Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-27

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis and RFC 9522, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

RFC Editor Note was changed to

RFC Editor Note

Two minor nits I noticed when reviewing the approved version --

  Note that QUIC [RFC9000] natively support the switching and steering
  functions.

Should be “supports”, and

                  [RFC5472] describes the
  applicability of IPFIX and makes a comparison with RTFM, pointing out
  that, architecturally, while RTM talks about devices, IPFIX deals
  with processed to clarify that multiple of those processes may be co-
  located on the same machine.

Should be “deals with processes”.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document, it is a major rewrite.

Thanks as well to Brian Haberman for his int-dir review, which is also supportive for this document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-24-intdir-telechat-haberman-2023-07-18/

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this clear and well-written document.

Thanks to Bob Briscoe for an especially thorough TSVART review!

I have a few minor points from the Transport perspective:

(S1.4) Unless this is a well-understood alternate meaning of the term in the TE community, might I suggest "congestion response" instead of "congestion control"? It is both more descriptive and does not overload a very important concept in Layer 4.

(S1.4) "Egress node: The device (router) at with traffic" s/with/which?

(S2.4.1) s/if the router supports ECN/if the router and end host support ECN

The last paragraph of (S5.1.1.4) is a sentence fragment.

(S5.1.3.6) IPPM also designs measurement techniques and protocols to obtain those metrics. Probably worth mentioning?

(S5.1.3.8) As a transport AD, I had never heard of RFC3124. Perhaps I'm not working in the right cases, or maybe that's an indication that RFC3124 is no longer relevant. If the latter, I'd observe that the main lessons of that work ended up in HTTP/2 and later, directly in the transport in QUIC, in the way that they consolidate streams under a single connection and congestion control context.

RFC3124 also references TCP control block interdependence (RFC2140, since replaced by RFC9040), which IIUC is very much alive. So maybe the right references for this concept are 9000, 9040, and 9113?

(S7) "Layer 4 multipath transport protocols are designed to move traffic between domains and to allow control of the selection of the paths."

Pedantically, it only allows control of the source and destination IP addresses. It cannot force any path through the network.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to the author and WG for a nicely written document! Just a few minor nits:

- Section 1.4 Terminology: "Egress node:" s/with/which/

- Section 1.4 Terminology: "Ingress node:" s/with/which/

- Section 5.1.1.1 - expand RSVP on first use which is the 2nd paragraph not the 3rd paragraph.

- Section 5.1.1.5 - "The DetNet service sub-layer provides a set of Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) functions.." - Remove redundant 'functions' text.

- Section 5.1.2.2 - "ACTN facilitates composed, multi-domain connections and provides them to the user.". Should 'composed' be 'composite'?

- Section 5.1.3.3 - Expand 'LDP' on first use.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-26
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S5.1.3.3

* "an ingress LSRs and an egress LSRs"

  Maybe strike the two "an"s.

### S5.1.3.4

* "is comprised of" -> composed?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Shawn Emery for the SECDIR review.

** Section 6.6.  With the context that I don’t have a clear sense of what was chosen to be included in this document on traffic engineering, it seemed liked a few common traffic engineering design patterns related to survivability were not included.  I could also see discussion of these in the Security Considerations:

-- traffic filtering/scrubbing of any/every kind at the edge to prevent attacks from entering the network or leaving (a very primitive form of traffic engineering)

-- choosing optional security features in control plane protocols such as authentication to harden the control plan

-- relying on external packet scrubbing services to mitigate DDoS attacks

** Section 9
  In general, TE
  mechanisms are security-neutral: they may use tunnels which can
  slightly help protect traffic from inspection and which, in some
  cases, can be secured using encryption; they put traffic onto
  predictable paths within the network that may make it easier to find
  and attack; they increase the complexity or operation and management
  of the network; and they enable traffic to be steered onto more
  secure links or to more secure parts of the network.

Saying that TE mechanisms are security neutral” seems incongruent to the rest of the text.  For example, noting that a path “can be secured using encryption” doesn’t seem neutral at all and changes the security properties of the traffic carries.  Poorly configured traffic engineering seems like it could have disastrous consequences on security or “survivability” as discussed in Section 6.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-24, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-07-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vishnupavan@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'Overview and
Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-07-11. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes the principles of traffic engineering (TE) in
  the Internet.  The document is intended to promote better
  understanding of the issues surrounding traffic engineering in IP
  networks and the networks that support IP networking, and to provide
  a common basis for the development of traffic engineering
  capabilities for the Internet.  The principles, architectures, and
  methodologies for performance evaluation and performance optimization
  of operational networks are also discussed.

  This work was first published as RFC 3272 in May 2002.  This document
  obsoletes RFC 3272 by making a complete update to bring the text in
  line with best current practices for Internet traffic engineering and
  to include references to the latest relevant work in the IETF.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There was broad agreement in the WG to progress this document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no controversy. There were no decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough.

3. 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 publicly available.)

No one has threatened an appeal. No one has indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This document does not propose any protocol extensions. It is an informational
bis document (obsoletes RFC3272) that describes the principles of traffic
engineering in the Internet. The principles described in this document are widely
adopted and implemented in the industry.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Given the broad applicability of traffic engineering, there are certain sections
in the document that touch upon work that is relevant to other WGs like MPLS, PCE,
SPRING, CCAMP, ALTO, BIER, DETNET etc.  However, there isn't enough in-depth
detail on any of these relevant technologies to warrant a review from these
other WGs.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has been reviewed by the Routing Directorate.
Please refer to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/3tnIXI49-ZMF2gDOYQrMr99RTOM/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

There is no section in the document that is written in a formal language, such as
XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOS's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is much needed, very clearly
written, complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all
the issues specified in [6].

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The type of publication being requested is "Informational". This is appropriate
because it is a bis document (that obsoletes RFC3272) that describes the principles
of traffic engineering in the Internet. It is to be noted that RFC3272 is an
informational RFC. All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document
and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance
statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process
was duly applied to the document. There are no IPR disclosures associated with this
document.

Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2020-06-16 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis/history/

Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2022-05-17 and 2022-05-24 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis/history/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The author/editor and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express
unwillingness to be listed as such. Only the editor is listed in the front page.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no I-D nits that are yet to be resolved.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

There are no normative references listed in this document. All listed informative
references are appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are no normative references listed in this document.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative references listed in this document.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There are no normative references listed in this document.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This is a bis document. The publication of this document will obsolete RFC3272.
The title page lists the RFC to be obsoleted and the introduction section of
the document discusses this.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There was broad agreement in the WG to progress this document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no controversy. There were no decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough.

3. 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 publicly available.)

No one has threatened an appeal. No one has indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This document does not propose any protocol extensions. It is an informational
bis document (obsoletes RFC3272) that describes the principles of traffic
engineering in the Internet. The principles described in this document are widely
adopted and implemented in the industry.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Given the broad applicability of traffic engineering, there are certain sections
in the document that touch upon work that is relevant to other WGs like MPLS, PCE,
SPRING, CCAMP, ALTO, BIER, DETNET etc.  However, there isn't enough in-depth
detail on any of these relevant technologies to warrant a review from these
other WGs.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has been reviewed by the Routing Directorate.
Please refer to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/3tnIXI49-ZMF2gDOYQrMr99RTOM/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

There is no section in the document that is written in a formal language, such as
XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOS's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is much needed, very clearly
written, complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all
the issues specified in [6].

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The type of publication being requested is "Informational". This is appropriate
because it is a bis document (that obsoletes RFC3272) that describes the principles
of traffic engineering in the Internet. It is to be noted that RFC3272 is an
informational RFC. All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document
and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance
statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process
was duly applied to the document. There are no IPR disclosures associated with this
document.

Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2020-06-16 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis/history/

Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2022-05-17 and 2022-05-24 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis/history/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The author/editor and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express
unwillingness to be listed as such. Only the editor is listed in the front page.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no I-D nits that are yet to be resolved.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

There are no normative references listed in this document. All listed informative
references are appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are no normative references listed in this document.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative references listed in this document.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There are no normative references listed in this document.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This is a bis document. The publication of this document will obsolete RFC3272.
The title page lists the RFC to be obsoleted and the introduction section of
the document discusses this.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

As per the guidance given by Routing Area ADs, we now require early directorate reviews before documents enter the publication queue. The document will be submitted to IESG for publication after the review is done.

Pre WGLC IPR Poll Responses:

Adrian Farrel
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/-hv-d8an-M-KfP-WqlIaum9p3Hs/

Gert Grammel
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ARZ7LAloL3-WNoZm7z4k4P7_rXQ/

Loa Andersson
[Response Missing]

Xufeng Liu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/5ZpVHMvgFEWiy5oLeM_vknpjfNE/

Lou Berger
[Response Missing]

Jeff Tantsura
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/oyfivYUEjj0BFfYsx-uM0qQdbw8/

Daniel King
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/tXxVQBSSGd65lpCgb8pofZlmcv4/

bhassanov@yandex-team.ru
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/BpEqixyuZTpL0BuVacmlkAAehhQ/

Kiran Makhijani
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/NS7SPh5uBP71cl7W2aMrOHS1flo/

Dhruv Dhody
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/T-JltdY7PD1PfZyi30PP4jA2IPo/

mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ZqKcW2rclUPaN8aWtLzAmqDWSys/