Traffic Management Benchmarking
draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-09-14
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-09-03
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-08-31
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
2015-08-27
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2015-06-23
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-06-23
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-06-23
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-06-22
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2015-06-22
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-06-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-06-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2015-06-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-06-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-06-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-06-22
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-06-09
|
06 | Alexey Melnikov | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2015-06-09
|
06 | Barry Constantine | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-06.txt |
2015-06-08
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-06-02
|
05 | Barry Constantine | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-06-02
|
05 | Barry Constantine | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-05.txt |
2015-05-28
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-05-28
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-05-28
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Sean Turner. |
2015-05-28
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-05-28
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-05-27
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Just one formatting nit: the appendixes are out of place. |
2015-05-27
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-05-27
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-05-27
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. I just have one question that was raised in the SecDir review: Was there any thought … [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. I just have one question that was raised in the SecDir review: Was there any thought to how the tcpinc efforts might affect the ability to gather measurements? http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05726.html It doesn't have an impact on this draft yet, but could in the future. |
2015-05-27
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-05-27
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-05-27
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-05-26
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-05-26
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Section 6.2.1 Queue/Scheduler Individual Tests Overview I understand that is not finished work, but do we need to say a few words about … [Ballot comment] Section 6.2.1 Queue/Scheduler Individual Tests Overview I understand that is not finished work, but do we need to say a few words about codel and pie http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-pie/ and http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-codel/ - More of a transport AD question: "To this end, the stateful tests will use TCP test patterns to emulate applications." Do we need to emulate any applications on SCTP test patterns? Asking the transport ADs about which deployed protocols use SCTP, their answer was: WebRTC, SS7 signalling in 3gpp mobile networks. Editorial: - Section 1: Specifically, this framework defines the methods to characterize the capacity of the following traffic management features in network devices; classification, policing, queuing / scheduling, and traffic shaping. Section 1.2 This testing framework describes the tests and metrics for each of the following traffic management functions: - Policing - Queuing / Scheduling - Shaping I would add classification to that list. - Section 1.2 "Note the NDE SHOULD be used in "full pipe" delay mode." I don't know what "full pipe" delay mode is - OLD: It is not within scope of this of this framework to specify NEW: It is not within scope of this framework to specify - General observation. This is one of these documents where too many acronyms make it difficult to read (and I have some QoS background) Ex: "The tests will verify that the network device can handle the CIR with CBS and the EIR with EBS Note: I don't expect any action on this remark - Section 6: Each test SHOULD compare the network device's internal statistics (available via command line management interface, SNMP, etc.) to the measured metrics defined in section 4. FYI. Most MIB interface/QoS counters are not updated real-time in routers. 10 sec for interface stats is common. So no real-time monitoring is possible. - two instances of tester*: not sure what they mean configure the tester* to generate a profile of emulated of an application traffic mixture |
2015-05-26
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-04-29
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-05-28 |
2015-04-29
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot has been issued |
2015-04-29
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-04-29
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-04-29
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-04-29
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-04-20
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-04-14
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-04-14
|
04 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-04-09
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand |
2015-04-09
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand |
2015-04-09
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-04-09
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-04-09
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2015-04-09
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2015-04-09
|
04 | Al Morton | This is the Publication Request and document shepherd write-up for Traffic Management Benchmarking https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-03 This version is dated 24 February 2012. Al Morton … This is the Publication Request and document shepherd write-up for Traffic Management Benchmarking https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-03 This version is dated 24 February 2012. Al Morton is the Document Shepherd, and prepared this form: March 2015. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational, as indicated on the title page. All BMWG RFCs are traditionally Informational, in part because they do not define protocols and the traditional conditions for Stds track advancement did not apply. However, they are specifications and the RFC 2119 terms are applicable to identify the level of requirements. (2) 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 specifies the methodology for benchmarking the traffic management capabilities of networking devices (i.e. policing, shaping, etc.). One challenge has been to provide a repeatable test method that objectively compares performance of the device's traffic management capabilities and to specify the means to benchmark traffic management with representative traffic, including stateless and statefull traffic. The consensus is that the challenge has been met, and its time to gain more experience with the procedures as specified. Working Group Summary: There has been fairly continuous progress during development. The most lively discussions were prompted by presentation of actual test results using the draft methods, which require significant time investment but are well- worth the result. These drafts serve a useful purpose for the industry. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? As far as expert reviews, there was substantial review from several industry professionals, most notably one a CCNP, one a professional telecom industry consultant, and several from a vendor (Brocade). Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Al Morton is Shepherd, Joel Jaeggli is AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I've reviewed this draft at each of three WGLCs. Nits check is now clean. AFAICT, all my comments and those of the WG have been addressed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. There was cross-area review with the AQM WG, good comments were addressed. ALl WGLC have been cross posted to AQM WG. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? There is no IPR claimed, according to the authors. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosed. (9) 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? Although the comments and review intensity started strong, it now appears that the WG is satisfied. The third WGLC on -02 closed on 19 Feb 2015 with a small number of comments. The second WGLC (on -01) closed on 6 January, 2015 with substantial comments. The first WGLC (on -00) closed October 21 2014, with substantial comments. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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 (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. NA (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references are Normative, and marked as such. There appear to be some missing references, to MEF-14 MEF-19 and MEF-37. This will be fixed in next rev (04). (14) 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 plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). There are no IANA actions required, although the wording of the IANA section is somewhat unusual. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. NA. |
2015-04-06
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-04-06
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Traffic Management Benchmarking) to Informational … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Traffic Management Benchmarking) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg) to consider the following document: - 'Traffic Management Benchmarking' 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-04-20. 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 framework describes a practical methodology for benchmarking the traffic management capabilities of networking devices (i.e. policing, shaping, etc.). The goal is to provide a repeatable test method that objectively compares performance of the device's traffic management capabilities and to specify the means to benchmark traffic management with representative application traffic. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-04-06
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-04-06
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-04-05
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call was requested |
2015-04-05
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-04-05
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-04-05
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-04-05
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-03-31
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management.shepherd@ietf.org, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com, draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org from "Al C. Morton" <acmorton@att.com> |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Al Morton | This document now replaces draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management instead of None |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Al Morton | This is the Publication Request and document shepherd write-up for Traffic Management Benchmarking https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-03 This version is dated 24 February 2012. Al Morton … This is the Publication Request and document shepherd write-up for Traffic Management Benchmarking https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-03 This version is dated 24 February 2012. Al Morton is the Document Shepherd, and prepared this form: March 2015. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational, as indicated on the title page. All BMWG RFCs are traditionally Informational, in part because they do not define protocols and the traditional conditions for Stds track advancement did not apply. However, they are specifications and the RFC 2119 terms are applicable to identify the level of requirements. (2) 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: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary: There has been fairly continuous progress during development. The most lively discussions were prompted by presentation of actual test results using the draft methods, which require significant time investment but are well- worth the result. These drafts serve a useful purpose for the industry. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? As far as expert reviews, there was substantial review from several industry professionals, most notably one a CCNP, one a professional telecom industry consultant, and several from a vendor (Brocade). Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Al Morton is Shepherd, Joel Jaeggli is AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I've reviewed this draft at each of three WGLCs. Nits check is now clean. AFAICT, all my comments and those of the WG have been addressed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. There was cross-area review with the AQM WG, good comments were addressed. ALl WGLC have been cross posted to AQM WG. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? There is no IPR claimed, according to the authors. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosed. (9) 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? Although the comments and review intensity started strong, it now appears that the WG is satisfied. The third WGLC on -02 closed on 19 Feb 2015 with a small number of comments. The second WGLC (on -01) closed on 6 January, 2015 with substantial comments. The first WGLC (on -00) closed October 21 2014, with substantial comments. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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 (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. NA (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references are Normative, and marked as such. There appear to be some missing references, to MEF-14 MEF-19 and MEF-37. This will be fixed in next rev (04). (14) 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 plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). There are no IANA actions required, although the wording of the IANA section is somewhat unusual. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. NA. |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Al Morton | Responsible AD changed to Joel Jaeggli |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Al Morton | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Al Morton | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Al Morton | All BMWG RFCs have been Informational due to lack of applicable process on the standards track. However, these drafts contain requirements as testing specifications, and … All BMWG RFCs have been Informational due to lack of applicable process on the standards track. However, these drafts contain requirements as testing specifications, and make use of RFC2119 language (which originated in BMWG). |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Al Morton | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Al Morton | Shepherds review and IETF-92 session comments have been addressed in -04. |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Al Morton | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Al Morton | Notification list changed to "Al C. Morton" <acmorton@att.com> |
2015-03-30
|
04 | Al Morton | Document shepherd changed to Al C. Morton |
2015-03-29
|
04 | Barry Constantine | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-04.txt |
2015-03-20
|
03 | Al Morton | Changed document writeup |
2015-02-23
|
03 | Barry Constantine | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-03.txt |
2015-01-26
|
02 | Barry Constantine | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-02.txt |
2014-11-17
|
01 | Barry Constantine | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-01.txt |
2014-08-11
|
00 | Barry Constantine | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-00.txt |