[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
Christopher B Ferris wrote: > > Paul, > > Please see my comments inlined below. I seek a clarification of the Doug D proposal. With Doug D latest proposal, the ReplyTo epr with polling URI has to have at least one unique ref parm. Does that mean that whenever a message is destined to that epr, as a response to get message, those ref parms from the epr must be present as soap headers on the response? Tom > > Cheers, > > Christopher Ferris > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440 > phone: +1 508 377 9295 > > Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com> wrote on 05/04/2006 02:55:55 AM: > > > Doug > > > > Some comments: > > > I'm not promoting a general solution - not exactly :-). What I'm > > > promoting is a solution that > > > solves all of the various use-cases that I believe the RM spec should > > > address. In developing > > > the solution however, many people have noticed that it can work even > > > when RM (the resend > > > until acked part of RM) is not turned on - and that is true but > > > nothing was added to the solution to > > > make that happen. > > However, you have defined (elsewhere) reliability very widely, > including > > getting messages to endpoints that aren't reachable. So this > argument is > > really circular. Effectively what is says is that because I've included > > all the use cases for any polling situation in my requirements, I've > > ended up designing a system that supports them, even without any > > relation to the reliability mechanisms the WSRM spec has focussed > on. So > > effectively your proposal is completely orthogonal to the existing RM > > spec. If we took your proposal, changed the namespace, and published it > > separately, it would be a valid standalone spec that could be composed > > with RM or not. > > > In fact, it would take a lot of effort (and IMO hurt the proposal) if > > > it was modified > > > to only work like Paul's proposal - he tried very hard to tie his > > > proposal to RM sequences, and > > > as a result he limited the RM scenarios he can support > > I actually believe that my proposal can support almost any scenario. > > However it focuses on the core scenario and requirement that we see in > > the marketplace - which is supporting anonymous clients doing in, > > in-out, and in-multi-out MEPs against a server with a well-known > endpoint. > > But, your proposal does not support "out-only" RM. > > > > - and he will end up changing the core RM processing model too. > > The phrase "core RM processing model" is very dangerous if not > > disingenuous. The specification does not define the RM processing > model. > > It is up to each implementor to build a processing model for RM that > > supports the protocol. And so what you consider important about your RM > > processing model may not be what I consider important. The use of this > > term, as if it were something sacrosanct and untouchable, is > misleading. > > If we focus on the actual use cases, scenarios and implementation > > details then the discussion will be much more open. > > If we analyze the proposals in terms of the RM use cases, then I think > that > Doug's proposal is a more complete solution. The fact that it also > satisfies > non-RM uses cases is besides the point. It could, and maybe should, be > scoped > to RM use cases only. > > > > > For example, I think what you mean in this case is that either side can > > create a sequence with the other side whenever it wants, and that in my > > proposal this isn't true as the Client must Offer a sequence to the > Server. > > > > Of course in real life this is completely untrue. In the current spec > > the server cannot actually create a sequence with an unreachable > > endpoint. Simply because it can't reach it. My proposal doesn't change > > Actually, that isn't quite true unless you consider the transport binding > as one with the RM processing. The act of transfering a message is > orthogonal > to its purpose/intent. Clearly, when RM is engaged, the application can > "send" a message at a time when the destination endpoint is unreachable > because of a network partition. How is that different? > > > this. It is up to the TC to decide whether they want to support this > > aspect or not. However, it has very little to do with "changing the > core > > RM processing model". > > > > I deliberately didn't try to solve this because as you have shown the > > only way to do this is to create a complete alternative polling model > > under which the server can communicate with the client. In order to > > connect to an anonymous client, you need a context under which to > > communicate. You simply have a choice - use the existing context (the > > sequence) that the RM spec defines, or create a new one. The EPRId > model > > that you have proposed effectively adds a new context that the server > > What makes you think that the server must "keep track" of this? The > server > has to "keep track" of nothing, IMO. > > > must keep track of. Not only is this adding a new set of state to be > > managed, but nowhere in your spec does it define the lifecycle of this > > What state? > > > state. So it is undefined how long the server must keep track of this > > state. The server must buffer messages under this EPRId context and has > > no defined mechanism for cleaning this state up. There is no fault > model > > around this. There is no way for the client to signal a clean up of > this > > That is because that is an implementation detail. This spec covers > the protocol aspects exclusively, not the implementation details. > > > state. So your proposal adds significantly to the implementation of an > > RM agent, and also adds a considerable amount of ill-defined machinery > > that will come out in the interoperability testing and in > implementation. > > > > My proposal is designed to work with the existing context model that RM > > defines (a sequence) and to make minimal changes to how the server and > > client manage and use that context. Because of the work the TC has done > > in tightening up the lifecycle of this context and in interop testing, > > my proposal builds on top of an already stable and interoperable base > > with a small and clearly defined addition. > > So does Doug's proposal, IMO. > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > > *Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>* > > > Sent by: Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM > > > > > > 05/01/2006 03:00 PM > > > > > > > > > To > > > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > > cc > > > ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject > > > Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug, > > > > > > I may be struggling with a similar issue to Marc though I would phrase > > > it differently: Could you please describe how your "general" solution > > > fits into the Charter[1] under which our group was formed? > > > > > > thanx, > > > doug > > > > > > [1] <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ws-rx/charter.php> > > > > > > On 30/04/06 17:57, Doug Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > First, I'm glad that I think we're all in agreement that a polling > > > > solution is the right solution for these issues - I think that alone > > > > is progress. So, as you say, the question then becomes a matter of > > > > placement of function. Up to now I think most people have chosen to > > > > ignore this issue. Yes some groups (like WS-BaseNotification or > > > > WS-Management) saw the issue and defined their own domain specific > > > > solutions, but they are just that - domain specific. As you say in > > > > your note, a more foundational architectural solution is a better > > > > approach. So, is RM one of those specs? RM clearly isn't domain > > > > specific and it deals with transfer of messages between endpoint > - so > > > > far so good. As I've said several times, I don't think its a stretch > > > > to think of reliability as more than just resend until acked. Right > > > > now RM already deals with reaching unreachable endpoints - but we've > > > > been thinking of it limiting itself to 'unreachable' meaning > > > > temporarily down - or poor networks connections. I really don't > think > > > > its hard to see anon endpoints as being part of that grouping - > there > > > > really isn't much of a difference. In all cases the other side isn't > > > > guaranteed to be there - the only thing that's special about > this case > > > > is how the connection between the two endpoints is established - > > > > beyond that everything else is the same (at least for our proposal - > > > > Paul's doesn't keep everything else the same but that's a different > > > > note :-). > > > > Perhaps I didn't say it correctly, but its not that I think its RM's > > > > job to get the anon/sync world to look as much like the async > world - > > > > what I meant to say is that we wanted our polling solution to allow > > > > them to look the same to the code that makes use of it. > > > > thanks, > > > > -Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>* > > > > > > > > 04/28/2006 04:32 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > To > > > > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, > > > <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > cc > > > > > > > > Subject > > > > RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’m certainly against banning anon. Why is it the mandate of RM to > > > > “get the anon/sync world to look as much like the async world as > > > > possible”? Your proposal makes it clear that is what your goal > is, but > > > > that is also foremost in my mind why it has nothing to do with RM. > > > > That statement clearly scopes the problem you are trying to > solve as a > > > > foundational architectural concern below the level of RM. > > > > > > > > Marc Goodner > > > > Technical Diplomat > > > > Microsoft Corporation > > > > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > > > Blog: _http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/_ > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] * > > > > Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2006 1:28 AM* > > > > To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org* > > > > Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this scenario is required for RM. At the last f2f we talked > > > > about how an RMS may need to create new sequences for a variety of > > > > reasons - one of which was because people wanted to be able to > create > > > > a new sequence based on the soap version, but there are lots of > other > > > > reasons people may need to create 'em. IMO, the use of the anon EPR > > > > should not impact these types of decisions - remember we're > trying to > > > > get the anon/sync world to look as much like the async world as > > > > possible. If we allowed anon EPRs to impact our RM > > > > processing/decision-making model then we would need to explore > banning > > > > the use of anon, which I believe is something your against. > > > > -Doug > > > > > > > > *"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>* > > > > > > > > 04/28/2006 04:14 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > To > > > > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, > > > <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > cc > > > > > > > > Subject > > > > RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug, is that scenario required for RM or polling in general? As > soon > > > > as you start talking about a server side RMS establishing a sequence > > > > to an un-addressable client I think you are beyond RM. You can’t > > > > establish inbound communications from a server to an un-addressable > > > > client without RM so why is this an RM problem? > > > > > > > > If we are looking to add a tightly scoped polling mechanism to > RM for > > > > specific scenarios this one would not be high on my list. > > > > > > > > Marc Goodner > > > > Technical Diplomat > > > > Microsoft Corporation > > > > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > > > Blog: _http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/_ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > * > > > > From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] * > > > > Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2006 1:05 AM* > > > > To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org* > > > > Subject:* Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > I do believe that the scenario you're talking about is a > required one > > > > but I would phrase it > > > > a bit differently. An RMS (whether its the client-side RMS or the > > > > server-side RMS) needs > > > > to be able to follow the same RM processing model. And part of the > > > > processing model > > > > is the ability to decide "if", "when" and "how" to use RM. As we > talk > > > > about in the Q&A > > > > section of our proposal, an RMS having the option of choosing to > > > > decide which RM sequence > > > > to use, when to create new ones, or even when to use RM at all > are all > > > > part of the RM > > > > processing model and those aspects need to be maintained even in > these > > > > anon cases. > > > > In your proposal you put the burden on the RMD to make a lot > decisions > > > > on behalf of > > > > the RMS, that's quite a change to the RM processing model and I have > > > > no idea how the > > > > RMD could ever know all it would need to know to make those > decisions. > > > > For example, how > > > > would it know when a new sequence is needed by the RMS? That is > why I > > > > believe our > > > > proposal is a better fit for RM - it allows the RMS to retain all of > > > > the same logic and choices > > > > that it has in the async world. Our proposal simply re-establishes > > > > the backchannel that > > > > the RMS (on the server side) is looking for - nothing more. Once > that > > > > is there, it is then > > > > back to "standard operating procedures" - the RMS can do whatever it > > > > would normally > > > > do. > > > > thanks, > > > > -Doug > > > > > > > > *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>* > > > > > > > > 04/27/2006 05:51 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To > > > > Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com> > > > > cc > > > > wsrx <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > Subject > > > > Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the TC isn't attached to this scenario then this section can be > > > > deleted. The scenario is simply when you want to send unreliably but > > > > receive reliable responses. I've heard this stated as a > requirement in > > > > some scenarios, but WSO2 doesn't have any pressing scenarios of > this ilk > > > > so we would be happy either way. > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > Marc Goodner wrote: > > > > > So is an RMS engaged at the client side or not? This is weird, > why > > > would > > > > > the infrastructure on the client side decide to do this? > > > > > > > > > > Marc Goodner > > > > > Technical Diplomat > > > > > Microsoft Corporation > > > > > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > > > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:57 PM > > > > > To: Marc Goodner > > > > > Cc: wsrx > > > > > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > This is the case where the client is making an offer but not > > > creating an > > > > > > > > > > outbound sequence - thats all. A client offers a sequence, and > then > > > > > reliably gets messages from the server that are buffered under > that > > > > > sequenceID. > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > Marc Goodner wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I still don't understand why offered sequence is being used > in the > > > > >> explanation. If this is going to usually be used with an offered > > > > >> sequence I'd like to understand how, that isn't explained in > my mind. > > > > >> > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > >> it is applicable for any sequence, offered or not, I'd like to > > > > >> understand that as well. The current text only confuses me in > its use > > > > >> > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > >> the term and I'm afraid your explanation below isn't helping > me get > > > > >> > > > > > past > > > > > > > > > >> it. Perhaps comparing the two modes would be a better approach. > > > > >> > > > > >> On 4.2, "Offer a sequence without the overhead of requesting > one"? I > > > > >> don't understand. The text refers to the RMD requesting a > sequence > > > > >> > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > >> the RMS, but it sounds like this is an unreliable request so > doesn't > > > > >> that mean there is no RMS at the client? Isn't this about the > service > > > > >> acting as an RMS and the client acting as an RMD? So the pattern > > > would > > > > >> be client sends one way message to service (GetMessage?), > response is > > > > >> Offer, then client sends a response to the response of > Accept? What > > > > >> > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > >> the service return to that? Why wouldn't the service send a CS > > > in the > > > > >> body of the GetMessage response to the client? > > > > >> > > > > >> Marc Goodner > > > > >> Technical Diplomat > > > > >> Microsoft Corporation > > > > >> Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > > > >> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] > > > > >> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:11 AM > > > > >> To: Marc Goodner > > > > >> Cc: wsrx > > > > >> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > > > >> > > > > >> Marc > > > > >> > > > > >> I use the words "Offered Sequence" informatively and > non-normatively. > > > > >> This is most likely to be used with an offered sequence, but > isn't > > > > >> > > > > > tied > > > > > > > > > >> to that. > > > > >> > > > > >> As regards 4.2, this is there to satisfy the scenario where > you only > > > > >> want reliable responses. I added this in for discussion > because I > > > know > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that some members find this an important scenario. In that > case you > > > > >> > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > >> to be able to Offer a sequence without the overhead of > requesting > > > one. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It is related to the anonymous client because without a real > endpoint > > > > >> the server cannot send a CS to the client so it relies on an > offer. > > > > >> > > > > >> Paul > > > > >> > > > > >> Marc Goodner wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Given 1 and 2, yes some text that clarified that not only is > this > > > > >>> specific to RM but that a general solution would be > preferable would > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> be > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> best. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 3 I suppose, I don't like seeing WS-A headers in the body > of a > > > > >>> message though. Do you really even need the response for a > specific > > > > >>> message? Why not return any responses or messages for that > sequence > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> that > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> have not been acknowledged? And what are you talking about > when you > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> say > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> this is tied to the offered sequence? What offered sequence? > I don't > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> see > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> anything here that ties the use of your GetMessage proposal > to an > > > > >>> offered sequence. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I don't understand section 4.2 in your proposal at all. What > does > > > > >>> > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > >>> have to do with the rest of this proposal? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Marc Goodner > > > > >>> Technical Diplomat > > > > >>> Microsoft Corporation > > > > >>> Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > > > >>> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] > > > > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:57 AM > > > > >>> To: Marc Goodner > > > > >>> Cc: wsrx > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Marc > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 1) Yes - I completely aimed this to be a specific model for > RM. I > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> would > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> be happy to include language that indicates that if a more > general > > > > >>> purpose firewall crossing mechanism was in place this should > not be > > > > >>> used. > > > > >>> 2) The wsrm:Identifier is a required part of my proposal, and > > > > >>> As a much lower technical detail, I do not believe your > > > > proposal addresses one of the major issues > > > > >>> > > > > >> therefore > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> this proposal is completely tied to the use of RM. > > > > >>> 3) The suggestion of using messageNumber is interesting. The > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> motivation > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> for using a message ID was that there may be situations where I > > > > >>> > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> want the response to a given message. We do not - so far - > have any > > > > >>> concept of a response to a given RM messageID, so that > seemed like a > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> new > > > > >> As a much lower technical detail, I do not believe your proposal > > > > addresses one of the major issues > > > > >> > > > > >>> concept to me, whereas WS-A systems do keep track of > responses to > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> given > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> messageIDs. But I'm not averse to your suggestion. However I > wish to > > > > >>> make clear that in my proposal you MUST have both the > Identifier and > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> the > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> messageID - so it is still very closely tied to the offered > > > sequence. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Paul > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Marc Goodner wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> As a much lower technical detail, I do not believe your > > > > proposal addresses one of the major issues > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> I hope that this is scoped to RM and not a general purpose > polling > > > > >>>> mechanism. I assume that is your intent in that you use the > > > > >>>> wsrm:Identifier and indicate that you see this being part > of the > > > > >>>> > > > > > core > > > > > > > > > >>>> spec. Still it seems like including language that indicates > that > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >> would > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> be advised, particularly noting that if there were a general > > > purpose > > > > >>>> polling mechanism that it might be preferred over this one. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> So following from that why is MessageID in the GetMessage? > > > Isn't the > > > > >>>> identifier enough? If it isn't wouldn't the addition of > > > > >>>> wsrm:MessageNumber do the trick? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Marc Goodner > > > > >>>> Technical Diplomat > > > > >>>> Microsoft Corporation > > > > >>>> Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > > > >>>> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>>> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] > > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:40 PM > > > > >>>> To: wsrx > > > > >>>> Subject: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Folks > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> At the F2F I took away an action to come up with a proposal > for > > > i089 > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> before the call. I'm sorry its so close to the call. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I've attached a proposal for review. This is a work in > > > progress, but > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >> I > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> think it helps call out some of the issues involved around > i089. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I think the most important questions for the TC are: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> (1) How does a customer/user use WSRM in a two-way scenario > if one > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> side > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> is anonymous? > > > > >>>> (2) Adding a "GetMessage" makes the protocol more > symmetric, but > > > > >>>> > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> might overlap with a wider non-reliable solution to this > > > problem. Is > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> it > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> in the scope of this TC to add this? > > > > >>>> (3) In the case we do add it, what criteria do we use to select > > > > >>>> > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> message to request. > > > > >>>> (4) Is this a generic solution (i.e. can the RMD request > messages > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >> from > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> the RMS in all cases) or special cased to anonURI scenarios? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Paul > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Paul Fremantle > > > > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair > > > > > > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf > > > > paul@wso2.com > > > > > > > > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Paul Fremantle > > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair > > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf > > paul@wso2.com > > > > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com > > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]