From nobody Thu Aug 16 15:34:26 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650B1130DEA; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:34:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ietf@kuehlewind.net, tpauly@apple.com, ippm@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <153445886533.12204.17569478135973457750.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:34:25 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] ippm - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 103 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 22:34:26 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Tommy Pauly, a Chair of the ippm working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: IP Performance Measurement Area Name: Transport Area Session Requester: Tommy Pauly Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 60 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: tsvarea tsvwg taps bmwg xrblock quic ipsecme Second Priority: iccrg maprg v6ops 6man 6lo opsec tcpm Third Priority: cdni People who must be present: Al Morton Frank Brockners Spencer Dawkins Brian Trammell Mirja Kuehlewind Gregory Mirsky Bill Cerveny Giuseppe Fioccola Tommy Pauly Resources Requested: Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Fri Aug 17 02:56:52 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327A8130E94; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 02:56:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 eDbqXNUlcTAv; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 95C2F130E3A; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7293FE38F3BD1; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:56:45 +0100 (IST) Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:56:46 +0100 Received: from NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.206]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 17:56:39 +0800 From: Tianran Zhou To: "ippm@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: shepherd comments for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-01 Thread-Index: AdQ2EC6K4e3MYU5OTyyqlYAxK9gNgg== Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:56:39 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] shepherd comments for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:56:51 -0000 Hi Authors and All, As the document shepherd of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test, I have reviewe= d this document and have these comments. 1. Section 4, "Since the consensus of many dictionary definitions of "consist" is "composed or made up of"," I do not think these words are necessary.=20 2. Section 4, about the "TWAMP Light", you describes the discussions from L= ars and Tim. I am not sure if it's necessary to introduce the discussions. = Or just describe what is the "TWAMP Light" and the result.=20 3. Section 4, "Since the idea of TWAMP Light clearly includes...." This paragraph seems to introduce why an well know udp port is necessary. I= am not sure if this should be appeared in this "definition" section.=20 4. Section 5, "It may simplify some operations to have a well-known port available for the Test protocols, or for future specifications involving TWAMP-Test to use this port as a default port." This is the reason for a well-known port for the test session. I think this= is should be more clear and reasonably. But here seem vague. Cheers, Tianran From nobody Fri Aug 17 16:37:24 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18E4130E08; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 16:37:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 BWZCkhP62UuJ; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 16:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (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 903F8130DF6; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 16:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0048589.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w7HNZZrl016874; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:37:14 -0400 Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2kx7xpr7gk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:37:13 -0400 Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w7HNbCV6059034; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:37:12 -0500 Received: from zlp30496.vci.att.com (zlp30496.vci.att.com [135.46.181.157]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w7HNb7Lx058938; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:37:07 -0500 Received: from zlp30496.vci.att.com (zlp30496.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30496.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 5112B40F6CF4; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 23:37:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30496.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 313E74009E85; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 23:37:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w7HNb5IV007123; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:37:07 -0500 Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (mail-azure.research.att.com [135.207.255.18]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w7HNb2ns006970; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:37:02 -0500 Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BED6E1352; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:37:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:36:37 -0400 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: Tianran Zhou , "ippm@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: shepherd comments for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-01 Thread-Index: AdQ2EC6K4e3MYU5OTyyqlYAxK9gNggAbImRQ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 23:36:15 +0000 Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF4A969492@njmtexg5.research.att.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [69.141.203.172] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-08-17_07:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1808170247 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] shepherd comments for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 23:37:23 -0000 Hi Tianran, Thanks for your shepherd's review. The rationale behind the excruciatingly clear statements=20 in this document is important to the working group. There are many messages in the archive discussing the TWAMP details that the working group has finally=20 agreed-on now: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/PIPFXw6RCyxjNFninffREkPFLW0 The main reason to include all the details you have questioned below is to avoid the same or similar questions from stalling working group progress in the future, and to clearly describe why things are as they are now.=20 In other words, there are two parts of this memo, described in the first sentence of the Abstract: This memo explains the motivation and describes the re-assignment of well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols for control and measurement, and clarifies the meaning and composition of these standards track protocol names for the industry. The IPPM working group has reached consensus on this draft. The consensus call was made by Brian during the IPPM session in Montreal. Once Consensus was reached, there was a call for a=20 volunteer for document shepherd. You have kindly agreed to fulfill that role, which is mostly: (For those who have not done so before, the primary role of the document=20 shepherd is to review discussion on the draft and fill out a=20 document shepherd write-up to summarize the WG's process for submission=20 to the IESG. This document is a relatively simple one and had a=20 not-very-complicated process, so this would be a good first document=20 for a new shepherd, if someone would like to try it out. :) I see that you have already filled-out the document shepherd's form: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test/shepherdwr= iteup/ where you said: >(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it=20 >represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others >being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? =20 I am not familiar with the discussion about this document.=20 Frankly, except the co-author, I did not see any other support=20 during the LC in the list based on the search. If your search only used the current document file name, then it did not=20 find discussions from 2017 which I cited above, or the IETF-99 discussion where the WG agreed that two related drafts would be combined to cement the= =20 agreements on this topic. After that agreement was reached and a combined draft was published, the path to consensus was smooth and without controver= sy, in my opinion. hope this helps, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Tianran Zhou [mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com] > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 5:57 AM > To: ippm@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test@ietf.org > Subject: shepherd comments for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-01 >=20 > Hi Authors and All, >=20 > As the document shepherd of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test, I have > reviewed this document and have these comments. > 1. Section 4, > "Since the consensus of many dictionary definitions of > "consist" is "composed or made up of"," > I do not think these words are necessary. >=20 > 2. Section 4, about the "TWAMP Light", you describes the discussions from > Lars and Tim. I am not sure if it's necessary to introduce the > discussions. Or just describe what is the "TWAMP Light" and the result. >=20 > 3. Section 4, "Since the idea of TWAMP Light clearly includes...." > This paragraph seems to introduce why an well know udp port is necessary. > I am not sure if this should be appeared in this "definition" section. >=20 > 4. Section 5, "It may simplify some operations to have a well-known > port available for the Test protocols, or for future > specifications involving TWAMP-Test to use this port as a default > port." >=20 > This is the reason for a well-known port for the test session. I think > this is should be more clear and reasonably. But here seem vague. >=20 >=20 > Cheers, > Tianran From nobody Sun Aug 19 18:17:47 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E72130E15; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 18:17:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 cj4jQbhq_W0m; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 18:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 3B9FB12785F; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 18:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 9AC8CCEF73344; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 02:17:39 +0100 (IST) Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 02:17:40 +0100 Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:17:36 +0800 From: Tianran Zhou To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" , "ippm@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: shepherd comments for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-01 Thread-Index: AdQ2EC6K4e3MYU5OTyyqlYAxK9gNggAbImRQAGllCjA= Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 01:17:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF4A969492@njmtexg5.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF4A969492@njmtexg5.research.att.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] shepherd comments for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 01:17:46 -0000 Hi Al, Thanks for your clear pointer and the history description. I will search mo= re related discussions and I would like to update the shepherd document. The comments are based on my personal review of this document. If the worki= ng group already had consensus, I am OK. :-)=20 Cheers, Tianran > -----Original Message----- > From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acm@research.att.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 7:36 AM > To: Tianran Zhou ; ippm@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test@ietf.org > Subject: RE: shepherd comments for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-01 >=20 > Hi Tianran, >=20 > Thanks for your shepherd's review. >=20 > The rationale behind the excruciatingly clear statements in this document > is important to the working group. > There are many messages in the archive discussing the TWAMP details that = the > working group has finally agreed-on now: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/PIPFXw6RCyxjNFninffREkPFLW0 >=20 > The main reason to include all the details you have questioned below is t= o > avoid the same or similar questions from stalling working group progress = in > the future, and to clearly describe why things are as they are now. > In other words, there are two parts of this memo, described in the first > sentence of the Abstract: >=20 > This memo explains the motivation and describes the re-assignment of > well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols for control and > measurement, and clarifies the meaning and composition of these > standards track protocol names for the industry. >=20 > The IPPM working group has reached consensus on this draft. > The consensus call was made by Brian during the IPPM session in Montreal. > Once Consensus was reached, there was a call for a volunteer for document > shepherd. You have kindly agreed to fulfill that role, which is mostly: >=20 > (For those who have not done so before, the primary role of the document > shepherd is to review discussion on the draft and fill out a > document shepherd write-up to summarize the WG's process for submission > to the IESG. This document is a relatively simple one and had a > not-very-complicated process, so this would be a good first document > for a new shepherd, if someone would like to try it out. :) >=20 > I see that you have already filled-out the document shepherd's form: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test/shepher > dwriteup/ > where you said: >=20 > >(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > >represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others > >being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? >=20 > I am not familiar with the discussion about this document. > Frankly, except the co-author, I did not see any other support > during the LC in the list based on the search. >=20 > If your search only used the current document file name, then it did not = find > discussions from 2017 which I cited above, or the IETF-99 discussion wher= e > the WG agreed that two related drafts would be combined to cement the > agreements on this topic. After that agreement was reached and a combined > draft was published, the path to consensus was smooth and without controv= ersy, > in my opinion. >=20 > hope this helps, > Al >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tianran Zhou [mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com] > > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 5:57 AM > > To: ippm@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test@ietf.org > > Subject: shepherd comments for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-01 > > > > Hi Authors and All, > > > > As the document shepherd of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test, I have > > reviewed this document and have these comments. > > 1. Section 4, > > "Since the consensus of many dictionary definitions of "consist" is > > "composed or made up of"," > > I do not think these words are necessary. > > > > 2. Section 4, about the "TWAMP Light", you describes the discussions > > from Lars and Tim. I am not sure if it's necessary to introduce the > > discussions. Or just describe what is the "TWAMP Light" and the result. > > > > 3. Section 4, "Since the idea of TWAMP Light clearly includes...." > > This paragraph seems to introduce why an well know udp port is necessar= y. > > I am not sure if this should be appeared in this "definition" section. > > > > 4. Section 5, "It may simplify some operations to have a well-known > > port available for the Test protocols, or for future specifications > > involving TWAMP-Test to use this port as a default port." > > > > This is the reason for a well-known port for the test session. I think > > this is should be more clear and reasonably. But here seem vague. > > > > > > Cheers, > > Tianran From nobody Tue Aug 21 05:34:56 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28D9130DDF; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 05:34:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BANNED, message contains application/pgp-encrypted,.asc X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, ENCRYPTED_MESSAGE=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 y4FDIIf13mxG; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 05:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gozo.iway.ch (gozo.iway.ch [IPv6:2001:8e0:40:325::36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B9EE130DE9; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 05:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gozo.iway.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A45D340F3A; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:34:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ACF/6030.17111); Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:34:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from switchplus-mail.ch (switchplus-mail.ch [212.25.8.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gozo.iway.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:34:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [193.224.45.73] (account ietf@trammell.ch HELO forclaz.vigado.local) by switchplus-mail.ch (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.18) with ESMTPSA id 64779757; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:34:43 +0200 Content-Type: multipart/encrypted; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F6CD56F8-6403-44A7-8FC3-77F48A1CC83F"; protocol="application/pgp-encrypted" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) To: tsvwg , QUIC WG , IETF IPPM WG X-Apple-Base-Url: x-msg://38/ X-Apple-Mail-Remote-Attachments: YES From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" X-Should-Pgp-Sign: YES Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:04:11 +0200 Message-Id: <618E26AF-35A2-448C-8082-DDB427269138@trammell.ch> X-Should-Pgp-Encrypt: NO X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] ***UNCHECKED*** Why measure RTT passively? X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:34:50 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME encrypted message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --Apple-Mail=_F6CD56F8-6403-44A7-8FC3-77F48A1CC83F Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: application/pgp-encrypted Content-Description: PGP/MIME Versions Identification Version: 1 --Apple-Mail=_F6CD56F8-6403-44A7-8FC3-77F48A1CC83F Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename=encrypted.asc Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=encrypted.asc Content-Description: OpenPGP encrypted message -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- hQIMA7MdurcgXtzeARAAiTFas0wHGVg4tibSbQNhvWTr8tTffSgKY6mpXAhhwECo wLOx8DlgGtrQaWlpB4ipeu/uOfGM4y3fzgjqMDs8EW8BV5Rf36wHDehZtPwpmcZR hUYc34O/dZWcubp4QWIazhAmMl+vWmUnDcMMMLdL2w4b7xclW4v5f0hlF2Fr7FKc Fq+2/rPVbS5tk98K0KeUCHqo7bHSCzbXHj9JpyaPk3AzRO4MaWfE9zmSGOU+Rrst skyyOe160SQqwXBS8aq3Ge5z6VRQgAxrC340rzW84B7nftxwWg2oD6XWJ7g3kpby SWqgaPIeHrJERUQL9yVOsfRPdbfEBT8N+mpbYbZCGmswyPoomkLNSoP39a6950eV Ry9s5Ui3azzxnRnZ+zCfEtziAgJin6PKc7G3mad81dmURBUe+nSTVpt85NU+blg7 29VApnJUSiwA4gNuTUHDyitc8hwJjQUQYYmk40zwwsoL1F07edZ4Vq3PiLiG4hQy 3NyyZ00BmNBD+/SgX6LVIAb/GxikLA46LsKmFwAVIEG8Ihct+NU57ykcfBoRoApN QvpfiaJNOpTi4+zHKCXbW1GvUf3ai1JyRBWD8IMW9XdnqGfou4mkZ3hqGK+tcWpS anOhAww/L8X9S7ys+JzostpCNeMil304VSM0+0T4frQMZsxh6mO3dYxLBJ1cVxzS 6gGQlu35taRbXO67kIkBOcnU4BAbuyYxvimcCtKWE4KIO7tpPeHY2Xnt/wGHdz01 wMaSo6sE7Vk47bxVTsUfLp1z6urKQTHBiroehRF+maHQNghpZSI1TI9Z46sLzvh1 bxSefgfQDS/SJj4IV92W1xcjUhmJfsmcTDJwE9j3HcWbvAU1zf8Brq/AjH0nH4YT kgB6E3/mCZLNL8Qvqwwk0ZTZrQ0iN7TlY7nX9CNpeEc9sMVDgHTiWegkS4+yC1v9 DPjd5tPFbprYRBdDv/Yj3cOwC1VJ0EN6goTmhRAqeeo7v5fpOdXPfUGh8SJtJt6u N8NochNfF1AHh9TuIi7XDV3FbMgAoW1sHJWMUFCDDnEoYgGjHPDwsIeiLe3fr5wb UT+Gy+ND4rS+iARjLR7llCHVYmHALk34Cv5FKqaT1aMeg53VBcFYYyOgOJF3tbEK E/VOnUafQOio80yY1GGYURJYcxU4yEHomHek6owEHHOmNydx70c/LXbaOZpBmmfq o/2tdVQBQ1XHa690euFqMt0tQRRSlynEzbBX6YbaC8AQhCejO5GNq/1KQooXy/wa quDe5SVj58r/ach3lUFowz4U2Sn+dV8rPu5gXqaTKJy4g4k1vEwextGknJ/wXPsC nx+c0epn1Pw7LcMjr4Dqhdru+PWXWubQrG+NPIOesEjzkkTjwE0yEWqoXjvLpVAb VimPxtFHtF2Fs/ohf1UGTvhzBVk90tTSv/jvy9iQXDFkOILld7RmVVVY8VLB648e Uu/Z8zntGhRL2dBZdWceosyWKHScdJSkk1OvzJgeSzDW0cXV+z2kMxsWj21O3pM2 c7ksDmJ+jlxAQrEUY5rvPSo+OVSWKU5jdduOfA8btWc9epeZ9l948EhVyRDWsO0Y l/TU6TJKXNZhfN6AAyjLcfe76Fdd3KU8TAb/EkUn/SifbJOvOCAC3l/rQ0PFh4BY 8OziNwpytGkO94rnvQHj/fIrANN0eSMljcAipHwWz8IrV7Y75sTfS2UG7wRuuweE 9dZ2D046+Y/IMH27Dquu5IbrvFSSYMKvgkWxe/Ompxf1RLpvE3cfh+RLNhxT+hj+ iv5eNDWJyl8WpKq2NoBYrhAevMf87Uat8B0km0YsFzYxhaqdof85hv1I+ODcXgtW U75hN6TcXHyWsxW/aie5WcHdYolEYsitZtO3iz9ajCnEEwFr86jOdmly4H2qdFyh fjl4bBrcXBSOHSwvqdS+CAfb/D9Rbg9Si6IRcJgXTc3leqoi6Gslxc24tQ92p9hs 63K+dQl3ZrvxpIXXAJ0dXbRi+3DRn4Q0b7fJwCB/Yxx2J+Jtb5U7QdKSTPV97yic QXPviQq8CN+ye+rtL9+AppUsqv+jj1i5VeT9WaCjOAA2qrz60pf4yOuKyKacrsVV UgWqfi9te0D4Lgce1+4= =h9yu -----END PGP MESSAGE----- --Apple-Mail=_F6CD56F8-6403-44A7-8FC3-77F48A1CC83F-- From nobody Tue Aug 21 05:43:18 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E278130DDF; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 05:43:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 xMppxXFnQDQE; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 05:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gozo.iway.ch (gozo.iway.ch [IPv6:2001:8e0:40:325::36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C47F0130DDD; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 05:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gozo.iway.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443F7340F6C; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:43:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ACF/6030.20476); Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:43:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from switchplus-mail.ch (switchplus-mail.ch [212.25.8.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gozo.iway.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:43:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [193.224.45.73] (account ietf@trammell.ch HELO forclaz.vigado.local) by switchplus-mail.ch (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.18) with ESMTPSA id 64780943; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:43:00 +0200 From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2E6684CA-F227-4B66-9E65-F7546DCC9C3C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:42:58 +0200 To: tsvwg , QUIC WG , IETF IPPM WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Why measure RTT passively? X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:43:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2E6684CA-F227-4B66-9E65-F7546DCC9C3C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, TSVWG, QUIC, and IPPM, I've just submitted a new I-D, "Why do we need passive measurement of = round trip time?" = (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trammell-why-measure-rtt-00), which = may be of some interest to each of these WGs. :) It presents a set of = use cases for on-path passive RTT measurement, both generally, and = specific to the facility described in "A Transport-Independent Explicit = Signal for Hybrid RTT Measurement" = (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trammell-tsvwg-spin-00), or the "spin = bit". - For QUIC, this draft addresses the second half of the risk/utility = question raised by the spin bit and spin+VEC latency signal -- much of = the content comes from the original QUIC spin bit document, but there = are new sections on using VEC for loss/reordering proxy metrics and = exploiting correlations between RTT and other metrics to drive intraflow = diagnostics from only RTT signals. In particular, I'll talk about = ongoing experimentation along the lines of section 3 at the interim in = New York. - For TSVWG and tsvarea, it addresses some of the "why design wire = images" questions raised in the tsvarea meeting in Montreal, with = respect to the specific tasks for which RTT data is useful. - And for IPPM, it gives a bit more background on the "passive RTT" = metric in the initial registry document. Feedback is much appreciated. :) Thanks, cheers, Brian (as an individual contributor) P.S. apologies for the resend: the previous message was not an obscure = joke about ubiquitous encryption: apparently the interaction among my = MUA, its bolt-on GPG, and the somewhat underprovisioned network in = SIGCOMM led to an encrypted draft being posted to the list. :/ --Apple-Mail=_2E6684CA-F227-4B66-9E65-F7546DCC9C3C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEkCTSTp2bIB6fBRHIihK3vwvqRqMFAlt8CNIACgkQihK3vwvq RqMRexAAq3lkEF35Bd08h2eF6u0Kvo8TIuGHv8Vhh1sbVBzrailDcbZC4gO3aPyc G6UdHpRj60+bWo7oMRkG/3zih4AEY7QgWdkjkshAg+aWdSvjb9x3x+X5XPVlhbSl sxmrzsMyWfvY4bJxmmhLdED81C34XFGg+4VUXtXdodUMUwkA5d4KrVtos2IYPkWp Fb8saTizc5REf72U45XMWvWPTv4wFsddu9wWSd8dY6f+SYLQrHAzZjPV9eJocVXS WphvdbovLd93pRgXytbevIDVcCnPrK4as6STiVxBJnHxC8/Ze9QY1i7+l8uE0ya3 cq7/Wy5Vz68W+2aJ1hwQKALfLZocO0fnnmjQFBhppaAjzSwAKVvcZ6fvNIzfCybF aXyCcGJ/SCKC68k3NmZFwuVAA1+h8twedDvqp2zvgMXwIClR8EP1jlu6qIzGviI6 dx8crvj5JwMmcKjdbdgC97GltCv89mp1L2PQidJ12jlrqxMjh8lFRdjLN+RMmCWO 2ItiBEUP1XRxU8GMNKYzsV/W5HF/vox48YTTMBXJsF1uxL8hV25MojXrtq7GSCnb Q72QYnblbjVGTz43k4xsuQ5uBn8gt+PUDuNx/FAAEKAA5qv5V5fHrE9Y3OTz1lFA 3V0EkRNOsx5CRPml+GTHTIFGArYz8Lk8ZucJ4f0nXNQcjy13pGw= =J4d3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2E6684CA-F227-4B66-9E65-F7546DCC9C3C-- From nobody Sun Aug 26 13:32:37 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC63130E29 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.934 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 ABCune7-jR_l for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:36]) (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 D9C9E130E0C for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.116]) by resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id u17ff7eOXhtOBu1i5fK9iw; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 20:32:33 +0000 Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4603:9471:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id u1i4f6TNeiCzIu1i4fNp4k; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 20:32:33 +0000 Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w7QKWUIq026239; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 16:32:30 -0400 Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id w7QKWT3X026236; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 16:32:29 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) To: "Brian Trammell \(IETF\)" Cc: ippm@ietf.org In-Reply-To: (ietf@trammell.ch) Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 16:32:29 -0400 Message-ID: <87d0u47tsy.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfCxGGumff0y4Gko8ZG4T9S72+NdbJ1OhhQB0gaEuun4xdAohUHAzky9Q/O5MbT2mmHR2f7PPV6FOpTdfqikx6AEsueByecrFJQYHCg5RYXUQkDGdKwIl RcGHmkNQKQvZxMKGU1aTFAjgOhjP3UjOUETsLNLP648NxsrkTDdVHnhL29+RDT2Ut3OXvAVk0uIRozY+Dhw0nTWDP0sNanT2Prd70OKbaZDNsx7ayYAmvBxb uhLyA8qG/LSzZGIeDQo9Te8XqWGPeHv72OUdBGmxMDc= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Why measure RTT passively? X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 20:32:36 -0000 "Brian Trammell (IETF)" writes: > It presents a set of use cases for on-path passive RTT measurement, > both generally, and specific to the facility described in "A > Transport-Independent Explicit Signal for Hybrid RTT Measurement" > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trammell-tsvwg-spin-00), or the > "spin bit". I recall hearing that some of the problems of TCP can be mitigated by sending timestamps on the packets, and controlling the congestion-control behavior based on the observed transit times rather than the observed sequence numbers. IIRC, this included problems with packets taking non-uniform paths and asymmetric flow paths. Also, it seems to me that observing transit times allows for controlling buffer bloat. Could a spin bit be used as an alternative to timestamping for these purposes? Dale From nobody Mon Aug 27 02:43:47 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47AC129AB8 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 02:43:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 AHxP5Z7Yg7SP for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 02:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gozo.iway.ch (gozo.iway.ch [212.25.24.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE59B129619 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 02:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gozo.iway.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B41340E12; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:43:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ACF/6030.14067); Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:43:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from switchplus-mail.ch (switchplus-mail.ch [212.25.8.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gozo.iway.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:43:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [195.176.111.24] (account ietf@trammell.ch HELO public-docking-cx-4089.ethz.ch) by switchplus-mail.ch (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.18) with ESMTPSA id 65307951; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:43:40 +0200 From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" Message-Id: <1801E954-9111-4ADC-B263-D3304F53578E@trammell.ch> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CAB17A74-A538-4BBF-9977-DCBEE21F6A56"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:43:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87d0u47tsy.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> Cc: ippm@ietf.org To: "Dale R. Worley" References: <87d0u47tsy.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Why measure RTT passively? X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 09:43:46 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CAB17A74-A538-4BBF-9977-DCBEE21F6A56 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii hi Dale, > On 26 Aug 2018, at 22:32, Dale R. Worley wrote: >=20 > "Brian Trammell (IETF)" writes: >> It presents a set of use cases for on-path passive RTT measurement, >> both generally, and specific to the facility described in "A >> Transport-Independent Explicit Signal for Hybrid RTT Measurement" >> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trammell-tsvwg-spin-00), or the >> "spin bit". >=20 > I recall hearing that some of the problems of TCP can be mitigated by > sending timestamps on the packets, and controlling the > congestion-control behavior based on the observed transit times rather > than the observed sequence numbers. IIRC, this included problems with > packets taking non-uniform paths and asymmetric flow paths. >=20 > Also, it seems to me that observing transit times allows for = controlling > buffer bloat. >=20 > Could a spin bit be used as an alternative to timestamping for these > purposes? I don't think so, because the RTT estimates given by the spin bit are = explicitly two-way and end-to-end. The observed transit time technique = (IIUC) requires OWD estimates, which are basically taken by the receiver = estimating the clock offset and drift between its own clock and the = sender's clock. For that you really do need higher-resolution = timestamps. Cheers, Brian (as individual) --Apple-Mail=_CAB17A74-A538-4BBF-9977-DCBEE21F6A56 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEkCTSTp2bIB6fBRHIihK3vwvqRqMFAluDx8wACgkQihK3vwvq RqOtuxAAvA0SzhgbBIyRuCeHZECBVEaKygW70wEDsbH8/1JLFdh/Ry800lm3zOMx a8APLUqg9dlvg51stqa75BaMepefts0Mz9B7t8Nsyu0cKFQAi41xek2Us7VfYq0O 1cKoehUqu3b86KpwoBwgQ1te+eUMri/waECaEIV/f8m4I+8cBJoRPrE4cq1T5qjR 2JlUyZE3W15D5mOJ6SbPdYjHo5en7JPFqIbbiXaNedc7nRqCHT4NCchU54bp23dl x2qQL0xaPWclCK8F4y5+qx0hfDvBGRK/HFZuJ+O4fBl62vj8ljJfZDtMBuQyg5cA ZAUm9ZlQ5oyolnb3OnHF3b0KyVq8LPNhetc4vhNZpaDkKNjYIxZCq01H6vL4+tlt AxcrfimB8VT9RMvQECIZZ8C8oGxf/EPkcwytkwZfYjEdr8md+B/gj3Xo5Q2P9COQ Vs3UeM3eKirPji3TqbSvR0RJf38X76qzx2XcUI7qvLNi5gDeaj5axNhyFkPqFECj ykOUiybbNMn7UkINbDUmClakxia5vWfWfkWI9wPrYLZV3VWL4vdUK7/EPvcZruJN 5fMJGFsNpHBXvEd2VGOOc6XL641J4vMf96YLFBT8l7cEZmbUIv2rHX3i86IO9F1F PX22qeiLDRJPqeqARL+6r8BldYFTQ0josr7VDzDcVbiQu+YX4qs= =cIbg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_CAB17A74-A538-4BBF-9977-DCBEE21F6A56--