
>
> The NIST document uses terms and we should try to use similar terms as far
> as possible.
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 3. Is orchestration about creating services (from the cloud providers
> perspective), or an instance of a service (for a particular user)? I think
> it is the latter, but doesn't sound so from the definition.****
>
>  ****
>
> Orchestration is about the on-demand provisioning of the
> compute/storage/network/XaaS in the cloud by the subscriber/customer.  Once
> provisioned, the service can provide services to the intended user.  We are
> trying to be general here.  Need to keep provisioning and operations
> distinct.  "Service" is occurring in levels.****
>
> Correct but the draft seems to differ.
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 4. How is Service Domain Name different from a URI? Aren't they the same?*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> There is a distinction here between a class of services and running
> instantiations of those services.  Either may be hierarchically named.****
>
> Hmm.
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 5. Is Scenario -1 talking about all providers should provide the same
> services? I guess not. I think the idea should be the same set of services
> should be accessible from a cloud provider the same way. It however does
> not mean that all providers need to provide the same services, as it seems
> from the requirement.****
>
>  ****
>
> Agree.  All providers may not provide the same set of services.  ****
>
> But, if two providers offer the same service, it should not require a new
> customer protocol stack to do so.****
>
> And users should not know that they may be going to one provider or the
> other when using the same service.****
>
> The requirement seems contradictory to what we agree. Similar for points
> below.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 6. It seems for most purposes you are talking about users, but as such a
> user in an enterprise should be unaware of where the service is coming
> from. It is the role of the customer to actually provide clear demarcation
> so a user is unaware of the same. Interoperability with virtual provider is
> how companies achieve the same.****
>
>  ****
>
> Agree, and we would like that to be true for multi-provider cases as well.
> ****
>
> I would go further to say that even a user not in the enterprise should be
> unaware where the service is coming from.****
>
>  ****
>
> 7. I don't think you should mention providers should inter-operate with
> each other. That is a business decision. I think what you mean here is that
> providers should have a clear interoperable means should they wish to
> inter-operate.****
>
>  ****
>
> Yes.  We want them to be able to inter-operate.  Whether they want to is a
> business decision.****
>
>  ****
>
> 8. Is it really a requirement for the Orchestration to allow
> inter-operation for all models? I would have thought we are focusing on the
> IaaS alone.****
>
>  ****
>
> We don't see a reason to limit it to just IaaS.  We are looking several
> years down the road here.****
>
>  ****
>
> 9. S-5 and S-3 sound like similar services to me. How are they different -
> vendor versus provider?****
>
>  ****
>
> We were considering cases where multiple companies are involved in
> providing all the capabilities needed.  One involved coordination within an
> administrative domain, while the other involves independent administrative
> domains.  We didn't want to limit this to single company operations.  Large
> global providers may involve many companies.****
>
>  ****
>
> 10. I think one of the key requirements for SOP, is the ability to work
> across only a sub-set of the base services and allow for extensible
> services on top. There could be so many variants of the SaaS or even PaaS I
> am not sure how you would make every service inter-operate.****
>
>  ****
>
> There needs to be several layers of standards involved.  This is an onion
> not a single layer orange-peel.****
>
> Here we are trying to provide structure that allows easy extension,
> substitution, and innovation at the more service-specific granular levels.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> 11. I think when a VM is moved the biggest issue is the ability to move
> the storage along with it. All other state is minor and minimal.****
>
>  ****
>
> I would say the networking is the biggest issue, but that is my bias.  :0*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> 12. Section 6 seems to be relevent within a cloud too and not just between
> clouds.****
>
>  ****
>
> Agree.  Internal to a cloud and from the customer to the cloud are the
> simple cases.  ****
>
> We emphasize the inter-cloud cases to test the architecture for the worst
> cases.****
>
>  ****
>
> 13. Doesn't CDN provide the ability to separate address and ability
> already?****
>
>  ****
>
> Probably needs more discussion.  I see content as a specific scenario.
>  There you don't care which copy of data is accessed so long as you reach
> it.  In other types of services, a lot more control over who accesses what
> is needed.****
>
>  ****
>
> 14. For Service discovery. management we wrote something quite a while
> back
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yokota-opsawg-virtnw-service-management/
> .****
>
> Will take a look.  Thanks.  Mike****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
>
> _______________________________________________
> sop mailing list
> sop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>