Hi Qin, Thank you for your reply. The document has been updated accordingly; it's available from https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.html and the same URLs as below (please refresh). Please let us know if any further changes are needed or you approve the document.
Thank you. Alice Russo RFC Production Center > On Feb 24, 2026, at 10:12 PM, Qin Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Alice: > For consistency and simplicity, please use "Huawei" as affiliation for both > Chaode Yu and me > Thanks! > > -Qin > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Alice Russo [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2026年2月25日 13:45 > 收件人: Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mahesh > Jethanandani <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Qin Wu <[email protected]>; yuchaode > <[email protected]>; auth48archive <[email protected]>; RFC > Editor <[email protected]> > 主题: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9940 <draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-23> for your > review > > Adrian, > > Thank you for your careful reply. A few acks/replies are inline below; the > only open questions are #1 for Qin and #6 if changes are needed in Section > 3.2. The revised files are here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.xml > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors before continuing > the publication process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9940 > > Thank you. > > Alice Russo > RFC Production Center > >> On Feb 24, 2026, at 4:19 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alice, >> >> Thanks for the work. >> A bit of push-back on some of the suggestions, below, largely because this >> document was a fine balancing act of consensus and explanation. But, most of >> your points are just sloppy authorship. >> >> >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Authors' Addresses: We see that Qin Wu's affiliation >> is listed as Huawei in this document. Please confirm that this is as desired. >> We ask because we see that Qin Wu's affiliation is mostly listed as >> Huawei after RFC 9000, but as "Huawei Technologies" in RFCs 9005, >> 9353, 9358, and 9731. --> >> >> [AF] I'll let Qin comment, but what I see is that all recent I-Ds list as >> "Huawei" and that a few RFCs that have roots in old I-Ds use "Huawei >> Technologies". >> The weirdness in this document is that Chaode has used "Huawei Technologies" >> although he is in a different division of Huawei, so who knows! >> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 1: Please clarify the meaning of this >> sentence, especially how the phrase "and other faults" relates to the >> rest of the sentence. >> >> Original: >> The intention of this document is to focus on those events that have a >> negative effect on the network's ability to forward traffic according >> to expected behavior and so deliver services, the ability to control >> and operate the network, and other faults that reduce the quality or >> reliability of the delivered service. >> >> Option A: >> The intention of this document is to focus on those events that could >> have a negative effect on the network's ability to forward traffic >> according to expected behavior and so could negatively affect delivery >> of services and the ability to control and operate the network. Such >> events could also trigger other faults that would reduce the quality >> or reliability of the delivered service. >> >> Option B: >> The intention of this document is to focus on those events that have a >> negative effect on the network's ability to forward traffic according >> to expected behavior and thus its ability to deliver services, provide >> the ability to control and operate the network, and manage faults that >> would reduce the quality or reliability of the delivered service. >> >> Option C: >> This document focuses on events that have a negative effect on traffic >> forwarding, service delivery, and network management, especially when >> managing faults that reduce the quality or reliability of the >> delivered service. >> --> >> >> [AF] Yeah, you're right. Too much nesting; too many "and"s. >> >> Try... >> >> The intention of this document is to focus on those events that have a >> negative effect on the network's ability to forward traffic according >> to expected behaviors which may reduce the network's ability to >> deliver services. Such events may also impact upon the ability to >> control and operate the network. The document also considers other >> faults that reduce the quality or reliability of the delivered service. >> > [AR] updated accordingly, with minor changes as follows. > s / impact upon the ability / impact the ability s / which may reduce / that > may reduce (due to RPC style -- restrictive "that" and non-restrictive > "which" clauses) > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1: >> >> a) FYI, we capitalized "layer 3, layer 2, and layer 1" to "Layer 3, >> Layer 2, and Layer 1", per more common usage in RFCs after RFC 6000. >> >> [AF] OK >> >> b) Is "intent" the only type of service definition (in which case >> "i.e.," ("that is") is correct), or should "i.e.," be "e.g.," ("for >> example")? >> >> Original: >> Network Telemetry: This is defined in [RFC9232] and describes the >> process of collecting operational network data categorized >> according to the network plane (e.g., layer 3, layer 2, and layer >> 1) from which it was derived. Data collected through the Network >> Telemetry process does not contain any data related to service >> definitions (i.e., "intent" per Section 3.1 of [RFC9315]). --> >> >> [AF] I think id est is correct. >> >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1: Should "network monitoring" be "Network >> Monitoring" >> in this paragraph, to match other comparable terms mentioned in >> Sections >> 2 and subsequent? Also, we see "through the Network Telemetry process" >> in the previous paragraph (i.e., initial capitals applied again after >> the term has been defined). >> >> Original: >> Network Monitoring: This is the process of keeping a continuous >> record of functions related to a network topology. It involves >> tracking various aspects such as traffic patterns, device health, >> performance metrics, and overall network behaviour. This approach >> differentiates network monitoring from resource or device >> monitoring, which focuses on individual components or resources >> (Section 3.2). --> >> >> [AF] I could go either way on this. Happy to capitalise. > > [AR] updated accordingly. >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1: >> >> a) Does "and to identify" refer to the Network Observability process >> or the analysis of the data? >> >> Original: >> Network Observability: This is the process of enabling network >> behavioral assessment through analysis of observed operational >> network data (logs, alarms, traces, etc.) with the aim of >> detecting symptoms of network behavior, and to identify anomalies >> and their causes. >> >> Perhaps (the process): >> Network Observability: This is the process of enabling network >> behavioral assessment through analysis of observed operational >> network data (logs, alarms, traces, etc.); this process aims to >> detect symptoms of network behavior and to identify anomalies >> and their causes. >> >> Or possibly: (the analysis): >> Network Observability: This is the process of enabling network >> behavioral assessment through analysis of observed operational >> network data (logs, alarms, traces, etc.); such analysis aims to >> detect symptoms of network behavior and to identify anomalies >> and their causes. >> >> [AF] Ouch! >> Either s/and to identify/and identifying/ Or you "Perhaps" option. > > [AR] updated to 'and identifying'. >> >> b) May we update this sentence as follows to clarify "and that"? >> >> Original: >> Network Observability begins with information gathered using Network >> Monitoring tools and that may be further enriched with other >> operational data. >> >> Perhaps: >> Network Observability begins with information gathered using Network >> Monitoring tools, then it may be further enriched with other >> operational data. --> >> >> [AF] Hmmm. It is the information that may be further enriched. Perhaps: >> Network Observability begins with information gathered using Network >> Monitoring tools. That information may be further enriched with other >> operational data. >> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: For parallelism in the list provided in >> this section, we made several updates to the definition paragraphs >> (the top-level items). For consistency of style, we went with >> sentence fragments instead of complete sentences. Please review, and >> let us know any updates. --> >> >> [AF] Well, hmmm, you have created some non-sentences, I think. For example: >> In the context of Network Monitoring, the variation in the >> Value of a Characteristic associated with a Resource. >> Do we not prefer to write in complete sentences? >> But, I do note that the original was culpable of this as well, so hey-ho? > > [AR] hey-ho, indeed. Happy to revert to original or update each to a complete > sentence (which leads to some repetition, e.g., "Foo: A Foo is a lovely > thing."). Please let us know your preference. >> >> I checked the semantics, and I don't think this change is a problem except: >> >> "Detect". Retaining the sub-bullet would be preferred because it is a >> significant difference from the main definition. I'd be happy to s/Hence >> also/Also/ in the sub-bullet if that helps. >> > [AR] updated accordingly. > >> "Occurrence" I'll be led by you on fine-grain/fine-grained. I thought: >> This piece of sand is a fine-grain particle. >> This is a handful of fine-grained particles. > > [AR] If the intended meaning is 'concerned with or using small details' [1], > the one instance in this document seems fine: > > * An Occurrence may be an aggregation or abstraction of multiple > fine-grained Events or Changes. > > [1] This definition is from > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fine-grained because > the Merriam-Webster definition is not useful ("characterized by comparatively > fine graininess"). > >> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3.2 and 4: We see one instance of "network >> system" in Section 3.2 but two instances of "Network system" in >> Section 4. Because this term isn't specifically defined anywhere, may >> we change the "between Network system and Resources" text in Section 4 >> to "between a network system and Resources", and may we change >> "Network system" in Figure 1 to "Network System"? >> >> Original: >> Resource: An element of a network system. >> ... >> Note that there is a 1:n relationship between Network system and >> Resources, and between Resources and Characteristics: this is not >> shown on the figure for clarity. >> ... >> Network system --> >> >> [AF] I think 3.2 is right as "network system": it is not a defined term, >> just text. >> I think Figure 1 stays as "Network system" because lower case in the figure >> would look wrong. >> The question is only whether the text in 4 should match the figure (as >> original) or be normal text (with lower case). >> The author chose to match the figure for clarity. >> You choose. > > [AR] I agree with matching the figure. No change made. > >> >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: For consistency of style, we put >> "Resource is a recursive concept" under "Resource:" in a <ul>, as was >> done for the rest of the definitions in this section with nested >> paragraphs. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. >> >> Original: >> Resource: An element of a network system. >> >> Resource is a recursive concept so that a Resource may be a >> collection of other Resources (for example, a network node >> comprises a collection of network interfaces). >> >> Currently: >> Resource: An element of a network system. >> >> * Resource is a recursive concept so that a Resource may be a >> collection of other Resources (for example, a network node >> comprises a collection of network interfaces). --> >> >> [AF] Fine >> >> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: >> >> a) We see only two instances of single-quoted items in this document >> and see double quotes used for all other terms (e.g., "Value Change"). >> May we use double quotes instead for these two items, i.e., change >> 'Value' to "Value" and 'variable' to "variable" >> here? >> >> [AF] Yes. That was sloppy. Sorry. >> >> b) We see "metric" used in the text of RFC 9417, which uses "Metric" >> only in three definitions and its Figure 1. May we lowercase this >> term in this document to match RFC 9417, as it's only used as a term >> in this one bullet item? >> >> Original: >> * A Characteristic may be considered to be built on facts (see >> 'Value', below) and the contexts and descriptors that identify >> and give meaning to the facts. >> >> * The term "Metric" [RFC9417] is another word for a measurable >> Characteristic which may also be thought of as analogous to a >> 'variable'. >> >> Perhaps: >> * A Characteristic may be considered to be built on facts (see >> "Value", below) and the contexts and descriptors that identify >> and give meaning to the facts. >> >> * The term "metric" [RFC9417] is another word for a measurable >> Characteristic, which may also be thought of as analogous to a >> "variable". --> >> >> [AF] Nope. Please leave "Metric" as a definition that this document is >> providing. But this could change to: >> * The term "Metric" (see "metric" in [RFC9417]) is another word for a >> measurable >> Characteristic which may also be thought of as analogous to a >> "variable". > > [AR] updated accordingly. > >> >> 10) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3.2 and 4: We see "a count" in Section 3.2 >> but "the Count" in Section 4. Should capitalization of this term be >> made consistent? If yes, please specify which form is preferred. >> >> Original: >> It may be in the form of a categorization (e.g., high or low), an >> integer (e.g., a count or gauge), or a reading of a continuous >> variable (e.g., an analog measurement), etc. >> ... >> Events may be counted, and the Count may cross a threshold or reach a >> Relevant Value. --> >> >> [AF] Ugh. >> I think that 3.2 is right. There is no term defined here for "Count" >> and this is just a normal word (like "gauge") In 4, we have the same problem >> of matching the text to the figure. Using lower case in the figure would >> look odd. And so the text uses the same capitalisation to easily map to the >> figure. >> I'd leave it alone, but can be guided by you. > > [AR] Agree. Left alone. >> >> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: Is the period (of time) always >> negligible, or should "i.e.," be "e.g.," here? >> >> Original: >> Event: The variation in Value of a Characteristic of a Resource at a >> distinct moment in time (i.e., the period is negligible). --> >> >> [AF] Definitely "i.e." because it is explaining what "a distinct moment in >> time" means. >> >> 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: RFC 8342 uses the lowercase form >> "operational state". Because this sentence says "as used in >> [RFC8342]", would you prefer to follow usage in RFC 8342 or leave both >> "Operational State" and "operational state" as they are in this >> paragraph? >> >> Original: >> * This term may be contrasted with "Operational State" as used in >> [RFC8342]. For example, the state of a link might be up/down/ >> degraded, but the operational state of link would include a >> collection of Values of Characteristics of the link. --> >> >> [AF] Good catch. >> Lower case, but retain quote marks. > > [AR] Updated accordingly. > >> >> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: We had trouble following this sentence. >> Should "relative to a specific perspective, intent, ..." be "relative >> to a specific perspective, with a view to intent, ..." >> per text seen twice in Section 4? If not, what do "relative to a >> specific perspective" and "and in relation to other Events ..." refer >> to? >> >> Original: >> Relevance: Consideration of an Event, State, or Value (through the >> application of policy, relative to a specific perspective, intent, >> and in relation to other Events, States, and Values) to determine >> whether it is of note to the system that controls or manages the >> network. --> >> >> [AF] Sorry. I would blame Nigel, but I edited the text. Try... >> Relevance: Consideration of an Event, State, or Value (through the >> application of policy, relative to a specific perspective or intent, >> and in relation to other Events, States, and Values) to determine >> whether it is of note to the system that controls or manages the >> network. > > [AR] updated accordingly. >> >> 14) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: Does "and may be perceived" refer to >> the Occurrence or the Resources in this sentence? If "Resources", we >> suggest inserting "they". >> >> Original: >> * An Occurrence may occur at any macro or micro scale because >> Resources are a recursive concept, and may be perceived >> depending on the scope of observation (i.e., according to the >> level of Resource recursion that is examined). That is, >> Occurrences, themselves are a recursive concept. --> >> >> [AF] Applies to the occurrence. Could split the sentence as: >> s/, and may/. An Occurrence may/ >> > [AR] updated accordingly. > >> 15) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: We see that >> [I-D.ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang] uses (mostly) "network >> incident", "customer incident", and "incident management", while this >> document uses initial-capitalized forms for these terms. >> >> Would you (perhaps Qin Wu or Nigel Davis, as coauthors of this >> document as well as [I-D.ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang]) like to >> suggest that the initial-capitalized forms of these terms also be used >> in [I-D.ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang]? We see that this document >> is listed in the Informative References of that document. >> >> Original: >> Incident: A (Network) Incident is an undesired Occurrence such as an >> unexpected interruption of a network service, degradation of the >> quality of a network service, or the below-target performance of a >> network service. An Incident results from one or more Problems, >> and a Problem may give rise to or contribute to one or more >> Incidents. Greater discussion of Network Incident relationships, >> including Customer Incidents and Incident management, can be found >> in [I-D.ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang]. --> >> >> [AF] Yeah, let's leave this document as it is, and prod the authors of >> (the vastly inferior ;-) draft-ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang > > [AR] Sounds good. >> >> 16) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: It seems odd that Figure 6 is mentioned >> before Figure 2 appears and before any mention of Figure 3. Would you >> like to move Figure 6 so that it appears just after Figure 2? It >> would then be renumbered as Figure 3, and the rest of the figures >> would be renumbered accordingly. >> >> Original: >> In practice, the Characteristic may vary in an analog manner over time >> as shown on the right-hand side of Figure 2. The Value can be read or >> reported (i.e., Detected) periodically leading to analog Values that >> may be deemed Relevant Values, or may be evaluated over time as shown >> in Figure 6. >> >> ( Contents of Figure 2 ) >> >> Figure 2: Characteristics and Changes >> >> Figure 3 shows the workflow progress for Events. As noted above, an >> >> Perhaps: >> In practice, the Characteristic may vary in an analog manner over time >> as shown on the right-hand side of Figure 2. The Value can be read or >> reported (i.e., Detected) periodically leading to analog Values that >> may be deemed Relevant Values, or it may be evaluated over time as >> shown in Figure 3. >> >> ( Contents of Figure 2 ) >> >> Figure 2: Characteristics and Changes >> >> ( Contents of Figure 3 ) >> >> Figure 3: Counts, Thresholds, and Values >> >> Figure 4 shows the workflow progress for Events. As noted above, an >> --> >> >> [AF] Moving Figure 6 would, I think really disrupt all of the exposition of >> terms. >> Revealing the terms in some kind of sequence was a bit of a challenge. >> You could put "or may be evaluated over time as shown in Figure 6." In >> parentheses if that helps. > > [AR] Ack; left as is. > >> >> 17) <!-- [rfced] Figures 2 and 6: We see "Change at a time" and >> "Change over time" in Figure 2 but "Change at a Time" and "Change over Time" >> in Figure 6. Would you like capitalization to be consistent? >> If yes, please specify which style is preferred. >> >> If you'd like to title case, may we change "Evaluated over time" in >> Figure 6 to "Evaluated over Time"? >> >> Original: >> Change at a time Change over time Change over time >> ... >> | Evaluated | >> | over time | >> ... >> Change at a Time Change over Time --> >> >> [AF] I don't object to Title case in Figure 2, although I don't think it is >> crucial. >> Figure 6 is correct in the original because it is not a title, but a thing >> that feeds into an arrow on the figure. > > [AR] Ack; no changes. > >> >> 18) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: This sentence does not parse. If the >> suggested text is not correct, please clarify. >> >> Original: >> An Occurrence may be undesirable (a >> Fault) and that can cause an Alert to be generated, may be evidence of >> a Problem and could directly indicate a Cause. >> >> Perhaps: >> An Occurrence may be undesirable (a >> Fault); this can cause an Alert to be generated, may be evidence of a >> Problem, and could directly indicate a Cause. --> >> >> [AF] Sigh ;-) >> We have: >> An Occurrence >> - may be undesirable >> - that is, a Fault >> - and so might cause an Alert to be generated >> - may be evidence of a Problem >> - and could directly indicate a Cause. >> >> So, perhaps: >> An Occurrence may be undesirable (a >> Fault) which might cause an Alert to be generated. Or an Occurrence >> may be evidence of a Problem that could directly indicate a Cause. > > [AR] updated as follows: > > An Occurrence may be undesirable (a Fault), which might cause an Alert > to be generated. Or, an Occurrence may be evidence of a Problem and > could directly indicate a Cause. > > (minor changes include "that" -> "and" (to match the outline above) and a > comma before "which" due to RPC style -- restrictive "that" and > non-restrictive "which" clauses) > >> >> 19) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: Is there a distinction between "may be >> deemed a Problem" and "may indicate a Problem", as they seem to be >> very close in meaning. Will this sentence be clear to readers? >> >> Original: >> A Relevant State may be deemed a Problem, or may indicate a Problem or >> potential Problem. --> >> >> [AF] Yeah, closely debated text. >> It may, of itself, be a Problem. Or it may indicate that a Problem exists. >> We could s/may be deemed/may, itself, be/ Although I would tend to >> leave it. >> (Note for English speakers: "problem" is not "Problem" :-) > > [AR] Ack; no changes. >> >> 20) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: Should "Alarmed state" be "Alarm State" >> here? We ask because we see "an Alarm signifies an undesirable" State" in >> Section 3.2. >> >> Original: >> An Alarm may be raised as the result of a Problem, and the transition >> to an Alarmed state may give rise to an Alert. --> >> >> [AF] Ha! >> s/Alarmed state/alarmed State/ > > [AR] updated accordingly. >> >> 21) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: >> >> a) We see "threshold" but "Threshold Process" in these two paragraphs. >> Because "threshold" is not a term defined in this document, we suggest >> the lowercase form "threshold process" in the text, but please advise. >> >> Original: >> Figure 6 shows how thresholds are important in the consideration of >> analog Values and Events. The arrows in the figure show how one item >> may give rise to or utilize another. The use of threshold-driven >> Events and States (and the Alerts that they might give rise to) must >> be treated with caution to dampen any "flapping" (so that consistent >> States may be observed) and to avoid overwhelming management processes >> or systems. Analog Values may be read or notified from the Resource >> and could transition a threshold, be deemed Relevant Values, or >> evaluated over time. Events may be counted, and the Count may cross a >> threshold or reach a Relevant Value. >> >> The Threshold Process may be implementation-specific and subject to >> policies. When a threshold is crossed and any other conditions are >> matched, an Event may be determined, and treated like any other Event. >> >> [AF] Again, this is me trying to match the text to the items in the figure. >> I think it is convenient to make that highlight by using UC. > > [AR] agree; no change. > >> >> b) We had trouble following the purpose of the comma after >> "determined" here. We removed it, per "Specific Changes in Value may >> be noticed at a specific time (as digital Changes), Detected, and >> treated as Events" seen earlier in this section. If this is >> incorrect, please clarify what "may" refers to in this sentence. >> >> Also, should "conditions" be "Conditions" here, as we see "give rise >> to Conditions that are States" in the second paragraph after Figure 1? >> >> Original: >> When a threshold is crossed and any other conditions are matched, an >> Event may be determined, and treated like any other Event. >> >> Currently (guessing "may be treated" as opposed to "will be treated" >> or otherwise): >> When a threshold is crossed and any other conditions are matched, an >> Event may be determined and may be treated like any other Event. --> >> >> [AF] The comma is a bad edit (was a serial comma, but the list dropped to >> two items). Remove it. >> Not sure we need the double "may" because inherited from the first one, but >> it is OK. >> Yup, "Condition" is better. > > [AR] updated accordingly. > >> >> 22) <!-- [rfced] Acknowledgments: Should Dirk Hugo be listed here as >> "Dirk Von Hugo"? We ask because we see a "Dirk Von Hugo" listed in >> several post-6000 RFCs but not a "Dirk Hugo". Also, we see "Dirk Von >> Hugo" on <https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/[email protected]>. >> >> Original: The authors would like to thank Med Boucadair, Wanting Du, >> Joe Clarke, Javier Antich, Benoit Claise, Christopher Janz, Sherif >> Mostafa, Kristian Larsson, Dirk Hugo, Carsten Bormann, Hilarie Orman, >> Stewart Bryant, Bo Wu, Paul Kyzivat, Jouni Korhonen, Reshad Rahman, >> Rob Wilton, Mahesh Jethanandani, Tim Bray, Paul Aitken, and Deb Cooley >> for their helpful comments. --> >> >> [AF] Oops. Yes, he is >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Dirk%20Von%20hugo > > [AR] updated accordingly. >> >> 23) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >> online Style Guide at >> <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. >> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this >> should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> >> >> [AF] I checked again. >> >> >> Phew! >> >> Thanks. >> Adrian >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
