Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03
John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Mon, 24 December 2018 12:49 UTC
Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E9912D4E9; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 04:49:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.775
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.775 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 95VjaXO6_vL3; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 04:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7084D130EEF; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 04:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108158.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id wBOCiRWx007094; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 04:49:01 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=7vTP0yc4Fa6Xyxf+TR4J3prGYxZn5qFKPnfj6VwC1aQ=; b=1B5xum3BP0Zn4CNGNrwTSGcO/DMnjpg0fhZyEoj+iKoTvy+TSIPNkR0Ii3d7vPpp4kqu RbLbDuGKeOaEVQOefKCfadibT4KrSzH1Uu7UcS9hInWlFOz9YrJEHu9nP3OoFw6ZoqV1 B7TZ/P9Vc8BVIETGXi1fI4DGMISQSnXLI+zu8nH9bypBXDIrEs9uwggxVVqw9NwPwFAq woenSKYAo+YO2k8zuKZ23Lu6YP/1l315JZ3/ZCaJg0+ZOWfcBQFgzP/cNZya//mOVhui bR+9NhwPc0ogpjLa+2+CciPBbiAj7e6tfTBayTzvmvbq1ZzTDiVyddO7Q8Yo6TH2bKQf EQ==
Received: from nam05-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam05lp2059.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.50.59]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2pjnye0px8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 24 Dec 2018 04:49:01 -0800
Received: from BYAPR05MB5029.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.177.230.211) by BYAPR05MB6120.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.178.54.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1471.13; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 12:48:58 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB5029.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::79a9:fae7:8d61:ff3e]) by BYAPR05MB5029.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::79a9:fae7:8d61:ff3e%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1471.018; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 12:48:58 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
CC: Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>, "EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com" <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03
Thread-Index: AQHUldnwTa4MWWWdDUK4lEUSiSe9VKWEkuWAgAGxjLCAAXfAAIAAA8SggADDMoCAAK6lcIAEfWMAgAAzL80=
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 12:48:57 +0000
Message-ID: <BB0583FD-C8E9-4A64-8C5E-068D5FBC5E2A@juniper.net>
References: <CA+YzgTuYgfTNEX9s4XPAOOA_X2+uqxf7sSWBDtq32SuE4FjTKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU2DGZzxuzPexyPzCf2AJWC5cZYXZSKzGcE15JpuPT3hdw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB50299F47DD4D75210DD39A63C7BE0@BYAPR05MB5029.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <0C72C38E7EBC34499E8A9E7DD00786391C5ED4B0@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BYAPR05MB50295366A9F676E156A0FADDC7BF0@BYAPR05MB5029.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927C2FFD82B@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <BYAPR05MB50299F82613D934562D8724AC7B80@BYAPR05MB5029.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>, <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927C3017E56@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927C3017E56@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2607:fb90:76bd:4ae7:1059:ee4d:215e:6b49]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BYAPR05MB6120; 6:nQyJKeVcOPGPkAoU2HbyPQgOIqCzmSk1APUF4yQT/yXJCfoIDZCQOu2HMb2sIt1g8hg0xjlF0B1xU8T42WI5sp0hdiGxlBVTXvIOxQrzUKEADT6woBNmkdjHK+a27PBTDc0hw9XBnNidtYYB8YlnX4kh02H2SkUm2ry1nsAE4GyUwO9TqeCAB8KgAuhCsUTCuCCGxDqELQSawHqzCIxfG6GaYp7LA6U0hEW5gIsxdN5LMfH40kqoJbvrtbS5NdF/xzAo+6rr0LkB87bOyLx2XmlYcHWSQtB4I32v0tfq7HlFF/dW4OvGLqk5T/T2d3R48wOLr1CfgIZTlAb2hyACD3qIZLO2WCOR0dTTJ+bAz0G2XTHtTET7RIAP048kfuA7qAPKM6TR3OWVww02nGV4bx7JfrrJNFYUbQw8yZQ+sk+li0qpbgPk4HiKgn2cf/slqKKORBIn8NmGlQw7YIVpMA==; 5:2CPFPpF9rYLr20PefAGryF90jLLbjhgf830htQaM2RibBAnZXS9ZO5OSvVwDHgaVMBZJrD1VyNAdVI3nIM7/kTZNWO2cMITMaY5KqvSa09cZthTonNy6Dx2bIh4ONceTEaVwqJpiFx+P5foF4gY5QDLcWiO74NoDXHCx2EJzpbY=; 7:wa0edBKUx0aTvlSyiSVmF2JUa8UIaZlIoDAAmImz3GHIvfb/fc62mz99a9ZvUkvGv3gcP6XPYzKbgJO1+Iwhv8AFg4wKgc9Xz1awWZkpf2TFkHZGalliJaBkXcHDkMJul5UuKbmAZbbFM/b+Yu8kQg==
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7d637a86-ea6d-44ee-332f-08d6699e2bd3
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600074)(711020)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB6120;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB6120:
x-ld-processed: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4,ExtAddr
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB6120F49155894195625E7B46C7BB0@BYAPR05MB6120.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(3230021)(908002)(999002)(5005026)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231475)(944501520)(52105112)(6055026)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:BYAPR05MB6120; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BYAPR05MB6120;
x-forefront-prvs: 0896BFCE6C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(346002)(376002)(396003)(136003)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(54896002)(83716004)(82746002)(39060400002)(86362001)(71190400001)(71200400001)(4326008)(6512007)(25786009)(6306002)(76176011)(236005)(6246003)(53936002)(14454004)(6116002)(790700001)(478600001)(6916009)(46003)(8676002)(966005)(81166006)(81156014)(8936002)(186003)(6486002)(7736002)(229853002)(2906002)(14444005)(256004)(33656002)(102836004)(93886005)(54906003)(68736007)(5070765005)(6506007)(53546011)(99286004)(9886003)(476003)(316002)(486006)(105586002)(606006)(106356001)(6436002)(97736004)(2616005)(446003)(36756003)(5660300001)(11346002)(160933001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB6120; H:BYAPR05MB5029.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: WsAWCbqe7DIcZNUvvP5w/896GVvIsRI04V1VTUNXf0fthRHhkbNYhCMUjApeFtzBM3Ut6Cb3o6o3qv4/RrmHbKGIyRcZNKnx+avlPJNUrG9w8pDL/9mLJGKG0Mq1uelTx/e0lqI0Q/Lk129CCqQbO0pEp7nUUkEHEpFOS9T84kG6hbwspvSIuZdA660YA03yjKa5YOniwonTW3l7O5gYYL6Fhd5MCEK2+THZ0y0h1snhrkJRHuCarwHwJzTim9gtMHiz6a1W1f4+x4PjC9dyxZ3aJiTTjC5mhF3FGCJrXnCJUvXoFvgIjSgr1ym78PMg
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BB0583FDC8E94A648C5E068D5FBC5E2Ajunipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7d637a86-ea6d-44ee-332f-08d6699e2bd3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Dec 2018 12:48:57.7952 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB6120
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-12-24_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1812240113
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/6WQ0FLSGH-x7OMeNb1TYYtOivPg>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 12:49:12 -0000
Comments inline Sent from my iPhone On Dec 24, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com<mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>> wrote: Hi John, Please see inline. Best regards, Jie From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 9:15 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com<mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>>; Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com<mailto:Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>>; Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com<mailto:agmalis@gmail.com>>; EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com> <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03 Hi, Comment inline Yours Irrespectively, John From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com<mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:47 PM To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net<mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>>; Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com<mailto:Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>>; Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com<mailto:agmalis@gmail.com>>; EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com> <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03 Hi John, This draft does not suggest to allocate network resources to each individual VPN, only the VPNs which require particular level of SLA need to be integrated with underlay network resources, thus the number of enhanced VPN would be much less than the number of traditional overlay VPNs. Also it is possible that several VPNs with similar characteristics could be assigned with a set of aggregated resources, and would share the same logical network. [JD] I don’t recall any such discussion in the draft. Further, what is the maximum # of VPN+ instances supported in a given network such that that network does not implode? [Jie] Such discussion happened during the presentation on previous IETF meetings, the current draft doesn't mandate the mapping of each individual VPN to dedicated logical network with resources allocated. JD. I am going to compile a list of statements that the draft makes that would lead one to a different conclusion That said, we could add some clarification in future version. The number of enhanced VPNs would depend on the number of services and customers which have such level of SLA requirement. JD So, you have no guidance to offer? Best regards, Jie From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John E Drake Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:14 PM To: Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com<mailto:Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>>; Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com<mailto:agmalis@gmail.com>>; EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com> <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03 Igor, I am not convinced that network slicing is a good idea because it assumes that logical networks w/ vastly different characteristics can be built out of a set of common network resources. I am convinced that allocating network resources on a per-VPN basis is a bad idea because of the scaling issues. Yours Irrespectively, John From: Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com<mailto:Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:55 AM To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net<mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>>; Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com<mailto:agmalis@gmail.com>>; EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com> <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03 Hi John, Do you see any differences between a logical network and a network topology? Specifically, would you define network slices as produced by the same physical network sufficiently separated network topologies, each of which designed for specific class(es) of clients/overlays, with network resources available for the overlays limited by the resource pools allocated to the corresponding topologies? Another question: could network slices in your opinion be built hierarchically, i.e. higher level slices comprised of lower level ones? Thanks, Igor From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John E Drake Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:46 AM To: Andrew G. Malis; EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03 Andy, Network slicing is very different from what is described in this draft. Network slicing envisions a small number of logical networks built using the same physical network, each of which is designed for a specific type of overlay network and a given VPN, depending upon its requirements, would be assigned to one or more of these network slices. This draft, in contrast, is describing assignment of resources from the physical network to individual VPNs. This is clearly absurd, and its characterization as a ‘scalable approach’ seems ill-considered. This draft is also not a framework draft in any of the normally used definitions of that word (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/framework<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.merriam-2Dwebster.com_dictionary_framework&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=n9sCWh1x8RH083BAlFMqUZfK0blyu7AEqTYj5kopZ1I&s=o2aQfkCcHYaq6v8_OptqlhDqzYAgs1OiHS3JnOcuXtY&e=>). Rather, I would characterize it as a set of semi-random musings. Yours Irrespectively, John From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 9:38 AM To: EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com> <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03 Yes/support. This is a scalable approach for network slicing and enhanced VPNs that builds on a body of existing work. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:27 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> wrote: All, This is start of a *three* week poll on making draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn a TEAS working group document. Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document. The poll ends Jan 7th 2019 (extra week to account for the holidays). Thanks, Pavan and Lou _______________________________________________ Teas mailing list Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_teas&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=jfPzAk6KYMTzEcjux7ADyZR5qPrxoPYBDdzWSlkedyw&s=uXdPvThk8MvzKASbv-H0_ekBtni_GK-xqPKnIbJ6ek4&e=>
- [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhance… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… li zhenqiang
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Leeyoung
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Mach Chen
- [Teas] 答复: WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Aijun Wang
- [Teas] 答复: WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical &Microwave Technology Research Dept)
- Re: [Teas] 答复: WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Teas] 答复: WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Hejia (Jia)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Qin Wu
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Takuya Miyasaka
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Susan Hares
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enh… Vishnu Pavan Beeram