Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

[Martin Vigoureux]

WG,

we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response 
to our initial proposal.
After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as 
a way forward:


At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for 
knowledge of existing implementations, and the more details provided at 
that time, the better.
In the situation where an implementation would exist we would proceed 
with submission to IESG.
In the opposite situation (no implementation exists), we would 
systematically ask the WG for reasoned opinions regarding whether we 
should nevertheless proceed with submission to IESG.
We will gauge consensus on that aspect. In case consensus is in favour 
of proceeding with submission to IESG we will do so. In the opposite 
case, we will put the document in a "Waiting for implementation" state 
until information on an existing implementation is brought to our 
knowledge or of the WG.


Please share your views on that.

Thank you

M&T


Le 24/11/2015 10:03, Thomas Morin a écrit :

Hello everyone,

Following the positive feedback received during BESS meeting in Yokohama
about introducing a one-implementation requirement in BESS, we propose
to do the following for future WG last calls:

As a prerequisite before doing a working group last call on a document,
the chairs will ask the working group for known implementations of the
specifications; a relatively detailed level of information will be
required (e.g. "release x.y of solution z shipping date d", "all
features implemented", "partial implementation only", etc.) and everyone
will be invited to reply (not only co-authors of the specifications);
the chairs will then do the working group last call if satisfying
information was provided on at least one implementation.

We are open for comments on this proposal until December 7th.

Martin & Thomas

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess




___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with DISCUSS)

[Alvaro Retana (aretana)]

Alia:

Hi!

Xiaohu posted an update which I think should address your concerns.  Please 
take a look.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On 12/2/15, 11:13 PM, "Alia Atlas" 
mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote:


That works for me.

Thanks,
Alia

On Dec 2, 2015 11:08 PM, "Xuxiaohu" 
mailto:xuxia...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Alia,

> -Original Message-
> From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 11:07 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: 
> draft-ietf-bess-virtual-sub...@ietf.org;
>  aret...@cisco.com;
> bess-cha...@ietf.org; 
> martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com;
>  bess@ietf.org
> Subject: Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with 
> DISCUSS)
>
> Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet/
>
>
>
> --
> DISCUSS:
> --
>
> Thank you for a clear and well-written document.  I have one point that is
> peripheral to most of the draft.
>
> In Section 4.3, it says:
>
>  " In addition, for any other
>applications that generate intra-subnet traffic with TTL set to 1,
>these applications may not work properly in the Virtual Subnet
>context, unless special TTL processing for such context has been
>implemented (e.g., if the source and destination addresses of a
>packet whose TTL is set to 1 belong to the same extended subnet,
>neither ingress nor egress PE routers should decrement the TTL of
>such packet.  Furthermore, the TTL of such packet should not be
>copied into the TTL of the transport tunnel and vice versa)."
>
> The idea of not decrementing TTL is quite concerning.  I can conjecture cases
> where there is a routing loop between the relevant PEs - during reconvergence
> when a host moves from one datacenter to another is a trivial case.
>
> One approach may be to ask why a packet would have a TTL of 1 and determine
> if this case must be resolved.  Another might detecting a loop back to an
> out-of-datacenter PE and dropping the packet.  I'm sure you can develop other
> good ideas and solutions.

How about doing the following text change:

" In addition, for any other
applications that generate intra-subnet traffic with TTL set to 1,
these applications may not work properly in the Virtual Subnet
context, unless special TTL processing and loop-prevention mechanisms for 
such context have been
implemented. Details about such special TTL processing and loop-prevention 
mechanisms are outside the scope of this document."

Best regards,
Xiaohu

>
>

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana (aretana)]

Stephen:

Hi!

Xiaohu posted an update that we hope addresses your concerns.  Pelase take
a look.


Thanks!

Alvaro.


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell]

Hi,

Can someone say why the mention of MACsec wasn't included?
As I understand it, MACsec is what's mostly usable for
inter-DC security so omitting it seems like a bad idea (or
perhaps I'm misinformed)

Thanks,
S.

On 14/12/15 13:34, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> Stephen:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Xiaohu posted an update that we hope addresses your concerns.  Pelase take
> a look.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> 

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-07: (with COMMENT)

[Alia Atlas]

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet/



--
COMMENT:
--

Thanks for addressing my concerns on ttl handling and loop.


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

[Andrew G. Malis]

Martin,

That sounds reasonable to me.

Cheers,
Andy

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Martin Vigoureux <
martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

> WG,
>
> we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to
> our initial proposal.
> After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as a
> way forward:
>
> At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for
> knowledge of existing implementations, and the more details provided at
> that time, the better.
> In the situation where an implementation would exist we would proceed with
> submission to IESG.
> In the opposite situation (no implementation exists), we would
> systematically ask the WG for reasoned opinions regarding whether we should
> nevertheless proceed with submission to IESG.
> We will gauge consensus on that aspect. In case consensus is in favour of
> proceeding with submission to IESG we will do so. In the opposite case, we
> will put the document in a "Waiting for implementation" state until
> information on an existing implementation is brought to our knowledge or of
> the WG.
>
> Please share your views on that.
>
> Thank you
>
> M&T
>
>
>
> Le 24/11/2015 10:03, Thomas Morin a écrit :
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Following the positive feedback received during BESS meeting in Yokohama
>> about introducing a one-implementation requirement in BESS, we propose
>> to do the following for future WG last calls:
>>
>> As a prerequisite before doing a working group last call on a document,
>> the chairs will ask the working group for known implementations of the
>> specifications; a relatively detailed level of information will be
>> required (e.g. "release x.y of solution z shipping date d", "all
>> features implemented", "partial implementation only", etc.) and everyone
>> will be invited to reply (not only co-authors of the specifications);
>> the chairs will then do the working group last call if satisfying
>> information was provided on at least one implementation.
>>
>> We are open for comments on this proposal until December 7th.
>>
>> Martin & Thomas
>>
>> ___
>> BESS mailing list
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

[Henderickx, Wim (Wim)]

Martin, for me this seems a reasonable way forward




On 14/12/15 10:28, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"  wrote:

>WG,
>
>we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response 
>to our initial proposal.
>After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as 
>a way forward:
>
>At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for 
>knowledge of existing implementations, and the more details provided at 
>that time, the better.
>In the situation where an implementation would exist we would proceed 
>with submission to IESG.
>In the opposite situation (no implementation exists), we would 
>systematically ask the WG for reasoned opinions regarding whether we 
>should nevertheless proceed with submission to IESG.
>We will gauge consensus on that aspect. In case consensus is in favour 
>of proceeding with submission to IESG we will do so. In the opposite 
>case, we will put the document in a "Waiting for implementation" state 
>until information on an existing implementation is brought to our 
>knowledge or of the WG.
>
>Please share your views on that.
>
>Thank you
>
>M&T
>
>
>Le 24/11/2015 10:03, Thomas Morin a écrit :
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Following the positive feedback received during BESS meeting in Yokohama
>> about introducing a one-implementation requirement in BESS, we propose
>> to do the following for future WG last calls:
>>
>> As a prerequisite before doing a working group last call on a document,
>> the chairs will ask the working group for known implementations of the
>> specifications; a relatively detailed level of information will be
>> required (e.g. "release x.y of solution z shipping date d", "all
>> features implemented", "partial implementation only", etc.) and everyone
>> will be invited to reply (not only co-authors of the specifications);
>> the chairs will then do the working group last call if satisfying
>> information was provided on at least one implementation.
>>
>> We are open for comments on this proposal until December 7th.
>>
>> Martin & Thomas
>>
>> ___
>> BESS mailing list
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
>>
>
>___
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

[Jeff Tantsura]

Martin,

Sounds like solid and reasonable approach!

Regards,
Jeff

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Martin Vigoureux 
>  wrote:
> 
> WG,
> 
> we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to our 
> initial proposal.
> After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as a 
> way forward:
> 
> At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for 
> knowledge of existing implementations, and the more details provided at that 
> time, the better.
> In the situation where an implementation would exist we would proceed with 
> submission to IESG.
> In the opposite situation (no implementation exists), we would systematically 
> ask the WG for reasoned opinions regarding whether we should nevertheless 
> proceed with submission to IESG.
> We will gauge consensus on that aspect. In case consensus is in favour of 
> proceeding with submission to IESG we will do so. In the opposite case, we 
> will put the document in a "Waiting for implementation" state until 
> information on an existing implementation is brought to our knowledge or of 
> the WG.
> 
> Please share your views on that.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> M&T
> 
> 
> Le 24/11/2015 10:03, Thomas Morin a écrit :
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> Following the positive feedback received during BESS meeting in Yokohama
>> about introducing a one-implementation requirement in BESS, we propose
>> to do the following for future WG last calls:
>> 
>> As a prerequisite before doing a working group last call on a document,
>> the chairs will ask the working group for known implementations of the
>> specifications; a relatively detailed level of information will be
>> required (e.g. "release x.y of solution z shipping date d", "all
>> features implemented", "partial implementation only", etc.) and everyone
>> will be invited to reply (not only co-authors of the specifications);
>> the chairs will then do the working group last call if satisfying
>> information was provided on at least one implementation.
>> 
>> We are open for comments on this proposal until December 7th.
>> 
>> Martin & Thomas
>> 
>> ___
>> BESS mailing list
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> 
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

[Antoni Przygienda]

If that's what can be agreed on, I'm for it ... That puts at least something in 
terms of reality check between things being paper and going into STD tracks ... 
 

thanks 

--- tony
_
"Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex and intelligent 
behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple and stupid 
behavior." 
--- Dee Hock 


> -Original Message-
> From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:29 AM
> To: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before
> WG last calls
> 
> WG,
> 
> we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to
> our initial proposal.
> After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as a way
> forward:
> 
> At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for
> knowledge of existing implementations, and the more details provided at
> that time, the better.
> In the situation where an implementation would exist we would proceed
> with submission to IESG.
> In the opposite situation (no implementation exists), we would systematically
> ask the WG for reasoned opinions regarding whether we should nevertheless
> proceed with submission to IESG.
> We will gauge consensus on that aspect. In case consensus is in favour of
> proceeding with submission to IESG we will do so. In the opposite case, we
> will put the document in a "Waiting for implementation" state until
> information on an existing implementation is brought to our knowledge or of
> the WG.
> 
> Please share your views on that.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> M&T
> 
> 
> Le 24/11/2015 10:03, Thomas Morin a écrit :
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Following the positive feedback received during BESS meeting in
> > Yokohama about introducing a one-implementation requirement in BESS,
> > we propose to do the following for future WG last calls:
> >
> > As a prerequisite before doing a working group last call on a
> > document, the chairs will ask the working group for known
> > implementations of the specifications; a relatively detailed level of
> > information will be required (e.g. "release x.y of solution z shipping
> > date d", "all features implemented", "partial implementation only",
> > etc.) and everyone will be invited to reply (not only co-authors of
> > the specifications); the chairs will then do the working group last
> > call if satisfying information was provided on at least one implementation.
> >
> > We are open for comments on this proposal until December 7th.
> >
> > Martin & Thomas
> >
> > ___
> > BESS mailing list
> > BESS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >
> >
> 
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

[Eric Rosen]

My opinion is unchanged; there is no need to impose any implementation 
requirement, nor is there any need to add more process hurdles that 
further slow down the progress of a document towards publication.  
Certainly there is no need to gather details about implementations, 
vendor releases, etc.  The process is already slow enough and has enough 
useless overhead.


If folks object to the progression of a document, they are already free 
to make those objections during last call.




On 12/14/2015 4:28 AM, Martin Vigoureux wrote:

WG,

we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response 
to our initial proposal.
After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following 
as a way forward:


At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for 
knowledge of existing implementations, and the more details provided 
at that time, the better.
In the situation where an implementation would exist we would proceed 
with submission to IESG.
In the opposite situation (no implementation exists), we would 
systematically ask the WG for reasoned opinions regarding whether we 
should nevertheless proceed with submission to IESG.
We will gauge consensus on that aspect. In case consensus is in favour 
of proceeding with submission to IESG we will do so. In the opposite 
case, we will put the document in a "Waiting for implementation" state 
until information on an existing implementation is brought to our 
knowledge or of the WG.


Please share your views on that.

Thank you

M&T


Le 24/11/2015 10:03, Thomas Morin a écrit :

Hello everyone,

Following the positive feedback received during BESS meeting in Yokohama
about introducing a one-implementation requirement in BESS, we propose
to do the following for future WG last calls:

As a prerequisite before doing a working group last call on a document,
the chairs will ask the working group for known implementations of the
specifications; a relatively detailed level of information will be
required (e.g. "release x.y of solution z shipping date d", "all
features implemented", "partial implementation only", etc.) and everyone
will be invited to reply (not only co-authors of the specifications);
the chairs will then do the working group last call if satisfying
information was provided on at least one implementation.

We are open for comments on this proposal until December 7th.

Martin & Thomas

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess




___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

[Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew)]

This is a more reasonable approach. I am OK with this. 

Andrew

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Vigoureux 
>  wrote:
> 
> WG,
> 
> we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to our 
> initial proposal.
> After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as a 
> way forward:
> 
> At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for 
> knowledge of existing implementations, and the more details provided at that 
> time, the better.
> In the situation where an implementation would exist we would proceed with 
> submission to IESG.
> In the opposite situation (no implementation exists), we would systematically 
> ask the WG for reasoned opinions regarding whether we should nevertheless 
> proceed with submission to IESG.
> We will gauge consensus on that aspect. In case consensus is in favour of 
> proceeding with submission to IESG we will do so. In the opposite case, we 
> will put the document in a "Waiting for implementation" state until 
> information on an existing implementation is brought to our knowledge or of 
> the WG.
> 
> Please share your views on that.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> M&T
> 
> 
> Le 24/11/2015 10:03, Thomas Morin a écrit :
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> Following the positive feedback received during BESS meeting in Yokohama
>> about introducing a one-implementation requirement in BESS, we propose
>> to do the following for future WG last calls:
>> 
>> As a prerequisite before doing a working group last call on a document,
>> the chairs will ask the working group for known implementations of the
>> specifications; a relatively detailed level of information will be
>> required (e.g. "release x.y of solution z shipping date d", "all
>> features implemented", "partial implementation only", etc.) and everyone
>> will be invited to reply (not only co-authors of the specifications);
>> the chairs will then do the working group last call if satisfying
>> information was provided on at least one implementation.
>> 
>> We are open for comments on this proposal until December 7th.
>> 
>> Martin & Thomas
>> 
>> ___
>> BESS mailing list
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> 
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Xuxiaohu]

Hi Stephen,

It said "...using a strong security mechanism such as IPsec [RFC4301]". Here 
IPsec is just mentioned as an example of a strong security mechanism. 
Therefore, it doesn't exclude MACsec.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 9:47 PM
> To: Alvaro Retana (aretana); Xuxiaohu; The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-bess-virtual-sub...@ietf.org; bess-cha...@ietf.org;
> martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com; bess@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: 
> (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Can someone say why the mention of MACsec wasn't included?
> As I understand it, MACsec is what's mostly usable for inter-DC security so
> omitting it seems like a bad idea (or perhaps I'm misinformed)
> 
> Thanks,
> S.
> 
> On 14/12/15 13:34, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> > Stephen:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Xiaohu posted an update that we hope addresses your concerns.  Pelase
> > take a look.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Alvaro.
> >
> >
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

[Loa Andersson]

Folks,

I'm mostly on the same page as Eric, if for no other reason that we have
an implementation hurdle in the shepherds write-up. No need to raise it
higher it already serve the purpose.

/Loa

On 2015-12-15 03:32, Eric Rosen wrote:

My opinion is unchanged; there is no need to impose any implementation
requirement, nor is there any need to add more process hurdles that
further slow down the progress of a document towards publication.
Certainly there is no need to gather details about implementations,
vendor releases, etc.  The process is already slow enough and has enough
useless overhead.

If folks object to the progression of a document, they are already free
to make those objections during last call.



On 12/14/2015 4:28 AM, Martin Vigoureux wrote:

WG,

we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response
to our initial proposal.
After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following
as a way forward:

At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for
knowledge of existing implementations, and the more details provided
at that time, the better.
In the situation where an implementation would exist we would proceed
with submission to IESG.
In the opposite situation (no implementation exists), we would
systematically ask the WG for reasoned opinions regarding whether we
should nevertheless proceed with submission to IESG.
We will gauge consensus on that aspect. In case consensus is in favour
of proceeding with submission to IESG we will do so. In the opposite
case, we will put the document in a "Waiting for implementation" state
until information on an existing implementation is brought to our
knowledge or of the WG.

Please share your views on that.

Thank you

M&T


Le 24/11/2015 10:03, Thomas Morin a écrit :

Hello everyone,

Following the positive feedback received during BESS meeting in Yokohama
about introducing a one-implementation requirement in BESS, we propose
to do the following for future WG last calls:

As a prerequisite before doing a working group last call on a document,
the chairs will ask the working group for known implementations of the
specifications; a relatively detailed level of information will be
required (e.g. "release x.y of solution z shipping date d", "all
features implemented", "partial implementation only", etc.) and everyone
will be invited to reply (not only co-authors of the specifications);
the chairs will then do the working group last call if satisfying
information was provided on at least one implementation.

We are open for comments on this proposal until December 7th.

Martin & Thomas

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess




___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess