From psamp-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 2 01:39:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: psamp-text-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-psamp-text-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDE828C192; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 01:39:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: psamp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: psamp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C003A6C9A; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 01:39:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id INTvQhrwMWOi; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 01:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CDB28C161; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 01:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D1C2C000350; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:37:46 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ubsiCrDJxPcS; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:37:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eris.office (eris.office [192.168.24.5]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555EA2C000303; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:37:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from VENUS.office ([192.168.24.15]) by eris.office with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:37:26 +0200 Received: from 10.1.2.227 ([10.1.2.227]) by VENUS.office ([192.168.24.102]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:37:25 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.10.0.080409 Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:25:13 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: Dan Romascanu , , IETF PSAMP Working Group Message-ID: Thread-Topic: write-up for draft-ietf-psamp-info-08 Thread-Index: AcjCUDVzMCE61854jUeMaHUP/MVwfQ== Mime-version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2008 08:37:26.0182 (UTC) FILETIME=[E2A1EC60:01C8C48B] Cc: Ronald Bonica Subject: [PSAMP] write-up for draft-ietf-psamp-info-08 X-BeenThere: psamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "This mailing list is used for discussion within the IETF packet sampling \(PSAMP\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: psamp-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: psamp-bounces@ietf.org Dear Dan and dear IESG Secretary, Below please find the write up for draft-ietf-psamp-info-08. I think the draft is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. Best regards, Juergen -- Juergen Quittek quittek@nw.neclab.eu Tel: +49 6221 4342-115 NEC Europe Limited, Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 4342-155 Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.netlab.nec.de Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL, UK Registered in England 2832014 ========================================================================== Write-up for draft-ietf-psamp-info-08 ===================================== (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd. He has reviewed it personally and believes that this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document had multiple individual reviews from key WG members. The shepherd has no concern about the depth or breadth of the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? The document shepherd sees no need for an additional particular review. The contained XML document is fully in line with the corresponding XML document of the IPFIX information model. It has been validated by the document shepherd. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There is no such concern. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is a strong consensus in the PSAMP WG as well as in the IPFIX WG to publish this version of the document. There are no particular issues in the document without strong consensus of both WGs. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) There was no appeal. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The WG shepherd checked for ID nits and validated the contained XML document. Also boilerplates have been checked. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. One reference has been outdated since the document was submitted: RFC 2434 has recently been obsoleted by RFC 5226. This should be fixed after IETF last call. More references may be obsoleted by then. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? IANA considerations have been checked. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Yes. The contained XML document was validated using Sun's Multi-Schema XML Validator (MSV) (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This memo defines an information model for the Packet Sampling (PSAMP) protocol. It is used by the PSAMP protocol for encoding sampled packet data and information related to the Sampling process. As the PSAMP protocol is based on the IPFIX protocol, this information model is an extension to the IPFIX information model. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish these documents. Document Quality Several of the Information Elements defined in this document have already been implemented by academic as well as industrial institutions. But not all of them have been implemented and tested, yet. Personnel Juergen Quittek is shepherding this document. Dan Romascanu is the responsible Area director. _______________________________________________ PSAMP mailing list PSAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp From psamp-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 26 22:15:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: psamp-text-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-psamp-text-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA4128C11E; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:15:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: psamp@ietf.org Delivered-To: psamp@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 6C9CB3A6896; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:15:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080627051501.6C9CB3A6896@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: psamp@ietf.org Subject: [PSAMP] I-D Action:draft-ietf-psamp-framework-13.txt X-BeenThere: psamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "This mailing list is used for discussion within the IETF packet sampling \(PSAMP\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: psamp-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: psamp-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Packet Sampling Working Group of the IETF. Title : A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting Author(s) : D. Chiou, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-psamp-framework-13.txt Pages : 37 Date : 2008-06-26 This document specifies a framework for the PSAMP (Packet SAMPling) protocol. The functions of this protocol are to select packets from a stream according to a set of standardized selectors, to form a stream of reports on the selected packets, and to export the reports to a collector. This framework details the components of this architecture, then describes some generic requirements, motivated by the dual aims of ubiquitous deployment and utility of the reports for applications. Detailed requirements for selection, reporting and exporting are described, along with configuration requirements of the PSAMP functions. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-psamp-framework-13.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-psamp-framework-13.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-06-26220950.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ PSAMP mailing list PSAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp --NextPart-- From psamp-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun 29 10:31:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: psamp-text-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-psamp-text-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F613A694E; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:31:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: psamp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: psamp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 025173A694E for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:31:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.383 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LIWxpuzAG94r for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE2E3A68CC for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:31:20 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,723,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="133402104" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 13:31:32 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,723,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219324056" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 13:31:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:31:29 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD evaluation of draft-ietf-psamp-info-08.txt Thread-Index: AcjaDfa5aptKlfbwT0qJbjth6f9KJQ== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PSAMP] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-psamp-info-08.txt X-BeenThere: psamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "This mailing list is used for discussion within the IETF packet sampling \(PSAMP\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: psamp-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: psamp-bounces@ietf.org Please find below the AD evaluation of draft-ietf-psamp-info-08.txt. The document has reached a fair state of maturity and stability, yet there are a number of issues to be discussed and fixed, and probably a revised ID will be needed before proceeding to IETF Last Call. Please find below my questions and comments, grouped in Technical and Editorial. Technical T1. E2. Section 7, second paragraph - it is not clear what 'special information' means here, and thus what this paragraph is saying. T2. Section 10.2 specifies that for new selection methods 'configuration parametr(s), along with the way to report it/them with an Options Template, MUST be clearly specified. Should not this information be also clearly specified for the initial set of eight selector algorithms described in 8.2.4? Or maybe they are specified someplace else - reference should be provided here if so. T3. Section 8.2.4 New assignments for the PSAMP selection method will be administered by IANA, on a First Come First Served basis [RFC2434], subject to Expert Review [RFC2434]. The policy here should be Expert Review as per RFC5226, no need to mention FCFS (actually you can't have two policies in place and what numbers are allocated is the IANA business) T4. Section 8.2.11 - why is Abstract Data type float64 needed? It looks to me like float32 would be enough to express a probability value, or am I missing something? T5. Section 9 - Security Considerations. It would be good to borrow as is or with minimal adaptations the following two paragraphs from the Security Considerations section of RFC5102: For example, exporting values of header fields may make attacks possible for the receiver of this information, which would otherwise only be possible for direct observers of the reported Flows along the data path. The underlying protocol used to exchange the information described here must therefore apply appropriate procedures to guarantee the integrity and confidentiality of the exported information. Such protocols are defined in separate documents, specifically the IPFIX protocol document [RFC5101]. T6. Section 10.2 New assignments for the PSAMP selection method will be administered by IANA, on a First Come First Served basis [RFC2434], subject to Expert Review [RFC2434]. Same comment as in T3, the policy should be just Expert Review as per RFC5226 Editorial E1. T2. [RFC2404] was obsoleted and replaced by [RFC5226] - make the change in the references and all over the document. E2. It should be added in Section 5 that the documents uses the Data Types described in Section 3.1 of [RFC5102] E3. Section 8.2.4 - s/The selectorAlgorithm registry is maintained by IANA and can be updated as long as specifications/The selectorAlgorithm registry is maintained by IANA and can be updated when specifications/ E4. Section 8.2.6 - s/A value of 100 means that the next interval starts after 100 packets (which are not sampled) when the current "samplingPacketInterval" is over./A value of 100 means that the next interval starts 100 packets (which are not sampled) after the current "samplingPacketInterval" is over./ E5. Section 8.2.8 - s//A value of 100 means that the next interval starts after 100 packets (which are not sampled) when the current "samplingTimeInterval" is over./A value of 100 means that the next interval starts 100 packets (which are not sampled) after the current "samplingTimeInterval" is over./ Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ PSAMP mailing list PSAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp From psamp-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 30 08:18:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: psamp-text-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-psamp-text-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD213A6986; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:18:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: psamp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: psamp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5930B3A6986 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:18:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pxWC7KzZdtUM for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.cs.uni-tuebingen.de (u-173-c156.cs.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.173.156]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F193A6AC7 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from u-172-c138.cs.uni-tuebingen.de ([134.2.172.138]) by smtp.cs.uni-tuebingen.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KDL9J-0006jP-Lr for psamp@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:18:37 +0200 Message-ID: <4868F94C.1020500@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:18:36 +0200 From: Gerhard Muenz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: psamp Subject: [PSAMP] psamp-protocol: Packet Records specific term in PSAMP? X-BeenThere: psamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "This mailing list is used for discussion within the IETF packet sampling \(PSAMP\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1909519293==" Sender: psamp-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: psamp-bounces@ietf.org This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --===============1909519293== Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms010004000105020407060202" This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms010004000105020407060202 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Benoit, all, I fell over the following section in psamp-protocol: 4.2 Protocol Point of View Concerning the protocol, the major difference between IPFIX and PSAMP is that the IPFIX protocol exports Flow Records while the PSAMP protocol exports Packet Records. Words with capitalized first letter are usually specific terms. However, Packet Records does not appear in the terminology section. Is "Packet Record" considered as a specific term or not? Regards, Gerhard --=20 Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard M=FCnz Computer Networks and Internet Wilhelm Schickard Institute for Computer Science University of Tuebingen Sand 13 (Room B309), D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany Phone: +49 7071 29-70534 Fax: +49 7071 29-5220 E-mail: muenz@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de WWW: http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~muenz --------------ms010004000105020407060202 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJdTCC AxUwggJ+oAMCAQICED9aGsYWkMr+s4zmyODhB+IwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UE BhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMT I1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDIxMzE1MTUxN1oX DTA5MDIxMjE1MTUxN1owbDEOMAwGA1UEBBMFTXVlbnoxEDAOBgNVBCoTB0dlcmhhcmQxFjAU BgNVBAMTDUdlcmhhcmQgTXVlbnoxMDAuBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0aWsu dW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMZex/Sq sAxkzTVvKP/YAgkaeXA+ngH59Aa0bbRPsKOWzAndGqty5EKcEzrnKqEJ27qHFvoF/pHp88U2 7SJI/xbqkgWeV2jRaldipZQYlnjYLQcmb4cewIFuGRRSVrm3BquzX38aYazuE4+DVH2Z3a8z n0FcdMXhA1NR2Ma1rh4G7SIeZ+hC7czbvNRPraBliGdQhs8J/6yP/iL8aNYAl9c7CL4ofRj8 Y9orMOV/4vtWTq76/VQUVdbhUMiv0D8aHqI1ZvGskhRRvmITgQRVbbn8N8WTpZ0UCgMDjxPP 9i5IhLfp6oBtsKl4OZ0RXvSLZrbJTkBX3vnEutcyxDvyNgMCAwEAAaM+MDwwLAYDVR0RBCUw I4EhbXVlbnpAaW5mb3JtYXRpay51bmktdHVlYmluZ2VuLmRlMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEAX5SiD6epJePwBjJumOsTF6wzeuZRDLYlN+fOpXwd2C0Yx6i8iIZ9 l/J/nGaE1YpJPfX5oJDE+tOk1vYh2E9ThLOj9kJ3buZmgOCdVu90qtCWhfhli7RCYcJ+G9M3 FCnqbrzI/waPPXGB8/DY1HKgPj5G+oKPUK+GD2aE1Q3PYGowggMVMIICfqADAgECAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxU aGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwg RnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTAeFw0wODAyMTMxNTE1MTdaFw0wOTAyMTIxNTE1MTdaMGwx DjAMBgNVBAQTBU11ZW56MRAwDgYDVQQqEwdHZXJoYXJkMRYwFAYDVQQDEw1HZXJoYXJkIE11 ZW56MTAwLgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFiFtdWVuekBpbmZvcm1hdGlrLnVuaS10dWViaW5nZW4uZGUw ggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDGXsf0qrAMZM01byj/2AIJGnlwPp4B +fQGtG20T7CjlswJ3RqrcuRCnBM65yqhCdu6hxb6Bf6R6fPFNu0iSP8W6pIFnldo0WpXYqWU GJZ42C0HJm+HHsCBbhkUUla5twars19/GmGs7hOPg1R9md2vM59BXHTF4QNTUdjGta4eBu0i HmfoQu3M27zUT62gZYhnUIbPCf+sj/4i/GjWAJfXOwi+KH0Y/GPaKzDlf+L7Vk6u+v1UFFXW 4VDIr9A/Gh6iNWbxrJIUUb5iE4EEVW25/DfFk6WdFAoDA48Tz/YuSIS36eqAbbCpeDmdEV70 i2a2yU5AV975xLrXMsQ78jYDAgMBAAGjPjA8MCwGA1UdEQQlMCOBIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0 aWsudW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBAF+U og+nqSXj8AYybpjrExesM3rmUQy2JTfnzqV8HdgtGMeovIiGfZfyf5xmhNWKST31+aCQxPrT pNb2IdhPU4Szo/ZCd27mZoDgnVbvdKrQloX4ZYu0QmHCfhvTNxQp6m68yP8Gjz1xgfPw2NRy oD4+RvqCj1Cvhg9mhNUNz2BqMIIDPzCCAqigAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TEL MAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3du MRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UECxMfQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBT ZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIGA1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIENB MSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25hbC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUuY29tMB4XDTAzMDcx NzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0 ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVl bWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7TrnK mVoeaMB1BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAKMNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/ cVbLrzwLB+fxH5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8 YQRAHmQZcmC3+wIDAQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAwQwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4 oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJlZW1haWxDQS5j cmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMCkGA1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwy LTEzODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9MIbj4 Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZfoSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowg T2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQGls1TXfjViF4gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCA2QwggNgAgEB MHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0 ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggHDMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEw HAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTA4MDYzMDE1MTgzNlowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFGbph/EpY0h1 rsO62IgwTxFSLTrSMFIGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFFMEMwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwIC AgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMIGFBgkrBgEEAYI3 EAQxeDB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5 KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQ P1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jCBhwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxeKB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUw IwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUg UGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQP1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQC7gbuedM18VfZzyZP6CQqHxlSwsta5z+uPsKUr9NZvFr64ctUCSRZn4Hzl 0ODrAqquZy8rIWGyiEudK2tCU4bNOZjnnGIGR38uoiEXoFsq+/u0PUKZe4naIb4E4q/YvWhG n8L+vpSmGejnMJuz6tgJ3zs05H1gtx10CAf/uHzsjkk7xp6yGcXc5ad+Ok4uli7yWb2HW3JX nB/eYmKFvSRVbbH6H5jefrBaO65pl+X57hU3ZLmex6LhhONm1JoOIoa+rWMGXGTpDx85VxWB J9NxrXa7FmBsAbc7lhooNEGPucs+NOypOArXHasekZWFFAhsLErgRzFibqzMR2woXce5AAAA AAAA --------------ms010004000105020407060202-- --===============1909519293== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ PSAMP mailing list PSAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp --===============1909519293==--