Dear Alanna: No problem from our side with this change. Thank you for taking care of this.
Best Regards. > El 6 jul 2021, a las 19:01, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> escribió: > > Hello authors, > > We have made one additional update. RFC 2560 has been obsoleted by > RFC 6960, and we have updated instances of RFC 2560 in the text to be > RFC 6960. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-lastdiff.html (last version to > this one) > > Please note that we only need approval from one author to move forward in the > publication process. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ap > >> On Jun 25, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 >> >> Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. >> We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. >> >> RFC Editor/ap >> >>> On Jun 24, 2021, at 11:07 PM, Fernando Pereñíguez García >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Alanna, >>> >>> I have revised the last version of the document and all the changes are ok >>> to me. >>> >>> Thank you very much for your work. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Fernando. >>> >>> El jue, 24 jun 2021 a las 18:42, Rafa Marin-Lopez (<[email protected]>) escribió: >>> Dear Alanna: >>> >>> Everything looks ok to me. Thank you very much for applying all the changes. >>> >>> Best Regards. >>> >>> >>>> El 23 jun 2021, a las 18:16, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> escribió: >>>> >>>> Greetings Authors and *ADs, >>>> >>>> *ADs - Please respond to a) and b) below: >>>> >>>> a) Please review and approve of the changes from >>>> “ipsec-protocol-parameters” to “Ipsec-protocol-params” in Sections >>>> 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.3.1, and 5.3.3 in the diff file below. >>>> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-ad-diff.html >>>> >>>> b) Please confirm the following: >>>> >>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text >>>>>> does not exactly match what appears on >>>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. >>>>>> Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems >>>>>> intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct. >>>>>> —> >>>>> >>>>> [Authors] Yes, this is correct. >>>> >>>> Authors - Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files as >>>> requested. >>>> >>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf >>>> >>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-lastdiff.html (last version to >>>> this one) >>>> >>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further >>>> updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a >>>> document is published as an RFC. >>>> >>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status >>>> page above prior to moving this document forward in the publication >>>> process. >>>> >>>> >>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> RFC Editor/ap >>>> >>>>> On Jun 21, 2021, at 8:49 AM, Rafa Marín López <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Paloma: >>>>> >>>>> We have just found this errata in the updated reference >>>>> >>>>> [ITU-T.X.690] >>>>> >>>>> "Recommendation >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> International Telecommunication Untion, "Information >>>>> Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic >>>>> Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and >>>>> Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", >>>>> ITU-T X.690", August 2015. >>>>> Recommendation >>>>> X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1, February 2021. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards. >>>>> >>>>>> El 18 jun 2021, a las 18:01, Rafa Marin-Lopez <[email protected]> escribió: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Alanna: >>>>>> >>>>>> Please see my comments inline >>>>>> >>>>>>> El 16 jun 2021, a las 21:29, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> escribió: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Authors and *ADs, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *ADs - Please review and approve the changes from >>>>>>> “ipse-protocol-parameters” to >>>>>>> “Ipsec-protocol-params” in Sections 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.3.1, and 5.3.3 in >>>>>>> the diff file below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-ad-diff.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Additionally, please confirm the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text >>>>>>>>> does not exactly match what appears on >>>>>>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. >>>>>>>>> Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems >>>>>>>>> intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct. >>>>>>>>> —> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Authors] Yes, this is correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Authors - Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you very much for your effort. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have one additional question: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <!--[rfced] RFC 2247 is listed as a normative reference to the YANG >>>>>>> module >>>>>>> in Section 5.2.3, but it is not referenced in the module. May we remove >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it as a reference, or where should it be cited?--> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, please remove the reference. It is not used. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here: >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html (comprehensive >>>>>>> diff) >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 >>>>>>> changes) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 >>>>>> >>>>>> I have been checking this and I have a comment due to the new name of >>>>>> the document. >>>>>> >>>>>> The three YANG modules still have: >>>>>> >>>>>> reference >>>>>> "RFC >>>>>> XXXX: 9061: >>>>>> Software-Defined Networking >>>>>> (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection.”; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Shouldn’t they be ? >>>>>> >>>>>> reference >>>>>> "RFC >>>>>> XXXX: 9061: A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection Based on >>>>>> Software-Defined Networking (SDN)."; >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards and thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Gabriel Lopez <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Diego. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> El 14 jun 2021, a las 16:47, Diego R. Lopez >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> escribió: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It looks reasonable to me, but I wonder whether in order to avoid the >>>>>>>>> stacking of hyphenated qualifiers we could use: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection based on Software-Defined >>>>>>>>> Networking (SDN) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The title seems ok to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, Gabi. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Be goode, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dr Diego R. Lopez >>>>>>>>> Telefonica I+D >>>>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Mobile: +34 682 051 091 >>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 14/06/2021, 09:24, "I2nsf on behalf of Rafa Marin-Lopez" >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear I2NSF WG members: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have received a suggestion from the RFC editor about a possible >>>>>>>>> change in the title: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection —> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A YANG Data Model for Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec >>>>>>>>> Flow Protection >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We think this is reasonable and it is inline with the document. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you do not have any objection, we can apply this change. Any >>>>>>>>> thoughts? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Inicio del mensaje reenviado: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> De: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> Asunto: Re: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 >>>>>>>>>> <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE >>>>>>>>>> Fecha: 10 de junio de 2021, 22:58:29 CEST >>>>>>>>>> Para: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], >>>>>>>>>> [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Authors, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as >>>>>>>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] We note that most of the recently published RFCs >>>>>>>>>> containing >>>>>>>>>> YANG modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model for...", for >>>>>>>>>> example: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RFC 8022 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Management >>>>>>>>>> RFC 7407 - A YANG Data Model for SNMP Configuration >>>>>>>>>> RFC 7317 - A YANG Data Model for System Management >>>>>>>>>> RFC 7277 - A YANG Data Model for IP Management >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please consider whether the title of this document should be updated. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "while" to "whereas" here? >>>>>>>>>> This would make it clear that the intended meaning is a contrast >>>>>>>>>> rather than "at the same time". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the NSF will only have support for >>>>>>>>>> IPsec while key management functionality is moved to the I2NSF >>>>>>>>>> Controller. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] We see a number of author-inserted comments in the >>>>>>>>>> .xml >>>>>>>>>> file for this document. We are unsure if these have been resolved. >>>>>>>>>> Please review and let us know if these can be deleted or if they >>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>> to be addressed. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI: Note that the YANG modules have been updated >>>>>>>>>> per >>>>>>>>>> the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] In Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.3, should "rw enable?" >>>>>>>>>> and "leaf enable" be "rw enabled?" (as used in RFC 8340 ad most >>>>>>>>>> published RFCs) and "leaf enabled" (as used in most published RFCs)? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> rw enable? boolean >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> leaf enable { >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] RFC 2560 is referenced in the YANG module in Section >>>>>>>>>> 5.2.3 >>>>>>>>>> but is not mentioned anywhere else in the text. May we add it as a >>>>>>>>>> Normative Reference and to the introductory text in Section 5.2.3? >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] In tree diagram in Section 5.3.1, the two lines that >>>>>>>>>> include "ipsec-protocol-parameters" are one character too long to >>>>>>>>>> fit in the space allowed in the txt output file. Please let us know >>>>>>>>>> how to adjust this so that it will fit. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text >>>>>>>>>> does not exactly match what appears on >>>>>>>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. >>>>>>>>>> Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems >>>>>>>>>> intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] The following reference has been superseded >>>>>>>>>> by a 2021 version. Would you like for it to be updated? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> [ITU-T.X.690] >>>>>>>>>> "Recommendation ITU-T X.690", August 2015. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2021 version: >>>>>>>>>> [ITU-T.X.690] >>>>>>>>>> International Telecommunication Union, "Information >>>>>>>>>> technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic >>>>>>>>>> Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and >>>>>>>>>> Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation >>>>>>>>>> X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1, February 2021. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] Should "SaaS" be expanded as "Software as a Service" >>>>>>>>>> or "Storage as a Service"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> For example, SD-WAN technologies are providing >>>>>>>>>> dynamic and on-demand VPN connections between branch offices, or >>>>>>>>>> between branches and SaaS cloud services. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 11) <!-- [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. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap/jm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/21 3:55 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Updated 2021/06/10 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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 with one of the >>>>>>>>>> following, >>>>>>>>>> using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to >>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>> your changes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 s >>>>>>>>>> tating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY >>>>>>>>>> ALL’ >>>>>>>>>> as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your approval. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Files >>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The files are available here: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-xmldiff1.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own >>>>>>>>>> diff files of the XML. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.original.v2v3.xml >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format >>>>>>>>>> updates >>>>>>>>>> only: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.form.xml >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> RFC9061 (draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Title : Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec >>>>>>>>>> Flow Protection >>>>>>>>>> Author(s) : R. Marin-Lopez, G. Lopez-Millan, F. >>>>>>>>>> Pereniguez-Garcia >>>>>>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Linda Dunbar, Yoav Nir >>>>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Benjamin Kaduk >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD >>>>>>>>> Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) >>>>>>>>> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia >>>>>>>>> 30100 Murcia - Spain >>>>>>>>> Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su >>>>>>>>> destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial >>>>>>>>> y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es >>>>>>>>> usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, >>>>>>>>> utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar >>>>>>>>> prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este >>>>>>>>> mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por >>>>>>>>> esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The information contained in this transmission is privileged and >>>>>>>>> confidential information intended only for the use of the individual >>>>>>>>> or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the >>>>>>>>> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, >>>>>>>>> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >>>>>>>>> If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. >>>>>>>>> Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this >>>>>>>>> communication in error and then delete it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu >>>>>>>>> destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é >>>>>>>>> para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa >>>>>>>>> senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, >>>>>>>>> utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida >>>>>>>>> em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, >>>>>>>>> rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e >>>>>>>>> proceda a sua destruição >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> I2nsf mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> Gabriel López Millán >>>>>>>> Departamento de Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones >>>>>>>> University of Murcia >>>>>>>> Spain >>>>>>>> Tel: +34 868888504 >>>>>>>> Fax: +34 868884151 >>>>>>>> email: [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD >>>>>> Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) >>>>>> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia >>>>>> 30100 Murcia - Spain >>>>>> Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> I2nsf mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD >>>>> Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) >>>>> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia >>>>> 30100 Murcia - Spain >>>>> Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD >>> Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) >>> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia >>> 30100 Murcia - Spain >>> Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: [email protected] >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Fernando Pereñíguez García, PhD >>> Department of Engineering and Applied Technologies >>> University Defense Center, (CUD), Spanish Air Force Academy, MDE-UPCT >>> C/ Coronel Lopez Peña, s/n, 30720, San Javier, Murcia - SPAIN >>> Tel: +34 968 189 946 Fax: +34 968 189 970 >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > ------------------------------------------------------- Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia 30100 Murcia - Spain Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
