Hi Alana,
I noticed in Section 3, the module description has the following duplicate
message:
"
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9902
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9902); see the RFC itself
for full legal notices.
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9902;
see the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
"
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 9:56 AM Alanna Paloma <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi Acee and Gunter (AD)*,
>
> *Gunter - As the AD, please review and approve of the following updates:
> - Section 1: removed text
> - Section 3 (within the YANG module): removed text
> - Section 6.1: removed the normative reference entry for RFC 8342
>
> See this diff file:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-auth48diff.html
>
>
> Acee - Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly.
>
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.xml
>
> The relevant diff files are posted here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48
> changes)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff
> between last version and this)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff
> between last version and this)
>
> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902
>
> We will await any further changes you may have as well as approvals from
> each author and *Gunter (AD) prior to moving this document forward in the
> publication process.
>
> Thank you,
> Alanna Paloma
> RFC Production Center
>
> > On Dec 1, 2025, at 3:55 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alana,
> > I've attached my editorial comments including removal of the reference
> to RFC 8342.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> > <rfc9902.orig.diff.html>
> >
> >> On Nov 29, 2025, at 3:51 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Alana,
> >>
> >> I just have a couple editorial comments. See attached diff.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Acee
> >> <rfc9902.orig.diff.html>
> >>
> >>> On Nov 25, 2025, at 3:51 PM, Alanna Paloma <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for your replies. Gunter’s approval has bee noted on the
> AUTH48 status page:
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902
> >>>
> >>> We have also updated the files with the additional requested changes.
> >>>
> >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.txt
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.pdf
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.html
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.xml
> >>>
> >>> The relevant diff files are posted here:
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-diff.html (comprehensive
> diff)
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-auth48diff.html (all
> AUTH48 changes)
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff
> diff between last version and this)
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff
> between last version and this)
> >>>
> >>> We will await any further changes you may have as well as approvals
> from each author prior to moving this document forward in the publication
> process.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> Alanna Paloma
> >>> RFC Production Center
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 25, 2025, at 8:48 AM, Helen Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello RFCEditor,
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, please update my (Ing-Wher Chen) email address and affiliation
> if possible. Along with the affiliation change, please also remove the
> last paragraph in the “Acknowledgments” section. That paragraph currently
> states "Author affiliation with The MITRE Corporation…”.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Helen
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Nov 25, 2025, at 9:10 AM, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Inline: GV>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]>
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 8:19 PM
> >>>>> To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]>;
> Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> <
> [email protected]>; Acee Lindem <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <
> [email protected]>
> >>>>> Cc: Editor RFC <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; auth48archive <
> [email protected]>
> >>>>> Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9902
> <draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-31> for your review
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when
> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for
> additional information.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Authors and Gunter (AD)*,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Gunter - As the AD please review and approve of the following
> changes:
> >>>>> - Section 2: deleted sentence of repetitive text
> >>>>>
> >>>>> GV> Approved
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Section 6.1: added reference entry to RFC 8402 in the Normative
> References section
> >>>>>
> >>>>> GV> Approved
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Additionally, we asked the authors about the Security Considerations
> text, as it does not exactly match what appears in Section 3.7 of
> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28. Please review Section 4 and confirm that
> the missing sentence and added paragraphs are acceptable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have made some updates to the Security
> >>>>>> Considerations to match Section 3.7 of
> >>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28. Please let us know if any further
> updates are needed. We note some differences, specifically:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> a) Should this sentence from the template be added? "There are no
> particularly sensitive RPC or action operations."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: this should not be added as we have listed some
> sensitive writable nodes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> GV> Approved. There is a clause in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28
> that approves this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> b) These paragraphs do not appear in the template. Please confirm
> they should remain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> The ability to disable or enable IS-IS Segment Routing support
> and/or
> >>>>>> change Segment Routing configurations can result in a Denial-of-
> >>>>>> Service (DoS) attack, as this may cause traffic to be dropped or
> >>>>>> misrouted. Please refer to Section 5 of [RFC8667] for more
> >>>>>> information on Segment Routing extensions.
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> Unauthorized access to any data node of these subtrees can disclose
> >>>>>> the operational state information of IS-IS protocol on a device.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: yes, they should remain.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> GV> Approved. The claim is valid and accurate
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See this diff file:
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-auth48diff.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> GV> Many thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> G/
> >>>>> RTG AD
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Authors - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files
> accordingly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ) We note that Yingzhen has added Helen’s new email address to this
> thread. Should her email address and affiliation be updated in the document?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.txt
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.pdf
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.html
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.xml
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here:
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-diff.html (comprehensive
> diff)
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-auth48diff.html (all
> AUTH48 changes)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once
> published as RFCs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from
> each author and *Gunter (AD) prior to moving forward in the publication
> process.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>> Alanna Paloma
> >>>>> RFC Production Center
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 21, 2025, at 4:28 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for working on this document. Please see my answers below
> inline.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Yingzhen
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 10:57 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Authors,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
> appear
> >>>>>> in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: I don't think we need more than what's in the title.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] We note that BCP 14 key words are not used in this
> document.
> >>>>>> Therefore, we have removed the keywords paragraph in Section 1.1
> and
> >>>>>> in the YANG module. We have also removed the references to RFCs
> 2119 and 8174.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: ok.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] This text in Section 2 reflects text in Section 1.
> As
> >>>>>> it is repeating information, may we remove this text from Section 2?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original (Section 1):
> >>>>>> This document defines a device YANG data model [RFC7950] that can be
> >>>>>> used to manage IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8667] over
> >>>>>> the MPLS data plane. It is an augmentation to the IS-IS YANG data
> >>>>>> model [RFC9130].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original (Section 2):
> >>>>>> This document defines a YANG data model for IS-IS Extensions for
> >>>>>> Segment Routing over the MPLS data plane. It is an augmentation of
> >>>>>> the IS-IS base model.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [ Yingzhen]: I'm ok with the suggested removal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] RFC 8402 is only cited in the YANG module. May we
> add a
> >>>>>> citation to RFC 8402 to the this sentence preceding the YANG module
> as
> >>>>>> well as add a reference in the Normative References section?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> [RFC6991], [RFC8102], [RFC8294], [RFC8349], [RFC8667], [RFC9020],
> >>>>>> [RFC9130], and [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] are
> referenced
> >>>>>> in the YANG module.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>> [RFC6991], [RFC8102], [RFC8294], [RFC8349], [RFC8402], [RFC8667],
> >>>>>> [RFC9020], [RFC9130], and [RFC9855] are referenced
> >>>>>> in the YANG module.
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
> >>>>>> Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
> >>>>>> Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
> >>>>>> July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: Yes, please.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] These two sentences in the description clauses of
> the
> >>>>>> YANG module are phrased similarly. Should they be rephrased to
> match?
> >>>>>> If yes, should "IP" appear before "FRR" or before "interface"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> This augments ISIS interface level-1 IP FRR with TILFA.
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> This augments ISIS IP interface level-2 FRR with TILFA.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: It should be "This augments ISIS interface level-1 IP
> FRR with TILFA." and "This augments ISIS interface level-2 IP FRR with
> TILFA." .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] We have updated this description text in the YANG
> >>>>>> module for clarity. Please review and confirm that the intended
> >>>>>> meaning has not been altered.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> A path providing node a disjoint path for SRLG
> >>>>>> links from the primary path will be selected over
> >>>>>> one that doesn't provide an SRLG disjoint path.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Current:
> >>>>>> A path providing a node with a disjoint path for SRLG
> >>>>>> links from the primary path will be selected over
> >>>>>> a path that doesn't provide an SRLG disjoint path.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: The suggested change is fine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have made some updates to the Security
> >>>>>> Considerations to match Section 3.7 of
> >>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28. Please let us know if any further
> updates are needed. We note some differences, specifically:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> a) Should this sentence from the template be added? "There are no
> particularly sensitive RPC or action operations."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: this should not be added as we have listed some
> sensitive writable nodes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> b) These paragraphs do not appear in the template. Please confirm
> they should remain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> The ability to disable or enable IS-IS Segment Routing support
> and/or
> >>>>>> change Segment Routing configurations can result in a Denial-of-
> >>>>>> Service (DoS) attack, as this may cause traffic to be dropped or
> >>>>>> misrouted. Please refer to Section 5 of [RFC8667] for more
> >>>>>> information on Segment Routing extensions.
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> Unauthorized access to any data node of these subtrees can disclose
> >>>>>> the operational state information of IS-IS protocol on a device.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: yes, they should remain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] Both the expansion and the acronym for the following
> >>>>>> terms are used throughout the document. Would you like to update to
> >>>>>> using the expansion upon first usage and the acronym for the rest
> of the document?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Adjacency Segment Identifier, adjacency SID, adjacency Segment ID
> >>>>>> (Adj-SID) Link State Database (LSDB) Remote LFA (RLFA) Segment
> >>>>>> Routing (SR)
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: We should use the acronym after the first use.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of
> the
> >>>>>> online Style Guide
> >>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
> >>>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature
> >>>>>> typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for
> readers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
> >>>>>> should still be reviewed as a best practice.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alanna Paloma and Alice Russo
> >>>>>> RFC Production Center
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 21, 2025, at 10:56 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Updated 2025/11/21
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RFC Author(s):
> >>>>>> --------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed
> and
> >>>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
> >>>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
> >>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
> >>>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
> >>>>>> your approval.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Planning your review
> >>>>>> ---------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * RFC Editor questions
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
> >>>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
> >>>>>> follows:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Changes submitted by coauthors
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
> >>>>>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
> >>>>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Content
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
> >>>>>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention
> to:
> >>>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
> >>>>>> - contact information
> >>>>>> - references
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Copyright notices and legends
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
> >>>>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
> >>>>>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Semantic markup
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
> >>>>>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
> >>>>>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
> >>>>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Formatted output
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
> >>>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
> >>>>>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
> >>>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Submitting changes
> >>>>>> ------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as
> all
> >>>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The
> parties
> >>>>>> include:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * your coauthors
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * [email protected] (the RPC team)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
> >>>>>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
> >>>>>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing
> list
> >>>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
> >>>>>> list:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * More info:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxI
> >>>>>> Ae6P8O4Zc
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * The archive itself:
> >>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
> >>>>>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive
> matter).
> >>>>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
> >>>>>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
> >>>>>> [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and
> >>>>>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> An update to the provided XML file
> >>>>>> — OR —
> >>>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OLD:
> >>>>>> old text
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> NEW:
> >>>>>> new text
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
> explicit
> >>>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that
> >>>>>> seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text,
> deletion
> >>>>>> of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers
> can
> >>>>>> be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval
> from a stream manager.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Approving for publication
> >>>>>> --------------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email
> >>>>>> stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use
> ‘REPLY
> >>>>>> ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your
> approval.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Files
> >>>>>> -----
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The files are available here:
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.xml
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.html
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.pdf
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.txt
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Diff file of the text:
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-diff.html
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-rfcdiff.html (side by
> >>>>>> side)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Diff of the XML:
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-xmldiff1.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tracking progress
> >>>>>> -----------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RFC Editor
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>>>> RFC9902 (draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-31)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Title : A YANG Data Model for IS-IS Segment Routing over
> the MPLS Data Plane
> >>>>>> Author(s) : S. Litkowski, Y. Qu, A. Lindem, I. Chen, J.
> Tantsura
> >>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps, Yingzhen Qu
> >>>>>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de
> Velde
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
