Hi
It is preferable to update RFC2119 to be more suitable for IETF RFCs
in the future, IMO importance of using CAPS is understood, but when to
use lower case (e.g. must, should, etc.) is not clear. Some use their
sensibility to determine when to use lower case. In the end we can
leave it for the
,
2006.
Best regards
Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
+++
+++
To: autoconf at ietf.org autoconf at ietf.org
Subject: [Autoconf] closing the working group?
From: Jari Arkko
Hi Vasseur,
I want to ask about the draft of ROLL terminology, when will it be
re-activated? because expired, and if it is completed should we make
it go forward, or is it better to wait for other drafts to come in,
not sure, please advise, thanking you,
Abdussalam Baryun,
University
consideration by chairs and memebrs, so
procedure consider their experience and that do not be blocked by
informal directions a group takes over.
Abdussalam Baryun
University of glamorgan, UK
+++
To: manet manet at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action
Hi
I agree with you, and would add we need the web and RFC so that we get
things right. However, to make quick progress in RFC is not to wait
for discussions to end, but to open a restricted period/window for
discussion which MUST end some date and make the changes/updates, then
take the final
differently please advise, thanking you :)
Best regards
Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK.
+
In discussions one may be wrong, or may be right, but it does not
matter if we work together as a group to progress and resolve all
issues. IETF
differently please advise, thanking you :)
Best regards
Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK.
+
In discussions one may be wrong, or may be right, but it does not
matter if we work together as a group to progress and resolve all
issues. IETF
Hi Martin,
I thank you for your help and comments, it will help me for future.
comments in line:
On 6/11/12, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
There is no substiantial difference between old discussions and recent
discussions. Referencing an argument from an earlier discussion rather
than
I suggest to have both webpage and RFC
AB
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Publishing the Tao of the IETF as a Web Page'
The abstract mentions 'many people', because many people may mean 4 to 10
people. The annonced I-D lacks the method of discussion in the community
(discussing such change), the draft mentions the input from any community
individual to be accepted by editor and then approved by IESG, but does not
Hi Barry,
I think from your message, you agree that discussion is important in
the decision of updates, which I share. I agree to not repeat any
unnecessary info, but if contradictions appear to procedure, it then
needs a reference or repeat.
The problem is that the I-D does not mention in the
It will be better to have both webpage and RFC
AB
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Publishing the Tao of the IETF as a Web Page'
IMO the important issue in any definition is to include how the IETF
defines protocol,
this may be find in some RFCs :)
The IP is the main protocol, and all protocols in IETF are based on IP
and Internet.
AB
On 5 Jan 2012, todd glassey tglassey at earthlink.net wrote
On 1/5/2012 6:48 AM,
for the community!!! That is why we are
discussing it in a IETF-list, not in a non-WG-list.
AB
On 6/17/12, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
The abstract mentions 'many people', because many people may mean 4 to 10
people. The annonced I-D lacks the method
my language or if I
misunderstood, please advise/comment :)
Regards
AB
+++
On 6/19/12, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Melinda, and All,
This is consistent with how individual, non-WG documents are
progressed in the IETF. I don't see
++
On 6/20/12, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
At 03:51 20-06-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I refere to the IETF process of: preparing the I-D by WG,
Community-accepting, Submitting, and IESG-approval. The new
Tao-update-process of the draft
Hi All
Discussing the draft draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02
Can you say what was not so clear? I absolutely want that bit to be clear.
Proposed text is appreciated here.
-Why the document/draft does not mention/reference other descriptive
related works?
-Why the document/draft obsoletes
I got help from a friend, to amend the definition statement to:
All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.
AB
Defining any protocol has to consider somehow it's networks
On 6/18/12, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
IMO the important issue in any
On 6/22/12, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.
RFC 826
read in first page
[The purpose of this RFC is to present a method of Converting
Protocol Addresses (e.g., IP addresses) to Local Network
Addresses (e.g., Ethernet
Hi All,
+
Previos subject: Protocol Definition
Change the subject so we can focus on the reality of IETF purpose
+
The thing is that the definition has been discussed on the list and
they were very good
:)
Regards,
Abdussalam Baryun,
University of Glamorgan, UK
+++
In discussions one may be wrong, or may be right, but it does not matter
if we work together as a team to progress and resolve all open issues.
IETF WGs are always right
Propose to include in the I-D draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt
an IETF-WG that is created in the IETF General Area to discuss Tao
document/webpage issues,
AB
===
Hi Tidd and All,
The General Area WGs focus on IETF processes and policies, I don't
think projects are done there,
So then would this WG also be an incubator for projects?
The IETF-WG I propose is only to do with IETF processes and policies
(procedures, and best practices), not incubator
Hi David,
I was not aware of this wiki and review team. does this team review
IETF procedure and policies, please advise,
AB
===
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
the Internet community to make the
definitions more suitable/accurate, because I MAY misunderstood.
Thanking you,
Best Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
=
+1
I agree to work with you, internet community and Mr.Matthew Lepinski,
to progress the process for nominations, and make it successful,
AB
==
If people work together as a team, best practices and success are reached
+1
I support all your suggestions (i.e. point 1 and 2, and nits i and ii
) , and hope that iesg, and editor agrees, and that the community
considers them for progress. I seen the change in the
draft-document-03 which I think getting better but still not satisfied
The new vesion 3 draft (dated 5
will
be in that direction.
AB
On 7/6/12, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Friday, July 06, 2012 07:16 +0200 Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
I support all your suggestions (i.e. point 1 and 2, and nits i
and ii ) , and hope that iesg, and editor agrees
, thanking you,
Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
+
and then to A.
---
There are many examples that ignore the use of IF , THEN requirements,
which I suggest to be in the I-D update of RFC2119 that I working on
and will submit in 30 July,
Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
==
Preferable with a list of RFC text
that includes new definition
may help the discussion, in the end the community will decide
AB
===
On 07/23/2012 12:08 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Stewart,
Usually the (IF x, THEN y) means if x happens then y is a MUST, so I
don't see the important reflection of a MUST in many
The draft-04 states in page-8:
---
5.1. Establishment of Link Layer Connectivity
The protocol aspects of this phase are out of scope, since it
involves non-IETF protocols only. While some
Dear All,
I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
thanking you.
Best Regards
Abdussalam
[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74048.html
[2]
This is a useless change to a very stable document. No one reading RFCs
misunderstands what if and else mean.
We don't change the RFC2119 (IETF RFCs never can be changed) its only
update, no one before ever misunderstood may and should either but
capital letters made difference. However, thanks
I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said. This document is pointless,
as there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding
that it's clarifying.
It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need.
Hi Melinda,
I am already involved, and volunteering work, I done many reviews and
comments in two WGs, and will hopfuly continue if people are
welcoming. However, I thank you for your comments,
AB
==
The mission of the Internet Engineering Task Force is to make the
Internet work better by
Yes but that's an editing issue. Go look at how process documentation
and state machines are handled in serious protocol RFCs. Some do use
if/then in a formal way, but some are just informative. The purpose
of 2119 is clarity of terminology.
That is good when they use, I seen thoes, but
Hi SM,
Thanks for your comments, I will note your feedback and follow to read
into these issues as you advise, thanking you,
Best Regards
AB
==
On 8/1/12, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 11:19 AM 8/1/2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Yes my concern is how/when use terms not meaning of terms
Hi Barry,
Could you refer to a RFC that states your below information or
procedure, if there is not, I recommend some one doing procedure
drafts to take it over. Please note that ALL reports from any
participant should be useful for IETF community and system. Even if
he/she misunderstood, this
+1
AB
On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:19 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation
of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found
here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf
An earlier version was
Hi Dave,
I agree that procedure of ietf processes should be respected and
followed by all, and/or community should understand such difference in
process before asked its opinion. I hope your comments will be
considered by IETF and IAB in the future.
thanking you for your comments,
AB
Hi John,
Does this document actually have a purpose, and if so, what is it?
IMO the document introduces important statements (purpose and objectives)
so that other organisations and SDOs recognise while interacting with IETF.
It may look simple or known, but necessary for IETF future
for MPLS-TP.
** **
Thanks,
** **
John
** **
Sent from my iPhone
** **
*From:* Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambar...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:29 AM
*To:* John E Drake
*Cc:* ietf
*Subject:* Re: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards
Reply to your request dated 29/08/2012
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:22/08/2012
Reviewer Comment AB2: Related to OLSRv2 Packets.
-The reviewer is not sure how/when the OLSRv2 generates packets
[RFC5444] or how it puts information
Reply to your request dated 29/07/2012
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated:
22/08/2012
Reviewer Comment AB1: Terminology and Definition Related
In [1] the olsrv2-interface runs the NHDP, and some terms in [1] are
defined
Reply to your request dated 29/07/2012
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:22/08/2012
Reviewer Comment AB3: Related to OLSRv2 Metric
++
OLSRv2-draft Note that the generation of (incoming) link metric
values is to be undertaken by a process
Reply to your request dated 29/07/2012
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 22/08/2012
Reviewer Comment AB4: Related to OLSRv2 Messages.
Section 13.2. Messages with different originating routers MAY be
combined for transmission within
Reply to your request dated 29/07/2012
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 22/08/2012
Reviewer Comment AB5: Related to OLSRv2 update to IP Routing Table.
+
Section 4.6 It is intended that the Routing Set can be used for IP
Reply to your request dated 29/07/2012
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 22/08/2012
Reviewer Comment AB6: Related to OLSRv2 Interfaces.
-Is NHDP a must for OLSRv2 routing?
Comment The relationship between RFC6130 and the [OLSRv2
to share any/all comments they
received to any/all author(s), I will have no objection.
Thanking you,
Best Regards
Abdussalam Baryun (AB)
University of Glamorgan, UK
++
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
Thank you for your
Hi All,
For any IETF WG discussion, we recommend reasons/references and equal
recognistion for progress.
For any IETF WG evaluation/review, we recommend two way discussions for
progress.
For any IETF WG decision, we recommend evaluation and then need rough
consensus for progress.
For any IESG
they use
their variable-available-volunteering time to do reading/work within
each 28 days.
Regards
AB
---
On 8/28/12, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:17 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Reading through some IETF WGs minutes
Reply to your request dated 30/08/2012
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 31/08/2012
Reviewer Comment AB1: Editorial.
Overall the reviewer felt that this Informational I-D is difficult to
read/understand. Requirement level
On 9/6/12, NomCom Chair nomcom-ch...@ietf.org wrote:
However, we also need the community's views and input on the jobs
within each organization. If you have ideas on job responsibilities
(more, less, different), please let us know. Please send suggestions
and feedback to nomco...@ietf.org.
Hi Russ,
I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would prefer
groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to know the
reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It is important
that individuals get to make input to new standards not only companies.
Hi Dave,
Independent Stream authors well might not be part of the IETF -- always
a strange line of thinking, given that the IETF doesn't have members -- but
that doesn't mean that the Stream itself is outside the IETF.
Any I-D author MUST be part of IETF otherwise what is IETF then, how do we
,
At 08:50 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would prefer
groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to know the
reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It is important
that individuals get to make
, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard track
document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or not consider?
The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent.
There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting
.
If I am mistaken please advise, because I need to discuss to
understand, so we can help together make IETF better for the world
users.
Best Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
The mission of the Internet Engineering Task Force is to make the
Internet work better by producing high-quality
reviews, first
because the authors will have to discuss through many things with the
focused/expert IETF group, then secondly the IESG have a more general
review which includes many other affects of the I-D with other WGs in
IETF. Yes painful but healthy.
Best Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
for their positions, otherwise his/her disagreement has no
engineering value.
3) Any participant (submitter or who disagrees with adoption) SHOULD
have an engineering reference(s) for such input otherwise the Chair
MAY not accept his input in the meeting.
Best Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
Dated: 26/09/2012 By: Abdussalam
Baryun (AB)
This is a reply to below request call.
Reviewer Related Comment: The General Area Individual input
Overall the reviewer disagrees to accept the document only after
I support the reminder, however, would like to add considerations,
suggestions and my questions.
-
I see that it only includes information related to antitrust
The *reminder-document* should
...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
There is a direct contribution of US $2.2 million by the Internet
Society next year. Is the plan to rely on Internet Society subsidies
or to fix the deficit? One argument made was that the fees have not
been increased
Amending one line
On 11/11/12, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
The important question is how many users of the Internet now are
spreed in the world, and should the IETF consider making attending
easier to users than to old participants? Is n't three meeting events
Hi Barry,
I thank you to open this discussion. I tried to open this discussion before
on the list but was ignored, however, seeing your input made me think that
there is importance to the subject. IMO I prefer the discussion list,
because we all integrate and we all are present in its domain. In
It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG,
the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences,
etc.
It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow
the
discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76001.html
Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
I think we follow the IETF RFCs or our community amend/change the procedure
related RFCs to be practical. We may need historical RFCs to understand why
such change (the
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your work, please provide us with feedback while the process of
editing. I was thinking to do something in the future, but thanks that you
will do it.
AB
Folks, There is now an Internet Draft, based on Adrian's's slides, intended
to document common practice in the adoption
Hi Keith,
I hope that participant that travel to the f2f meeting and attend sessions,
do participate while they are there on the discussion lists of IETF WGs,
yes they attend and discuss which is reflected in the minutes report
document, but still there are some time they spend away from their
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
But there's no formal process for that, and I think
that's how we want it to be.
I don't want no formal in a formal organisation, usually unformal process
only happen in unformal organisations, so is IETF
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
My question is when do we ask community (from participant level, or
from managerial level) and when we produce an RFC (which purpose)?
I think the answer to this question should be through a
procedure
] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: 04 December 2012 13:33
To: d...@dcrocker.net
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your work, please provide us with feedback while the process of
editing. I was thinking to do something in the future, but thanks
Hi Stephen,
I think it is great idea, I hope it does not die, we need fast-tracks,
without delays, however, giving a fixed time limit for WG feedback and
WG discussion is important (suggested 6 months), because discussions
about running code should not be ignored. The draft seems to not give
Happy new year to you and anniversary to IETF, thanks,
It is interesting to see the transition plan, but do we have a future
plan in an ID, not sure, I think the IETF future plans are noted the
IETF reports of meetings not in an ID discussed (which can be historic
after done).
AB
On 12/31/12,
Hi Dean
I agree with you which I suggested before an update to the RFC [*], I
actually writing a work in progress ID, you may give me your
suggestion if you like. I recommend you use for your work IF, THEN
rather than MUST. Easier to read.
*
I guess the test is whether a reasonably
careful reader might interpret a sentence incorrectly while writing code;
and if so, would a normative keyword help?
I think the best key word used/help is *IF, THEN, ELSE* the programmer
will never miss that key for running code and specification.
AB
formalization of the description language, and I like the English
prose. But it raises process questions for the IETF as a whole:
Are we deliberately evolving our language to use RFC 2119 terms as the
principle verbs of a formal specification language?
Is it *our language* or our
Hi Mahmoud,
The LEACH is not a protocol worked on so far in IETF, not sure if it
standard yet elsewhere!
AB
-
Hello everybody,
I am a researcher of Master's degree , working on LEACH routing
protocol for wireless sensor networks and i need to know for which
standard does LEACH , its family
surveys this matter as you and Scott suggested.
Thanking you
Abdussalam Baryun
+++
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:24:50 -0500
From: Hector Santos hsantos at isdg.net
To: Scott Brim swb at internet2.edu
Sub:Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
We have implemented numerous
IMO, too many specs seriously overuse/misuse 2119 language, to the
detriment of readability, common sense, and reserving the terms to
bring attention to those cases where it really is important to
highlight an important point that may not be obvious to a casual
reader/implementor.
also to
(was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again)
Where you want to use MUST is where an implementation might be tempted
to take a short cut -- to the detriment of the Internet -- but could
do so without actually breaking interoperability. A good example is
with retransmissions and
We can fix that, by discussing it further, or as Scott mentioned make
a survey within IETF [*]
[*] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76582.html
AB
On 1/5/13, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
(was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again)
Where you
I totally agree with you,
AB
+++
As an operator, I purchase equipment and need to write RFQs. I would
like to able to ask more than does the product implement RFC
whatever, I want to also ask Please document all instances where
you did not follow all MUST and SHOULD, and why.
Otherwise I think
===
On 1/5/13, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
I totally agree with you,
AB
+++
As an operator, I purchase equipment and need to write RFQs. I would
like to able to ask more than does the product implement RFC
whatever, I want to also ask Please document all instances
Hi Marc Petit-Huguenin ,
I read the responses so far, and what can be said today is that there is 2
philosophies, with supporters in both camps. The goal of the IETF is to make
the Internet work better, and I do believe that RFC 2119 is one of the
fundamental tool to reach this goal, but having
Yes, you've brought that to our attention several times. If you wanted this
spec to align with your software, it would have been much easier if you'd got
involved before Last Call.
Why is it called Last Call if we don't accept any new input (e.g.,
draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07) . Why do we
heard (i.e. but just in case not
seen, send your comments again to iesg address) :-)
AB
On 1/6/13, Robert Sayre say...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, you've brought that to our attention several times. If you wanted
are valid that RFC 2119 should be followed,
they are also irrelevant.
Given that any natural language description is going to be ambiguous,
this is probably for the best.
Take care,
John Day
At 9:41 AM +0100 1/6/13, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Marc Petit-Huguenin ,
I read the responses so far
but the question of
error in process is; does the RFC lack communication requirement with
the community?
Sorry if not clear. I mean that as some participant are requesting a
scientific approach to struggling with 2119 (i.e. thread-subject),
does that mean in some RFCs the use or not use (i.e.
Why not participant follow one approach to use 2119 in IDs and done,
and if not/another, then please specify in the language section.
AB
This is what I have been talking about. The human mind's ability to believe
that the whole world sees everything the same way they do. It really is quite
amazing.
These so-called gaps often arise because they were unstated assumptions or
things that the author believed were patently obvious
might preference would be just to pick one, and
provide a stick for hitting those who do it the other way.
I think that IESG is already using that stick :)
AB
On 1/9/13, Dean Willis dean.wil...@softarmor.com wrote:
On Jan 8, 2013, at 12:57 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
Hi SM,
I totally agree with your comments and suggestions, the draft SHOULD
mention the important clarifications and the answers to SM's
questions. This is an important draft and SHUOLD be clear about such
important details in sections, why it ignores them without refering to
informative
Hi Moonesamy,
I also think similar with Carpenter, why reclassify to historic.
rfc2050 is still valid, and why limiting the ietf?
AB
Hi Moonesamy,
I like the draft, and suggest that you add that the WG chair SHOULD
contribute to the WG list. Also that any question in the list SHOULD
be answered by the responsible (e.g. author of the ID discussed).
However, I have many suggestions to make the ID valuable. Thanks for
the input
agree with Servin, to update 2050,
AB
+++
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:22:21, Arturo Servin wrote:
I agree that RFC2050 is not completely valid with the current state of
the Internet, but making it historic will not solve any problem IMHO.
Before making 2050 historic, we should think what is and
Hi John,
I suggest that, despite stumbling into it,
trying to do biblical-quality exegesis on the specific text and
wording of most RFCs is also a rat hole (or perhaps just a
different edge of the same one).
We have to be reasonable in IETF. I don't understand your reason, do
you mean 2050
Hi Marc Petit-Huguenin,
I agree that we need to be able to make complex protocol's readable in IETF,
That is why I am doing an update ID for the RFC2119, I know many don't
think it is a right thing to do, but I think maybe in future while
making new versions of the update draft I will get to
I don't think there is a general level of simple or complex protocol,
it always will depends on a point of view a machine,
AB
On 1/15/13, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/15/2013 04:54 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Marc
1 - 100 of 281 matches
Mail list logo
