Elwyn,
Thank you for your review. We have revised and uploaded version -08 with the
following changes:
Applicability to Mobile IPv4? It appears from the early sections that this
draft is pretty much concentrated on Mobile IPv6 (see the first para of s3
which mentions v6 RFCs exclusively and IPv4 seems to be mentioned in only a
very limited way later) although this is not stated. To avoid wasting people's
time, it would be useful to put a few words about the relevance or otherwise of
this draft to Mobile IPv4 work in the introduction (and maybe the title?)
before we get to s5.3 where there is more clarity.
The following is appended to the end of first paragraph in the introduction:
The analysis is primarily
towards IPv6 deployment, but can be seen to also apply to IPv4
whenever there are IPv4 counterparts equivalent to the IPv6 mobility
protocols.
s6: I don't know if there is any extra security risk in adding extra MAs etc
that might allow a malicious party to offer spurious MA and so to redirect
traffic inappropriately. I don't know enough about this problem space to know
how well this is mitigated already. Might be worth a mention? (maybe would
affect s5.8 if so).
The first sentence in Section 6 in version -07 was
6. Security Considerations
Distributed mobility management systems encounter same security
threats as existing centralized IP mobility protocols.
It is changed in version -08 to:
6. Security Considerations
The deployment of DMM using existing IP mobility protocols raises
similar security threats as those encountered in centralized mobility
management systems.
It is no longer referring to DMM systems in general.
s1: For the uninitiated, a explanation of what a mobility anchor is would be
helpful. Quoting some (or even all) of the first para of RFC 7333 would do the
trick nicely.
The first paragraph is changed to:
1. Introduction
Existing network-layer mobility management protocols have primarily
employed a mobility anchor to ensure connectivity of a mobile node by
forwarding packets destined to, or sent from, the mobile node after
the node has moved to a different network. The mobility anchor has
been centrally deployed in the sense that the traffic of millions of
mobile nodes in an operator network is typically managed by the same
anchor. This centralized deployment of mobility anchors to manage IP
sessions poses several problems. In order to address these problems,
a distributed mobility management (DMM) architecture has been
proposed. This document investigates whether it is feasible to
deploy current IP mobility protocols in a DMM scenario in a way that
can fulfill the requirements as defined in [RFC7333]. It discusses
current deployment practices of existing mobility protocols and
identifies the limitations (gaps) in these practices from the
standpoint of satisfying DMM requirements. The analysis is primarily
towards IPv6 deployment, but can be seen to also apply to IPv4
whenever there are IPv4 counterparts equivalent to the IPv6 mobility
protocols.
s1, para 1: s/pose several problems/poses several problems/
changed as suggested
s2, last para: s/without the reliance on centrally deployed/without reliance on
centrally deployed/
changed to
without relying on centrally deployed mobility anchors to manage
IP mobility sessions.
s3, para 1:
Although these two are centralized approaches,Two? Three items are mentioned in
the previous sentence, but maybe the Host approach and Proxy extension is
supposed to be considered as a single scheme. Maybe something like:
"Although these approaches are centralized,.."
would avoid the confusion.
changed as suggested
s3, two instances paras after bullet #3:
OLD
the
forwarding management (FM)function is both ends of tunneling at the
HA and the MN. [MAG in second case]
NEW:
the forwarding management (FM) function involves both ends of the tunnel
between the HA and the MN. [MAG in second case]
changed to:the Forwarding Management (FM) function resides in both ends of
the tunnel at the HA and the MN. s3, last para: s/MAP also has FM
function/MAP also provides the FM function/
corrected s4.2, para after Figure 1: Probably best to s/In the figure/In Figure
1/ just
to be totally clear.
corrected s4.2, 2nd para after Figure 1: IP mobility protocols can be used to
provide inter-access mobility
support to usersI don't know if 'inter-access mobility' is acceptable jargon
but I would suggest
adding 'mode', 'method' or 'technology' -- thus
IP mobility protocols can be used to provide inter-access mode mobility
support to userschanged to IP mobility protocols can be used to provide
heterogeneous network mobility support to users, e.g., handover from Wi-Fi to
cellular access. s4.2.1, para 2:Note
that some of these mechanisms [SDO-3GPP.23.402] have been defined in
other standards organizations.It is not clear what 'some' refers to here:
It could refer to the mechanisms
that are noted as not specified [implied, by the IETF?] or someting earlier in
the
paragraph or stuff in Figure 2 (BT/RO modes?). Please clarify.
Sentenced is deletedFigure 2: I like the 'zzzz' :-) I guess this is supposed
to signify a tunnel but it
would be appropriate to have a key for '(o)' and 'zzzz'! I take it CN1/CN2 are
'Correspondent Nodes' (per section 2) but it might be useful to reinforce this
in
the key also.
Figure 2 is redrawns4.2.1, para after bullets: Please expand acronym CoA on
first use.Correcteds4.2.1, para before Fig 3: s/It allows reducing the
amount/It allows the reduction of the amount/
CorrectedFigure 4: Oh, dear! Boring old 'xxx' for tunnels. :-( But I guess it
should have a key again.Figure 4 is redrawns4.2.2, para after Fig 4: s/Similar
to/In a similar way to/
Corrected
s4.2.2, 2nd para after Fig 4: s/the LMA runtime assignment [RFC6463]/the
support
the LMA runtime assignment described in [RFC6463]/; Correcteds/is mainly aimed
for/is mainly aimed at/
will change in version 09 to "is mainly used for"s4.3, para 1: Is there a
suitable overview reference for the EPS architecture? Might be useful here.
added reference [SDO-3GPP.23.402]s4.3, para before Fig 6: ... or at the macro,
...I have no idea what this means.deleted these words
Figures 6 and 7: Something has gone wrong with the layout here. (Non-ASCII
characters?)
corrected
s4.3, Figure 7 and para before it (and earlier): I think PGW and P-GW, also SGW
and S-GW, are supposed to be acronyms for the same thing. Please make this
consistent. (PGW is used elsewhere as well).
changed to PGW
s4.3, para after Fig 7: I think eNB needs expansion [Thank you 3GPP for the
heavy duty acronym soup!]
defined acronym for enhanced Node B
Figure 8: Is "H(e)NB" the same as "HeNB"? Be good to be consistent if so; If
not what is the difference?
Changed to
HeNB
s4.3, last para: s/specially/especially/
corrected
s5, general: Indexing the gaps: For the purposes of clarity, future discussion
and possible solutions, it would probably be worth assigning serial numbers to
the identified gaps in the same way as the requirements are indexed (maybe
even linking them to the relevant req by calling gaps related to REQ#0
something like GAP#0-1, GAP#0-2 etc.) There are also a couple of places,
notably the end of s5.2, where it is not quite clear whether items (like the
last para of s5.2) are separate gaps or part of the previous one. Numbering the
gaps might help to concentrate the text on linking together (or separating)
problems into well-defined sets.
s5.1, para 1: s/enable/make it possible for/; s/single/a single/
corrected
s5.1, first bullet: s/this may also require to transfer/this may also require
the transfer of/
corrected
s5.1, para after 2nd bullet: s/therefore providing/thereby providing/
corrected
s5.1, 2nd para after 2nd bullet:
OLD: where the mobility client natively knows each anchor associated to each
mobility sessions.
NEW: where the mobility client natively knows the anchor associated with each
of its mobility sessions.
corrected
s5.1, 3rd para after 2nd bullet: s/to allow dynamically discovering the
presence of nodes/to allow the dynamic discovery of the presence of nodes/;
corrected
s/to allow selecting a node/to allow the selection of a node/
will change in version 09
and...OLD: There are though some mechanisms that could help discovering
anchors, such as the Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery (DHAAD)NEW: However,
there are some mechanisms that could help to discover anchors, such as the
Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery (DHAAD)
changed
Additionally:
Does DHAAD deserve a reference?
added reference [RFC6275]
s5.1, last para: I have suggested some changes to make this clearer (I hope):
OLD: Also note that REQ1 is such that the data plane traffic can avoid
suboptimal route. Distributed processing of the traffic is then needed only in
the data plane. The needed capability in distributed processing therefore
should not contradict with centralized control plane. Other control plane
solutions such as charging, lawful interception, etc. should not be limited.
Yet combining the control plane and data plane forwarding management (FM)
function may limit the choice to distributing both data plane and control plane
together. In order to enable distributing only the data plane without
distributing the control plane, a gap is to split the forwarding management
function into the control plane (FM-CP) and data plane (FM-DP).
NEW: Also note that REQ1 is intended to prevent the data plane traffic taking a
suboptimal route. Distributed processing of the traffic is then, hopefully,
needed only in the data plane. Provision of this capability for distributed
processing should not conflict with the use of a centralized control plane.
Other control plane solutions such as charging, lawful interception, etc.
should not be constrained by the DMM solution. On the other hand combining the
control plane and data plane forwarding management (FM) function may limit the
choice of solutions to those that distribute both data plane and control plane
together. In order to enable distribution of only the data plane without
distributing the control plane,it would be necessary to split the forwarding
management function into control plane (FM-CP) and data plane (FM-DP)
components; there is currently a gap here.
changed to
GAP1-4: Also note that REQ1 is intended to prevent the data plane
traffic from taking a suboptimal route. Distributed
processing of the traffic may then be needed only in the
data plane. Provision of this capability for distributed
processing should not conflict with the use of a centralized
control plane. Other control plane solutions such as
charging, lawful interception, etc. should not be
constrained by the DMM solution. On the other hand
combining the control plane and data plane forwarding
management (FM) function may limit the choice of solutions
to those that distribute both data plane and control plane
together. In order to enable distribution of only the data
plane without distributing the control plane, it would be
necessary to split the forwarding management function into
the control plane (FM-CP) and data plane (FM-DP) components;
there is currently a gap here.
s5.2, para 1: s/flexibility on determining/flexibility in determining/;
s/whether or not use/whether or not to use/
changed
s5.2, para 1:
It only enables the two following functions:I am not sure what 'it' refers to
here. Is this the functionality that is needed to implement REQ1? Or what?
Changed to:
The following two functions are also
needed:
s5.2, 1st bullet: s/which uses/which use/
corrected
s5,2, 1st para after bullets: s/to indicate the IP stack/to indicate to the IP
stack/
corrected
s5,2, 1st para after bullets:
mobility support is required or not in.Either the 'in' is redundant or there is
a phrase missing at the end.
delete
"in"
s5.2, next to last para: s/there exist these individual efforts that/these
individual efforts and they/
changed to
Although these individual efforts exist and they could be
considered as attempts to fix the gap, there is no solution
adopted as a work item within any IETF working group.
s5.4, para 2: s/nothing prevent/nothing prevents/;
corrected
s/functions with in IP mobility/functions within IP mobility/
corrected
s5.4, last para: s/going into the direction/going in the direction/
corrected
s5.5: s/the needed mobility management/the necessary mobility management/
corrected
s5.6, bullet 6: s/of forwarding path/of the forwarding path/
corrected
s5.6, para after bullets: s/the above list of operation/how, or whether, they
support the above list of operation/
correcteds5.7: Everything after the first sentence is either 'motherhood and
apple pie' or statements
of things that allegedly work. No gaps are identified - so everything except
the first sentence
could probably be replaced with:
Any solutions that are intended to fill in gaps identified in this document
need to meet this requirement. At present, it does not appear that using
existing solutions to support DMM has introduced any new security issues.
added as suggesteds5.8, para 1: s/to enable multicast solutions to be
developed/to allow the development of multicast solutions/
correcteds5.8, para 2: s/insta ces/instances/
corrected Section 5.9 is revised to5.9. Summary We next list the main gaps
identified from the analysis performed above: GAP1-1: Existing solutions
only provide an optimal initial anchor assignment, a gap being the
lack of dynamic anchor change/ new anchor assignment. Neither the
HA switch nor the LMA runtime assignment allows changing the anchor
during an ongoing session. MOBIKE allows change of GW but its
applicability has been scoped to a very narrow use case. GAP1-2: The MN
needs to be able to perform source address selection. Proper
mechanism to inform the MN is lacking to provide the basis for the
proper selection. GAP1-3: Currently, there is no efficient mechanism
specified by the IETF that allows the dynamic discovery of the
presence of nodes that can play the role of anchor, discover their
capabilities and allow the selection of the most suitable
one. However, the following mechanisms could help discovering
anchors: Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery (DHAAD): the use of
the home agent (H) flag in Router Advertisements (which
indicates that the router sending the Router Advertisement is also
functioning as a Mobile IPv6 home agent on the link) and the MAP
option in Router Advertisements defined by HMIPv6. GAP1-4: While
existing network-based DMM practices may allow the deployment of
multiple LMAs and dynamically select the best one, this requires to
still keep some centralization in the control plane, to access the
policy database (as defined in RFC5213). Although
[I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation] allows a MAG to perform
splitting of its control and user planes, there is a lack of
solutions/extensions that support a clear control and data plane
separation for IETF IP mobility protocols in a DMM context.
GAP2-1: The information of which sessions at the mobile node are
active and are using the mobility support need to be transferred to
or shared with the network. Such mechanism has not been defined.
GAP2-2: The mobile node needs to simultaneously use multiple IP
addresses with different properties. There is a lack of mechanism
to expose this information to the mobile node which can then update
accordingly its source address selection mechanism. GAP2-3: The
handling of mobility management has not been to the granularity of
an individual session of a user/device before. The combination of
session identification and user/ device identification may be
lacking. GAP6-1: Mobility management protocols have not thoroughly
documented how, or whether, they support the following list of
operation and management considerations: * A DMM solution
needs to consider configuring a device, monitoring the current
operational state of a device, responding to events that impact
the device, possibly by modifying the configuration and storing
the data in a format that can be analyzed later. * A
DMM solution has to describe in what environment and how it can
be scalably deployed and managed. * A DMM solution has to support
mechanisms to test if the DMM solution is working properly.
* A DMM solution is expected to expose the operational
state of DMM to the administrators of the DMM entities. * A DMM
solution, which supports flow mobility, is also expected to
support means to correlate the flow routing policies and the
observed forwarding actions. * A DMM solution is expected to
support mechanisms to check the liveness of the forwarding path.
* A DMM solution has to provide fault management and
monitoring mechanisms to manage situations where update of the
mobility session or the data path fails. * A DMM solution is
expected to be able to monitor the usage of the DMM protocol.
* DMM solutions have to support standardized configuration
with NETCONF [RFC6241], using YANG [RFC6020] modules, which are
expected to be created for DMM when needed for such
configuration. GAP6-2: Management information base (MIB) objects are
currently defined in [RFC4295] for MIPv6 and in [RFC6475] for
PMIPv6. Standardized configuration with NETCONF [RFC6241], using
YANG [RFC6020] modules is lacking. s5.9, bullet 1: s/to very narrow use
case./to a very narrow use case./
correcteds5.9, bullet 2: s/requires to expose/requires the exposure of/
The entire sentence is rewrittenThere is a lack of
mechanism to expose this information to the mobile node
which can then update accordingly its source address
selection mechanism.
s5.9, bullet 3: s/allows to dynamically discover/allows the dynamic discovery
of/
corrected s5.9, bullet 5: s/may allow to deploy/may allow the deployment of/
correcteds6: s/encounter same security/encounter the same security/
Entire sentenced has been rewritten
The deployment of DMM using existing IP mobility protocols raises
similar security threats as those encountered in centralized mobility
management systems.
H Anthony Chan
From: Elwyn Davies
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:00 PM
To: General area reviewing team ;
[email protected]
Subject: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-07
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-07.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2014-09-18
IETF LC End Date: 2014-09-25
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary: Almost ready. A couple of minor issues (one almost editorial and one
may be due to my lack of knowledge of the current state of Mobile IPv6
security) and mostly a lot of minor language nits. I think there might be some
point in numbering the identified gaps to facilitate future discussion.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
Applicability to Mobile IPv4? It appears from the early sections that this
draft is pretty much concentrated on Mobile IPv6 (see the first para of s3
which mentions v6 RFCs exclusively and IPv4 seems to be mentioned in only a
very limited way later) although this is not stated. To avoid wasting people's
time, it would be useful to put a few words about the relevance or otherwise of
this draft to Mobile IPv4 work in the introduction (and maybe the title?)
before we get to s5.3 where there is more clarity.
s6: I don't know if there is any extra security risk in adding extra MAs etc
that might allow a malicious party to offer spurious MA and so to redirect
traffic inappropriately. I don't know enough about this problem space to know
how well this is mitigated already. Might be worth a mention? (maybe would
affect s5.8 if so).
Nits/editorial comments:
s1: For the uninitiated, a explanation of what a mobility anchor is would be
helpful. Quoting some (or even all) of the first para of RFC 7333 would do the
trick nicely.
s1, para 1: s/pose several problems/poses several problems/
s2, last para: s/without the reliance on centrally deployed/without reliance on
centrally deployed/
s3, para 1:
Although these two are centralized approaches,Two? Three items are mentioned in
the previous sentence, but maybe the Host approach and Proxy extension is
supposed to be considered as a single scheme. Maybe something like:
"Although these approaches are centralized,.."
would avoid the confusion.
s3, two instances paras after bullet #3:
OLD
the
forwarding management (FM)function is both ends of tunneling at the
HA and the MN. [MAG in second case]
NEW:
the forwarding management (FM) function involves both ends of the tunnel
between the HA and the MN. [MAG in second case]
s3, last para: s/MAP also has FM function/MAP also provides the FM function/
s4.2, para after Figure 1: Probably best to s/In the figure/In Figure 1/ just
to be totally clear.
s4.2, 2nd para after Figure 1: IP mobility protocols can be used to provide
inter-access mobility
support to usersI don't know if 'inter-access mobility' is acceptable jargon
but I would suggest
adding 'mode', 'method' or 'technology' -- thus
IP mobility protocols can be used to provide inter-access mode mobility
support to users
s4.2.1, para 2:Note
that some of these mechanisms [SDO-3GPP.23.402] have been defined in
other standards organizations.It is not clear what 'some' refers to here:
It could refer to the mechanisms
that are noted as not specified [implied, by the IETF?] or someting earlier in
the
paragraph or stuff in Figure 2 (BT/RO modes?). Please clarify.
Figure 2: I like the 'zzzz' :-) I guess this is supposed to signify a tunnel
but it
would be appropriate to have a key for '(o)' and 'zzzz'! I take it CN1/CN2 are
'Correspondent Nodes' (per section 2) but it might be useful to reinforce this
in
the key also.
s4.2.1, para after bullets: Please expand acronym CoA on first use.
s4.2.1, para before Fig 3: s/It allows reducing the amount/It allows the
reduction of the amount/
Figure 4: Oh, dear! Boring old 'xxx' for tunnels. :-( But I guess it should
have a key again.
s4.2.2, para after Fig 4: s/Similar to/In a similar way to/
s4.2.2, 2nd para after Fig 4: s/the LMA runtime assignment [RFC6463]/the
support
the LMA runtime assignment described in [RFC6463]/; s/is mainly aimed for/is
mainly aimed at/
s4.3, para 1: Is there a suitable overview reference for the EPS architecture?
Might be useful here.
s4.3, para before Fig 6: ... or at the macro, ...I have no idea what this means.
Figures 6 and 7: Something has gone wrong with the layout here. (Non-ASCII
characters?)
s4.3, Figure 7 and para before it (and earlier): I think PGW and P-GW, also SGW
and S-GW, are
supposed to be acronyms for the same thing. Please make this consistent. (PGW
is used elsewhere
as well).
s4.3, para after Fig 7: I think eNB needs expansion [Thank you 3GPP for the
heavy duty acronym soup!]
Figure 8: Is "H(e)NB" the same as "HeNB"? Be good to be consistent if so; If
not what is the difference?
s4.3, last para: s/specially/especially/
s5, general: Indexing the gaps: For the purposes of clarity, future discussion
and possible solutions,
it would probably be worth assigning serial numbers to the identified gaps in
the same way as the
requirements are indexed (maybe even linking them to the relevant req by
calling gaps related to
REQ#0 something like GAP#0-1, GAP#0-2 etc.) There are also a couple of places,
notably the end of s5.2,
where it is not quite clear whether items (like the last para of s5.2) are
separate gaps or part of the
previous one. Numbering the gaps might help to concentrate the text on linking
together (or separating)
problems into well-defined sets.
s5.1, para 1: s/enable/make it possible for/; s/single/a single/
s5.1, first bullet: s/this may also require to transfer/this may also require
the transfer of/
s5.1, para after 2nd bullet: s/therefore providing/thereby providing/
s5.1, 2nd para after 2nd bullet:
OLD:
where the mobility
client natively knows each anchor associated to each mobility
sessions.
NEW:
where the mobility
client natively knows the anchor associated with each of its mobility
sessions.
s5.1, 3rd para after 2nd bullet: s/to allow dynamically discovering the
presence of nodes/to allow
the dynamic discovery of the presence of nodes/;
s/to allow selecting a node/to allow the selection of a node/
and...
OLD:
There are though some mechanisms
that could help discovering anchors, such as the Dynamic Home Agent
Address Discovery (DHAAD)
NEW:
However, there are some mechanisms
that could help to discover anchors, such as the Dynamic Home Agent
Address Discovery (DHAAD)
Additionally: Does DHAAD deserve a reference?
s5.1, last para: I have suggested some changes to make this clearer (I hope):
OLD:
Also note that REQ1 is such that the data plane traffic can avoid
suboptimal route. Distributed processing of the traffic is then
needed only in the data plane. The needed capability in distributed
processing therefore should not contradict with centralized control
plane. Other control plane solutions such as charging, lawful
interception, etc. should not be limited. Yet combining the control
plane and data plane forwarding management (FM) function may limit
the choice to distributing both data plane and control plane
together. In order to enable distributing only the data plane
without distributing the control plane, a gap is to split the
forwarding management function into the control plane (FM-CP) and
data plane (FM-DP).
NEW:
Also note that REQ1 is intended to prevent the data plane traffic taking a
suboptimal route. Distributed processing of the traffic is then, hopefully,
needed only in the data plane. Provision of this capability for distributed
processing should not conflict with the use of a centralized control
plane. Other control plane solutions such as charging, lawful
interception, etc. should not be constrained by the DMM solution. On the
other hand combining the control
plane and data plane forwarding management (FM) function may limit
the choice of solutions to those that distribute both data plane and control
plane
together. In order to enable distribution of only the data plane
without distributing the control plane,it would be necessary to split the
forwarding management function into control plane (FM-CP) and
data plane (FM-DP) components; there is currently a gap here.
s5.2, para 1: s/flexibility on determining/flexibility in determining/;
s/whether or not use/whether or not to use/
s5.2, para 1: It only enables the two following functions:I am not sure what
'it' refers to here. Is this the functionality that is needed to implement
REQ1? Or what?
s5.2, 1st bullet: s/which uses/which use/
s5,2, 1st para after bullets: s/to indicate the IP stack/to indicate to the IP
stack/
s5,2, 1st para after bullets:
mobility support is required or not in.Either the 'in' is redundant or there is
a phrase missing at the end.
s5.2, next to last para:
s/there exist these individual efforts that/these individual efforts and they/
s5.4, para 2: s/nothing prevent/nothing prevents/; s/functions with in IP
mobility/functions within IP mobility/
s5.4, last para: s/going into the direction/going in the direction/
s5.5: s/the needed mobility management/the necessary mobility management/
s5.6, bullet 6: s/of forwarding path/of the forwarding path/
s5.6, para after bullets: s/the above list of operation/how, or whether, they
support the above list of operation/
s5.7: Everything after the first sentence is either 'motherhood and apple pie'
or statements
of things that allegedly work. No gaps are identified - so everything except
the first sentence
could probably be replaced with:
Any solutions that are intended to fill in gaps identified in this document
need to meet this requirement. At present, it does not appear that using
existing solutions to support DMM has introduced any new security issues.
s5.8, para 1: s/to enable multicast solutions to be developed/to allow the
development of multicast solutions/
s5.8, para 2: s/insta ces/instances/
s5.9, bullet 1: s/to very narrow use case./to a very narrow use case./
s5.9, bullet 2: s/requires to expose/requires the exposure of/
s5.9, bullet 3: s/allows to dynamically discover/allows the dynamic discovery
of/
s5.9, bullet 5: s/may allow to deploy/may allow the deployment of/
s6: s/encounter same security/encounter the same security/
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
