Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Mon, 04 April 2016 09:54 UTC
Return-Path: <rmohanr@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BD712D663 for <straw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 02:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 bGy0FjGJg_3C for <straw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 02:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DEBE12D684 for <straw@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 02:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=19956; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1459763659; x=1460973259; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=u3+z2Mk9ZzQnVSLrK7QLteHYcjiJWkdbb50EmKP5tAI=; b=fyEZVaJLLJ9pryYnvUjdRmASXXBi9GiIlUmbKt5BreOjCXgXTpABiUfn 5lAlVdDm8KPUfuZemt71PD7HWhrwqUsmgP+SY0tj1iSLtscAq2Bd40kDC eW3QcB0oDejvB4v+JPP7cinST+bohWs3lHkX9k15cmg2c78eP1CVHWCzi o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAgATOQJX/5FdJa1dgzdTfQa7IQENgXIXCoVsAhyBEjgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEEBAQEDAQEBATE6CwwEAgEIEQMBAgEEHwkCAiULHQgCBAENBRuIBAgOjWidDwaRNAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAREEdol0hD2CfIJcBYdvkBIBhXKIFYFohE2IWoYaiH8BHgEBQoIygTVshyh+AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,439,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="92603761"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Apr 2016 09:54:18 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-016.cisco.com (xch-rtp-016.cisco.com [64.101.220.156]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u349sH3Y018992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:54:18 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) by XCH-RTP-016.cisco.com (64.101.220.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 05:54:17 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-017.cisco.com ([64.101.220.157]) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com ([64.101.220.157]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 05:54:17 -0400
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: "straw@ietf.org" <straw@ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Thread-Topic: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRjlfzDbEsZxsTika2d815lFgAQw==
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:54:16 +0000
Message-ID: <D32837CF.56DA7%rmohanr@cisco.com>
References: <20151201045818.23491.19134.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E63559A7-6A37-496C-AAD9-426AB697FD65@nostrum.com> <D2851411.4B35B%rmohanr@cisco.com> <DB9B999A-DAF0-440B-BDD4-445368AFFCE2@cooperw.in> <DAE78890-C8B2-42DE-BCC3-A994CB9AF668@nostrum.com> <1D498CDA-C8B6-4215-A718-7C5302B5CF2D@cooperw.in> <01E4CF3B-6C31-4A97-8155-8DC06443A7C2@nostrum.com> <A6B3CA82-DC74-48AB-80B7-EBF1462A964E@nostrum.com> <D2C25ED1.4E4DA%rmohanr@cisco.com> <23C852C2-1B96-4739-91ED-8B4C0FF97279@cooperw.in> <D314CB23.5573B%rmohanr@cisco.com> <8C7E62D2-E8A7-4094-92F4-28C17214A1B5@cooperw.in> <D322AC2A.56904%rmohanr@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D322AC2A.56904%rmohanr@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.196.105.43]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <CB9B7C340A2CA244AAB6E487BD5A292F@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/straw/KSP3zP_f_IVneLxizDS-nQY_KRA>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "christer.holmberg@ericsson.com" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" <straw.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/straw>, <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/straw/>
List-Post: <mailto:straw@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw>, <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:54:24 -0000
This diff is published now. New revision - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp/ Ram -----Original Message----- From: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> Date: Thursday, 31 March 2016 at 10:28 AM To: "straw@ietf.org" <straw@ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "christer.holmberg@ericsson.com" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Subject: Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >Thanks to every one for their feedback. Here is the diff attached. I will >publish this during the IETF week. > >Regards, >Ram > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> >Date: Thursday, 24 March 2016 at 4:31 AM >To: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> >Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "straw@ietf.org" <straw@ietf.org>, >"christer.holmberg@ericsson.com" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >Subject: Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on >draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > >>Changes look good, thanks. I will clear when you post the rev. >> >>Note that I may move to ABSTAIN as I’m still not 100% convinced of the >>value of this draft. Not sure yet. But I appreciate the additional work >>you put into it. >> >>Alissa >> >>> On Mar 20, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) <rmohanr@cisco.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alissa, >>> >>> Thanks for your feedback. Please see inline >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> >>> Date: Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 6:05 PM >>> To: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> >>> Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, >>> "draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp@ietf.org" >>> <draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp@ietf.org>, "straw-chairs@ietf.org" >>> <straw-chairs@ietf.org>, "straw@ietf.org" <straw@ietf.org>, IESG >>> <iesg@ietf.org>, "christer.holmberg@ericsson.com" >>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >>> Subject: Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on >>> draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >>> >>>> I took a look at the latest version of this document. It has >>>>definitely >>>> improved, but I still find it problematic in a few ways. >>>> >>>> = Sec 1.1 and 1.2 = >>>> >>>> The language about the narrow case for which this document’s guidance >>>>is >>>> targeted is better. But I think it needs to emphasize just how much of >>>>a >>>> corner case this is. RFC 7362 recommends against latching, and address >>>> hiding is more often provided using TURN. Rather than saying things >>>>like >>>> "there are certain B2BUAs that are typically deployed for address >>>>hiding >>>> or media latching, as described in [RFC7362]” without any of that >>>> context, I would suggest something like “B2BUAs may be deployed for >>>> address hiding or media latching [RFC7362], although TURN is more >>>>often >>>> used for this purpose and media latching is not recommended due to its >>>> security properties.” >>> >>> >>> Ok. Will add the suggested text: >>> >>> EXISTING: >>> However, there are certain B2BUAs >>> that are typically deployed for address hiding or media latching, as >>> described in [RFC7362], and such B2BUAs are able to perform their >>> functions without requiring termination of DTLS-SRTP sessions i.e. >>> these B2BUAs need not act as DTLS proxy and decrypt the RTP payload. >>> >>> >>> NEW: >>> B2BUAs may be deployed for address hiding or media latching [RFC7362], >>> although TURN is more often used for this purpose and media latching is >>>not >>> recommended due to its security properties. Such B2BUAs are able to >>> perform their >>> functions without requiring termination of DTLS-SRTP sessions i.e. >>> these B2BUAs need not act as DTLS proxy and decrypt the RTP payload. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> = Sec. 1.2 and 7 = >>>> >>>> I still find it odd to say that various flavors of B2BUA are “outside >>>>the >>>> scope of this document” when in fact the document spends most of its >>>> words describing how those B2BUAs would not be expected to conform to >>>>its >>>> recommendations. Instead of saying that the specific types of >>>> implementations are “outside the scope of this document,” I would >>>> recommend saying that the recommendations made in the document are not >>>> expected to be applied by those types of B2BUAs given deployment >>>>reality. >>> >>> EXISTING: >>> Those B2BUAs terminating DTLS-SRTP sessions are outside the >>> scope of this document. >>> >>> NEW: >>> The recommendations made in this document are not expected to be >>>applied >>> by B2BUAs terminating DTLS-SRTP sessions given deployment reality. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> = Sec 4 and 5 = >>>> >>>> I gather that these sections are intended to explain which kinds of >>>> B2BUAs are expected to be able to comply with the recommendations in >>>>Sec >>>> 3 and how, which is good. I would recommend making that explicit in >>>>the >>>> section headings and the intro to each section. In particular, it’s >>>>not >>>> clear to me why the intro to Sec 4 talks about impact on DTLS-SRTP and >>>> the intro to Sec 5 (and the section titles) talk about handling of >>>> DTLS-SRTP. I thought the two sections were supposed to be giving >>>>parallel >>>> explanations for the different kinds of B2BUAs. >>> >>> I will do the following changes: >>> Titles for Section 4 - “Behavior of Signaling Plane B2BUAs” >>> >>> Title for Section 5 - “ Behavior of Media Plane B2BUAs” >>> >>> >>> Section 4 intro text: >>> EXISTING: >>> Section 3.1 of [RFC7092] describes different categories of signaling >>> plane B2BUAs. This section explains the impact these B2BUAs can have >>>on >>> end-to-end DTLS-SRTP sessions. >>> NEW: >>> Section 3.1 of [RFC7092] describes different categories of signaling >>> plane B2BUAs. This section explains how these B2BUAs are expected to >>> comply with the recommendations in Section 3 >>> >>> >>> Section 5 intro text: >>> EXISTING: >>> This section describes the DTLS-SRTP handling by the different types >>> of media plane B2BUAs defined in [RFC7092]. >>> NEW: >>> This section describes how the different types of media plane B2BUAs >>> defined in [RFC7092] >>> are expected to comply with the recommendations in Section 3 >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> = Sec 5.1.1 = >>>> >>>> Per the comment above, this text doesn’t make sense: >>>> >>>> "A media relay B2BUA, as described in Section 3, forwards the >>>> certificate fingerprint and SDP setup attribute it receives from one >>>> endpoint unmodified towards the other endpoint and vice-versa.” >>> >>> >>> NEW: >>> >>> A media relay B2BUA follows the rule 1 mentioned in Section 3 and >>>forwards >>> the certificate fingerprint and SDP setup attribute it receives from >>>one >>> endpoint unmodified towards the other endpoint and vice-versa. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ram >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I thought Sec 3 was providing the recommended behavior, and Sec 5 was >>>> talking about how different kinds of B2BUAs have the ability to comply >>>> with those recommendations or not. This makes it sound like Sec 3 >>>>defines >>>> the behavior of media relay B2BUAs. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 17, 2016, at 7:44 PM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) >>>>><rmohanr@cisco.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ben, >>>>> >>>>> We will publish a new revision in the next couple of weeks. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ram >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> >>>>> Date: Friday, 15 January 2016 at 4:13 AM >>>>> To: "draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp@ietf.org" >>>>> <draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp@ietf.org> >>>>> Cc: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com>, Alissa Cooper >>>>> <alissa@cooperw.in>, >>>>> "straw-chairs@ietf.org" <straw-chairs@ietf.org>, "straw@ietf.org" >>>>> <straw@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, >>>>>"christer.holmberg@ericsson.com" >>>>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >>>>> Subject: Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on >>>>> draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> What's the status on an update? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9 Dec 2015, at 14:25, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I had an offline discussion with Alissa and Barry yesterday. I >>>>>>>think >>>>>>> we have a proposed way forward to deal with the "big-picture" >>>>>>>issues >>>>>>> from Alissa's discuss. This does not necessarily cover every detail >>>>>>>of >>>>>>> her (or Stephen's) discuss and comments, but I think we need to >>>>>>>deal >>>>>>> with the existential stuff first. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The draft needs clarifications to the problem statement, the draft >>>>>>> goals and scope, and a clearer separation between normative >>>>>>>statements >>>>>>> and non-normative considerations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that would be easiest with some reorganization. Here's a >>>>>>> proposed outline. (I don't think you need to stick to this outline >>>>>>>in >>>>>>> detail, as long as the points are clear) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ben. >>>>>>> ---------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Problem: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - B2BUAs (especially SBCs) often make e2e dtls-srtp impossible. >>>>>>>There >>>>>>> are use cases where they could do their jobs and still allow e2e >>>>>>> dtls-srtp. >>>>>>> - The dtls-srtp dependency on RFC 4474 makes that hard in many >>>>>>>cases. >>>>>>> - What do we mean by e2e DTLS-SRTP? (I _think_ we mean from the >>>>>>> perspective of the b2bua, where that b2bua is not a party to the >>>>>>> DTLS-SRTP SA, and doesn't have the session key or private keys for >>>>>>> DTLS cert(s). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Goals and Scope: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Goal is to provide guidance on how b2buas that could possibly do >>>>>>> their jobs without breaking e2e dtls-srtp to do so. >>>>>>> - B2BUAs exist that will still not allow e2e dtls-srtp for various >>>>>>> reasons. These are out-of-scope, and the draft should not attempt >>>>>>>to >>>>>>> make value judgements about them. >>>>>>> - Termination of dtls-srtp at the b2bua is out of scope by >>>>>>>definition >>>>>>> (it's not e2e). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Normative rules for B2BUAs to allow e2e DTLS-SRTP: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Consider both media signaling layers (including for >>>>>>>non-media-path >>>>>>> b2buas) >>>>>>> - Discuss differences for 4474 and 4474bis, including how a b2bua >>>>>>> might tell them apart.(Hopefully 4474 will be obsolete soon, but we >>>>>>> should still discuss it, since it has significant impact on things >>>>>>> like media-latching since it signs the entire SDP payload.) >>>>>>> - Discuss differences if the b2bua acts as a 4474/4474bis >>>>>>> authenticator and/or verifier. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Implications/considerations for each b2bua type (non-normative): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - How do the normative requirements in the previous sections impact >>>>>>> the various b2bua types. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Normal security and privacy considerations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2015, at 12:50, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2 Dec 2015, at 23:17, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Could you articulate the reasons why someone would build a B2BUA >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> follows the recommendations in this draft? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> B2BUAs used in deployments like the above mentioned scenarios >>>>>>>>>>>can >>>>>>>>>>> use the >>>>>>>>>>> recommendations in this draft. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ok. What I am still missing is why this draft needs to be >>>>>>>>>>published >>>>>>>>>> to make that happen. This is the type of SBC to which the >>>>>>>>>>Section >>>>>>>>>> 3.1.1 guidance is directed. How does the behavior of existing >>>>>>>>>> media-latching SBCs differ from what 3.1.1 tells them to do? And >>>>>>>>>>if >>>>>>>>>> this type of SBC implementation is the key target audience, >>>>>>>>>> doesn¹t that make the 3.1.2 guidance essentially no-ops? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Authors: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> After discussion on today's telechats, and some side discussions >>>>>>>>> with Alissa, I believe this question is the lynch-pin for making >>>>>>>>>any >>>>>>>>> progress. I advise people to work this out first before worrying >>>>>>>>> about the rest of the discussion: Can we articulate how we expect >>>>>>>>> this draft will change implementer and/or operator behavior? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Obviously B2BUAs that exist for reasons that require modification >>>>>>>>>of >>>>>>>>> RTP/RTCP, or cleartext access to the encrypted bits of SRTP are >>>>>>>>>not >>>>>>>>> going to conform, and are therefore out of scope. The draft >>>>>>>>>doesn't >>>>>>>>> seem to concern itself with b2buas that are not in the media path >>>>>>>>>at >>>>>>>>> all. (Maybe it should, since there are plenty of purely >>>>>>>>> signaling-plane ways to break dtls-srtp?). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That leaves the question of b2buas in the media path that do not >>>>>>>>> require modification or cleartext access to protected bits in >>>>>>>>> srtp--effectively media-relays as described in 3.1.1 Do we >>>>>>>>>believe >>>>>>>>> people do not know how to build or use such devices without >>>>>>>>>breaking >>>>>>>>> dtls-srtp? Are people aware of such devices that break dtls-srtp >>>>>>>>> when they don't need to? Perhaps by misconfiguration, or because >>>>>>>>> they use SBCs designed for more invasive use cases? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As Ben says, I think this draft would add value if it could >>>>>>>> articulate the problem statement, including the kinds of B2BUAs >>>>>>>>that >>>>>>>> cause the problem, and then articulate a solution that those kinds >>>>>>>>of >>>>>>>> B2BUAs have a reasonable chance of implementing given what they >>>>>>>>are >>>>>>>> otherwise designed to do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ben. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> straw mailing list >>>>>>> straw@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-str… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alissa Cooper
- [straw] What is an "end"? Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [straw] What is an "end"? Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [straw] What is an "end"? Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Victor Pascual Avila
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [straw] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)