request to publish draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-09.txt
"Ong, Lyndon" <[email protected]> Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:31:19 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rserpool |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============1660812558==
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_3E2C_01C97715.8F72BE10"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_3E2C_01C97715.8F72BE10
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9773F.752EF746"
------_=_NextPart_001_01C9773F.752EF746
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Proto Writeup for this draft:
=20
(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?
=20
The Document Shepherd is Lyndon Ong. He has personally reviewed this
version of the document and believes that it is ready for forwarding to
the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC.
(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?
=20
The document has had adequate review from key WG members. The Document
Shepherd has no particular concerns about the depth and 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?
=20
The Document Shepherd has no particular concerns that the document needs
more review.
(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.
=20
The Document Shepherd has no particular additional concerns for the Area
Director or IESG. The question of need was raised on the mailing list
and elicited a number of responses from participants who were interested
in the MIB. No IPR disclosures related to the document have been filed.
(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?
=20
There is a firm WG consensus behind the document. It is (as a MIB)
primarily of interest to a subset of participants in the WG, but has
been reviewed and supported by WG members both interested in the MIB and
familiar with the protocols that would be managed by the MIB.
(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.)
=20
There has been no dispute over the document or expression of discontent.
(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.
=20
The Document Shepherd has checked the document against nits and as far
as he could tell all nits have been satisfied. The document has not had
a formal MIB Doctor review, however it has been run through an automated
checker (see below). The document has its intended status (Experimental
RFC) at the top of the first page.
(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].
=20
The document has allocated references to normative and informative. It
should be noted that some normative references are to Experimental RFCs
since the MIB is intended to manage protocols that have been defined in
Experimental RFCs. This seems appropriate since the MIB itself will be
Experimental.
(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?
=20
As far as the Document Shepherd has been able to verify, the document's
IANA Considerations section exists and is in order. It does not
describe any Expert Review process.
(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?
=20
As mentioned above, the MIB definitions in the document have been run
through an automated checker, in this case the smilint compiler package.
(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:
=20
The Announcement Write-Up follows:
=20
Technical Summary: =20
=20
This document defines a SMIv2 compliant Management =20
Information Base (MIB) providing access to managed objects
in an=20
implementation of the Reliable Server Pool architecture and
protocols. It=20
is intended as an Experimental Track RFC.
=20
Working Group Summary
=20
This document has been reviewed by Rserpool protocol experts
within the
WG and no controversy or difficulty was encountered with
obtaining consensus=20
on this document. =20
=20
Document Quality=20
=20
There are no implementations of the MIB at this time, but=20
a number of researchers have implemented the protocols and
reviewed the MIB
specification based on their work.
=2E
Personnel=20
=20
Lyndon Ong, co-chair of the Rserpool WG, is shepherd for
this document.
Magnus Westerlund provided review as the responsible Area
Director.
=20
=20
Lyndon Y. Ong | Senior Technology Director
[email protected] | PO Box 308 | Cupertino, CA 95015 USA
Direct +1.408.962.4929 | Mobile +1.408.768.7872 | Fax +1.408.962.4929
=20
------_=_NextPart_001_01C9773F.752EF746
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"><head><META =
content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" http-equiv=3D"Content-Type">
<meta content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<meta content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)" name=3DGenerator>
<o:SmartTagType name=3D"country-region" =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<o:SmartTagType name=3D"PostalCode" =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<o:SmartTagType name=3D"State" =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<o:SmartTagType name=3D"City" =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<o:SmartTagType name=3D"place" =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<o:SmartTagType name=3D"Street" =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<o:SmartTagType name=3D"address" =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
p.section1, li.section1, div.section1
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head><BODY>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3DArial size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Proto Writeup for this =
draft:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3DArial size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this
document? Has the<br>
Document Shepherd
personally reviewed this version of the<br>
document and, in
particular, does he or she believe this<br>
version is ready =
for
forwarding to the IESG for publication?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>The Document Shepherd is Lyndon Ong. He has personally =
reviewed
this version of the document and believes that it is ready for =
forwarding to
the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC.<br>
<br>
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from =
key WG
members<br>
and from key =
non-WG
members? Does the Document Shepherd have<br>
any concerns =
about the
depth or breadth of the reviews that<br>
have been =
performed?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>The document has had adequate review from key WG members. =
The
Document Shepherd has no particular concerns about the depth and breadth =
of the
reviews.<br>
<br>
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that =
the
document<br>
needs more review =
from a
particular or broader perspective,<br>
e.g., security,
operational complexity, someone familiar with<br>
AAA,
internationalization, or XML?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>The Document Shepherd has no particular concerns that the =
document
needs more review.<br>
<br>
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific =
concerns
or<br>
issues with this
document that the Responsible Area Director<br>
and/or the IESG =
should
be aware of? For example, perhaps he<br>
or she is =
uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or<br>
has concerns =
whether
there really is a need for it. In any<br>
event, if the WG =
has
discussed those issues and has indicated<br>
that it still =
wishes to
advance the document, detail those<br>
concerns =
here. Has
an IPR disclosure related to this document<br>
been filed? =
If so,
please include a reference to the<br>
disclosure and =
summarize
the WG discussion and conclusion on<br>
this =
issue.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>The Document Shepherd has no particular additional concerns for =
the
Area Director or IESG. The question of need was raised on the =
mailing
list and elicited a number of responses from participants who were =
interested
in the MIB. No IPR disclosures related to the document have been =
filed.<br>
<br>
(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this
document? Does it<br>
represent the =
strong
concurrence of a few individuals, with<br>
others being =
silent, or
does the WG as a whole understand and<br>
agree with =
it?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>There is a firm WG consensus behind the document. It is =
(as a
MIB) primarily of interest to a subset of participants in the WG, but =
has been
reviewed and supported by WG members both interested in the MIB and =
familiar
with the protocols that would be managed by the MIB.<br>
<br>
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise =
indicated
extreme<br>
discontent? =
If so,
please summarize the areas of conflict in<br>
separate email =
messages
to the Responsible Area Director. (It<br>
should be in a =
separate
email because this questionnaire is<br>
entered into the =
ID
Tracker.)<br>
<o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>There has been no dispute over the document or expression of
discontent.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally =
verified
that the<br>
document =
satisfies all
ID nits? (See<br>
=
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html
and<br>
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are<br>
not enough; this =
check
needs to be thorough. Has the document<br>
met all formal =
review
criteria it needs to, such as the MIB<br>
Doctor, media =
type, and
URI type reviews? If the document<br>
does not already
indicate its intended status at the top of<br>
the first page, =
please
indicate the intended status here.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>The Document Shepherd has checked the document against nits and =
as far
as he could tell all nits have been satisfied. The document has =
not had a
formal MIB Doctor review, however it has been run through an automated =
checker
(see below). The document has its intended status (Experimental =
RFC) at
the top of the first page.<br>
<br>
(1.h) Has the document split its references into =
normative
and<br>
=
informative? Are
there normative references to documents that<br>
are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear<br>
state? If =
such
normative references exist, what is the<br>
strategy for =
their
completion? Are there normative references<br>
that are downward
references, as described in [RFC3967]? If<br>
so, list these =
downward
references to support the Area<br>
Director in the =
Last
Call procedure for them [RFC3967].<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>The document has allocated references to normative and =
informative. It
should be noted that some normative references are to Experimental RFCs =
since
the MIB is intended to manage protocols that have been defined in =
Experimental
RFCs. This seems appropriate since the MIB itself will be =
Experimental.<br>
<br>
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the =
document's
IANA<br>
Considerations =
section
exists and is consistent with the body<br>
of the =
document?
If the document specifies protocol<br>
extensions, are
reservations requested in appropriate IANA<br>
registries? =
Are
the IANA registries clearly identified? If<br>
the document =
creates a new
registry, does it define the<br>
proposed initial
contents of the registry and an allocation<br>
procedure for =
future
registrations? Does it suggest a<br>
reasonable name =
for the
new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the<br>
document =
describes an
Expert Review process, has the Document<br>
Shepherd =
conferred with
the Responsible Area Director so that<br>
the IESG can =
appoint the
needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>As far as the Document Shepherd has been able to verify, the =
document’s
IANA Considerations section exists and is in order. It does not =
describe
any Expert Review process.<br>
<br>
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that =
sections of
the<br>
document that are
written in a formal language, such as XML<br>
code, BNF rules, =
MIB
definitions, etc., validate correctly in<br>
an automated =
checker?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>As mentioned above, the MIB definitions in the document have =
been run
through an automated checker, in this case the smilint compiler =
package.<br>
<br>
(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a
Document<br>
Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document<br>
Announcement
Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the<br>
=
"Action"
announcements for approved documents. The approval<br>
announcement =
contains
the following sections:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>The Announcement Write-Up follows:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; Technical
Summary: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; This
document defines a SMIv2 compliant Management =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; Information
Base (MIB) providing access to managed objects in an =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
;
implementation of the Reliable Server Pool architecture and =
protocols. It
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; is
intended as an Experimental Track RFC.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; Working
Group Summary<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; This
document has been reviewed by Rserpool protocol experts within =
the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; WG
and no controversy or difficulty was encountered with obtaining =
consensus <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; on
this document. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; Document
Quality <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'> =
There
are no implementations of the MIB at this time, but =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; a
number of researchers have implemented the protocols and reviewed the =
MIB<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; specification
based on their work.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>  =
; Personnel
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'> =
Lyndon
Ong, co-chair of the Rserpool WG, is shepherd for this =
document.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'> =
Magnus
Westerlund provided review as the responsible Area =
Director.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3DArial size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3DArial size=3D2><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3Dsection1 style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><strong><b><font =
face=3DArial size=3D1><span =
style=3D'font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial'>Lyndon Y. =
Ong</span></font></b></strong><font face=3DArial size=3D1><span =
style=3D'font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial'> <font =
color=3Dred><span style=3D'color:red'>|</span></font> <font =
color=3Dgray><span style=3D'color:gray'>Senior Technology =
Director</span></font><br>
<u><font color=3Dblue><span style=3D'color:blue'><a =
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></span></font></u>
<font color=3Dred><span style=3D'color:red'>|</span></font><font =
color=3Dpurple><span style=3D'color:purple'> </span></font><st1:address =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:Street w:st=3D"on"><font color=3Dgray><span =
style=3D'color:gray'>PO Box</span></font></st1:Street><font =
color=3Dgray><span style=3D'color:gray'> =
308</span></font></st1:address><font color=3Dgray><span =
style=3D'color:gray'> </span></font><font color=3Dred><span =
style=3D'color:red'>|</span></font><font color=3Dpurple><span =
style=3D'color:purple'> </span></font><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:City w:st=3D"on"><font color=3Dgray><span =
style=3D'color:gray'>Cupertino</span></font></st1:City><font =
color=3Dgray><span style=3D'color:gray'>, <st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">CA</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode =
w:st=3D"on">95015</st1:PostalCode> =
<st1:country>USA</st1:country></span></font></st1:place><br>
<font color=3Dgray><span style=3D'color:gray'>Direct +1.408.962.4929 =
</span></font><font color=3Dred><span =
style=3D'color:red'>|</span></font><font color=3Dgray><span =
style=3D'color:gray'> <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:City =
w:st=3D"on">Mobile</st1:City></st1:place>
+1.408.768.7872</span></font> <font color=3Dred><span =
style=3D'color:red'>|</span></font><font color=3Dpurple><span =
style=3D'color:purple'> </span></font><font color=3Dgray><span =
style=3D'color:gray'>Fax =
+1.408.962.4929</span></font></span></font><font color=3Dgray =
face=3DArial size=3D1><span style=3D'font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial;
color:gray'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<BR><IMG ALIGN=3D"baseline" ALT BORDER=3D"0" HSPACE=3D"0" =
SRC=3D"cid:[email protected]"><BR><BR></BODY></HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C9773F.752EF746--
------=_NextPart_000_3E2C_01C97715.8F72BE10
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <[email protected]>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=
------=_NextPart_000_3E2C_01C97715.8F72BE10--
--===============1660812558==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool
--===============1660812558==--