Hi Bo, Thank you for your reply. The files have been updated per your response.
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-lastdiff.html (last version to this one) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this) We will await any further changes you may have as well as approvals from each author and Mahesh (AD) prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833 Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Aug 29, 2025, at 12:37 AM, Wubo (lana) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > > Thanks you for the updates, they look good. > And please also see my reply in line with [Bo Wu]. > > Regards, > Bo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 2:18 AM > To: Wubo (lana) <[email protected]>; Mahesh Jethanandani > <[email protected]> > Cc: mohamed.boucadair <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; RFC Editor <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; opsawg-chairs <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; auth48archive <[email protected]> > Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9833 > <draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-15> for your review > > Hi Bo and Mahesh*, > > *Mahesh - As the AD, please review and approve of the following reference > added to the Normative References section. For context, this reference was > only cited in the YANG module, so we have added a reference entry. > > [IEEE_802.1Q] > IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area > Networks-Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q- > 2022, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498, December 2022, > <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498>. > > See this diff file for the update: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-lastdiff.html > > > Bo - Thank you for your reply. The files have been updated accordingly. > Please note that we have some follow-up questions. > > ) In Figure 6, is it intentional that the first item (grouping > bgp-authentication) is indented one space less than each of the groupings > that follow? In the original XML (and current XML), it's one space for > grouping bgp-authentication vs. two spaces for the others. > [Bo Wu] I think this is NOT intentional. Please add one leading space to that > line so it aligns with the rest. > > ) We ask that you review these previously sent questions and explicitly let > us know if/what further updates are needed. > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode >> element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of >> preferred values for "type" >> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) >> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. >> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. >> --> > [Bo Wu] I have reviewed every sourcecode element in the XML. All “type” > attributes are set to the preferred value. No further changes are needed. > >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >> online Style Guide >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature >> typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >> >> For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: >> black-hole >> --> > [Bo Wu] This phrase is the standard, widely understood technical term, so I > think we can kept it unchanged. Thanks, > Bo > > > --- > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes > side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-lastdiff.html (last > version to this one) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between > last version and this) > > Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once > published as RFCs. > > We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each author > and *Mahesh prior to moving forward in the publication process. > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833 > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > >> On Aug 26, 2025, at 7:48 PM, Wubo (lana) >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alanna, >> >> Thanks for the updates. The changes look good to me. >> For the remaining questions, I’m fine with the proposed changes unless my >> co-authors have any concerns. >> >> Regards, >> Bo >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 12:40 AM >> To: Wubo (lana) <[email protected]> >> Cc: mohamed.boucadair <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS >> <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; Mahesh Jethanandani >> <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; opsawg-chairs <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; auth48archive <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9833 >> <draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-15> for your review >> >> Hi Bo, >> >> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly. >> >> Additionally, please note that 7 of our previously sent document-specific >> questions have not yet been addressed. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.pdf >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-diff.html (comprehensive >> diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48diff.html >> (AUTH48 changes) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >> changes side by side) >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833 >> >> Thank you, >> Alanna Paloma >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Aug 26, 2025, at 5:14 AM, Wubo (lana) <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alanna, >>> >>> As with the other AC drafts, I recommend this document align its use of >>> “Network Slice Service” with RFC 9543, as shown below: >>> >>> OLD: >>> (e.g., Network Slice Service [YANG-NSS])) >>> >>> NEW: >>> (e.g., RFC 9543 Network Slice Service [NSSM])) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bo >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 12:31 AM >>> To: mohamed.boucadair <[email protected]>; >>> [email protected]; OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS >>> <[email protected]>; >>> [email protected]; Wubo (lana) <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>; RFC Editor >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; opsawg-chairs >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; auth48archive >>> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9833 >>> <draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-15> for your review >>> >>> Authors, >>> >>> This is a friendly reminder that we await your response to our previously >>> sent questions. >>> >>> We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the publication >>> process. >>> >>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is located here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833 >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Alanna Paloma >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Aug 14, 2025, at 11:46 AM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Mahesh, >>>> >>>> Thank you for confirming. We’ve noted your approval: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833 >>>> >>>> Alanna Paloma >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> >>>>> On Aug 14, 2025, at 11:22 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Alanna, >>>>> >>>>> The changes look good to me. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2025, at 9:35 AM, Alanna Paloma >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mahesh, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have removed the first sentence of the >>>>>> Security Considerations section as well as the informative reference >>>>>> entry for [YANG-GUIDELINES]. >>>>>> >>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.xml >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.txt >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.html >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-diff.html >>>>>> (comprehensive >>>>>> diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48diff.html >>>>>> (AUTH48 changes) >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48rfcdiff.html >>>>>> (AUTH48 changes side by side) >>>>>> >>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> RFC Editor/ap >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 4:48 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2025, at 10:46 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Authors, AD, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Mahesh (as AD), please reply to #5. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as >>>>>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] To avoid back-to-back use of "For example", may >>>>>>>> we update the second occurrence as follows? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>> For example, a >>>>>>>> server can be a network controller or a router in a provider >>>>>>>> network. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For example, a bearer request is first created using a name >>>>>>>> which is assigned by the client, but if this feature is >>>>>>>> supported, the request will also include a server-generated reference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>> For example, a >>>>>>>> server can be a network controller or a router in a provider >>>>>>>> network. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As another example, a bearer request is first created using a >>>>>>>> name that is assigned by the client, but if this feature is >>>>>>>> supported, the request will also include a server-generated reference. >>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update "to" to "for"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>> * 'bw-per-site': The bandwidth is to all ACs that belong to >>>>>>>> the same site. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>> 'bw-per-site': The bandwidth is for all ACs that belong to the >>>>>>>> same site. >>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following reference is cited >>>>>>>> only in the YANG module. In order to have a 1:1 matchup between >>>>>>>> the references section and the text, may we add the following >>>>>>>> reference entry to the Normative References and add it to the >>>>>>>> list of citations preceding the YANG module? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>> This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC8177], and >>>>>>>> [RFC9181]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>> This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC8177], >>>>>>>> [RFC9181], and [IEEE_802.1Q]. >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> [IEEE_802.1Q] >>>>>>>> IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area >>>>>>>> Networks-Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q- >>>>>>>> 2022, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498, December 2022, >>>>>>>> <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498>. >>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI, the YANG module has been updated per the >>>>>>>> formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. >>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] *AD - We note that there is some text in the >>>>>>>> Security Considerations that differs from the template on >>>>>>>> <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>. >>>>>>>> Please review and let us know if the text is acceptable. Specifically: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Paragraph 5 matches the template except for the last sentence >>>>>>>> is an addition. Paragraph 6 does not seem to correspond to the >>>>>>>> template. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - This sentence is not present, although the template says to include >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>> "There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it should be added, should it be at the end of the section? >>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The security considerations in this draft are truly unique. As such, >>>>>>> the template mostly does not apply. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please remove the first sentence in the Security Considerations section >>>>>>> that goes like “This section is modeled after the template …”. Only >>>>>>> the second and third paragraphs do, and even then, it is just a >>>>>>> cut-and-paste. Best to remove it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each >>>>>>>> sourcecode element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the >>>>>>>> current list of preferred values for "type" >>>>>>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-type >>>>>>>> s >>>>>>>> ) does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us >>>>>>>> know. >>>>>>>> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. >>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] Abbreviation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviation >>>>>>>> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review >>>>>>>> each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> b) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms >>>>>>>> are used throughout the document. Would you like to update to >>>>>>>> using the expansion upon first usage and the acronym for the rest of >>>>>>>> the document? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Attachment Circuit (AC) >>>>>>>> Service Function (SF) >>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion >>>>>>>> of the online Style Guide >>>>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language >>>>>>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this >>>>>>>> nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for >>>>>>>> readers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: >>>>>>>> black-hole >>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap/ar >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2025, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Updated 2025/08/11 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RFC Author(s): >>>>>>>> -------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed >>>>>>>> and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >>>>>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >>>>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >>>>>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before >>>>>>>> providing your approval. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Planning your review >>>>>>>> --------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * RFC Editor questions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >>>>>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >>>>>>>> follows: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Changes submitted by coauthors >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >>>>>>>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree >>>>>>>> to changes submitted by your coauthors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Content >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >>>>>>>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >>>>>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>>>>>>> - contact information >>>>>>>> - references >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Copyright notices and legends >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC >>>>>>>> 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – >>>>>>>> https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Semantic markup >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements >>>>>>>> of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that >>>>>>>> <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >>>>>>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Formatted output >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >>>>>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, >>>>>>>> is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >>>>>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Submitting changes >>>>>>>> ------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ >>>>>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. >>>>>>>> The parties >>>>>>>> include: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * your coauthors >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * [email protected] (the RPC team) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >>>>>>>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >>>>>>>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing >>>>>>>> list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active >>>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>>> list: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * More info: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9 >>>>>>>> l >>>>>>>> 2 >>>>>>>> USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * The archive itself: >>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >>>>>>>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >>>>>>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >>>>>>>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >>>>>>>> [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and >>>>>>>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of >>>>>>>> changes in this format >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>>> old text >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>> new text >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an >>>>>>>> explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes >>>>>>>> that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new >>>>>>>> text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information >>>>>>>> about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do >>>>>>>> not require approval from a stream manager. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Approving for publication >>>>>>>> -------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email >>>>>>>> stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use >>>>>>>> ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your >>>>>>>> approval. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Files >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The files are available here: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.xml >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.html >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.pdf >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.txt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-diff.html >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-rfcdiff.html (side by >>>>>>>> side) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-xmldiff1.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RFC Editor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> RFC9833 (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-15) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Title : A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits >>>>>>>> Author(s) : M. Boucadair, R. Roberts, O. Gonzalez de Dios, S. >>>>>>>> Barguil Giraldo, B. Wu >>>>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Joe Clarke, Benoît Claise >>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>> [email protected] -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
