ESIF 22 Agenda - ATIS: Welcome
TITLE:ATIS SIP Forum IP-NNI TF Meeting Notes, January 29-30, 2020 [Austin, TX]SOURCE:Anna Karditzas, Committee Coordinator, akarditzas@LEADER(S):PTSC Chair: Martin Dolly, AT&T (md3135@)PTSC Vice Chair: Viqar Shaikh, Perspecta Labs (vshaikh@)IP-NNI TF Co-Chair: Martin Dolly, AT&T (md3135@)IP-NNI TF Co-Chair: Chris Wendt, Comcast (chris_wendt@)NOTICEOnly documents that are final/approved by an ATIS Committee represent the consensus of that Committee. Draft documents, on the other hand, are dynamic in nature and subject to change. Draft documents therefore may not accurately reflect the consensus of the ATIS Committee. Neither ATIS nor the Committee makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, with respect to the sufficiency, accuracy or utility of the information or opinion contained or reflected in the material utilized. ATIS further expressly advises that any use of or reliance upon the material in question is at your risk and neither ATIS nor the Committee shall be liable for any damage or injury, of whatever nature, incurred by any person arising out of any utilization of the material. It is possible that this material will at some future date be included in a copyrighted work by ATIS. ATIS SIP Forum IP-NNI TFAustin, TX – January 28-30, 2020Meeting NotesWELCOME & CALL TO ORDERMartin Dolly (AT&T), IP-NNI TF Co-Chair, called the meeting to order and welcomed participants at 9:02 am CT on January 29, 2020. INTRODUCTIONS & SIGN INMr. Dolly welcomed the attendees. The meeting participants are listed below: NameCompanyEmailMartin Dolly (IP-NNI TF Co-Chair, PTSC Chair)AT&Tmd3135@Chris Wendt (IP-NNI TF Co-Chair)Comcastchris_wendt@Andy JurczakAT&Tajurczak@*Howard LangAT&Thl1539@*John BarnhillBandwidthjbarnhill@David PreoBandwidthdpreo@Steve ShowellCenturyLinkSteve.Showell@*Robert DiandaCharter Communicationsrobert.dianda@*John LyonCharter Communicationsjohn.lyon@*Carol-lyn TaylorCISA ECDcarol-lyn.taylor@*Arye EphrathCISA ECDarye@Park YangCiscoparyang@David HancockComcastdavid_hancock@Chia-Chang LiComcastchia-chang_li@Ofir SmadjaCOMsolveofir.smadja@*Marian HearnCST GA (Canada)marian.hearn@cstga.caBen CampbellCTIAben@Harold SaltersCTIAhms5516@Arleen ElliottEricssonarleen.elliott@George FotiEricssongeorge.foti@*Hala MowafyEricssonhala.mowafy@Terry ReeseEricssontheresa.reese@John AyersFirst Orionjayers@Tracey CashFirst Oriontcash@Julie Sara FowlerFirst Orionjfowler@Phillip WattsFirst Orionpwatts@*David KayHiyadkay@Jonathan NelsonHiyajnelson@Gary Richenakericonectivgrichenaker@*Andrew GallantInCharge Systemsabgallant@*Mike HamiltonInCharge Systemsmikehamilton@Doug BellowsInteliquentdoug.bellows@*Christian MiliteauIntradocmiliteau@Peter BrownMetaswitchpeter.brown@*Russ PenarMicrosoftrussp@Douglas RanalliNetNumberdranalli@Mick MossNeustarMick.Moss@team.neustarKen Politz Neustarkpolitz@cis.Shreyas SaitawdekarNeustarshreyas.saitawdekar@team.neustarMohammad KhaledNokiamohammad.khaled@Chris CurrieNumber Accesschris.currie@Chris FinneNumber Accesschris.finne@Anis JafferNumeracleanis@Rebekah JohnsonNumeraclerebekah@Tom MorescoPerspecta Labstmoresco@*Ray SinghPerspecta Labsrsingh@*John WullertPerspecta Labsjwullert@Mary BarnesRealtime Communications, LLCMLB@Julio ArmentaSomosjarmenta@Mary RetkaSomosmretka@*Shaunna ForsheeSprintshaunna.l.foreshee@*Pierce GormanSprintpierce.gorman@*David HolmesSprintdavid.holmes@*Phil KunkelSprintphil.m.kunkel@*Dinko DinkovT-MobileDinko.Dinkov@t-*Don BeelerTDR Technologydon.beeler@Ramon TorresTelnyxramon@Joe DechantTNSjdechant@Lavinia KennedyTNSlkennedy@Inwoo KimTNSikim@*Jose Mario Miranda MartinezTNSmmiranda@Jim DaltonTransNexusjim.dalton@*Tim BeyersTwiliotbeyers@*Christer FahlgrenTwiliochrister@Mark DesterdickVerizondesterdick@Jeff TorresVerizonJeff.torres@Anna KarditzasATISakarditzas@Jim McEachernATISjmceachern@Brent StruthersATISbstruthers@Jackie WohlgemuthATISjwohlgemuth@*Virtual participantREVIEW & APPROVAL OF AGENDAThe agenda was made available to participants via ATIS Workspace (AWS) as IPNNI-2020-00009R003. Modifications were proposed and the agenda was approved as revised in IPNNI-2020-00009R013. ATIS OP, IPR, ANTITRUST AND CONTRIBUTIONS NOTICESATIS Procedures: ATIS Forum and Committee activities must adhere to the ATIS Operating Procedures (OP) for ATIS Forums and Committees.Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): In connection with the development of an ATIS deliverable that requires use of patented inventions, the ANSI Patent Policy as adopted by ATIS and as set forth in Section 10.4 of the OP shall apply. Under this policy:Disclosure of relevant patented inventions at the earliest possible time is encouraged. Neither the Forum or Committee nor its leaders can ensure the accuracy or completeness of any disclosure, investigate the validity or existence of a patent, or determine whether a patent is essential to the use of an ATIS deliverable. The discussion of licensing terms is prohibited in ATIS Forums and Committees.Patent disclosure and assurance statements consistent with the ATIS OP must be submitted in writing to the ATIS General Counsel.Antitrust: Attendees are reminded that participation in industry fora involves the potential for antitrust concerns or risks. To avoid such concerns/risks, participants should carefully observe the OP. Sensitive discussion topics such as price, costs, specific contractual terms, etc., should be avoided. Contributions: In order for ATIS to facilitate, promote, and disseminate its work, each contributor must grant ATIS the rights necessary to adapt, copy, and publicly distribute any contribution or submittal. Each contribution or document therefore is subject to unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide rights, and license to ATIS of any copyrights in such a contribution. As a general rule, ATIS will not consider any contribution, presentation, or other input that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality or any restriction on its dissemination. Questions: If there are any questions, comments, or concerns, participants should contact their company's legal counsel, the Committee leadership, ATIS staff, or ATIS legal counsel.It was asked if there were any patents to identify or disclose at this time. There were no patent disclosures made by the attendees.APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING NOTESThere were no previous meeting notes to accept. REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGSThere were no open action items. IP-NNI TOPIC DISCUSSIONMechanism for International Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN) IPNNI-2020-00018R000, Mechanism for International Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN)Jim McEachern (ATIS) presented this proposed baseline, which provides draft text for a technical report dealing with full international SHAKEN to allow all countries to participate in a global SHAKEN ecosystem. This contribution is based on the concepts presented inIPNNI-2020-00004R000.It was noted that there still remains a significant amount of legal and policy discussion in order for this to be fully realized. As more countries sign on, it may become unwieldy and will likely necessitate extensive legal discussions. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as a new baseline. PTSC-LB-246: SHAKEN Attestation and Origination IdentifierIPNNI-2020-00004R000, PTSC-LB-246 comments – Somos This contribution was not discussed.IPNNI-2020-00005R000, PTSC-LB-246 comments – Neustar This contribution was not discussed.IPNNI-2020-0000xR000, PTSC-LB-246 comments – Sprint This contribution was not discussed.IPNNI-2020-00013R000 / PTSC-2020-00010R000, Proposed baseline with comment-resolution updatesParticipants reviewed this updated baseline, which is cross-posted as PTSC-2020-00010R000. It was noted that dictating CPNI is outside the scope of this group; CPNI should be dictated by carrier policy. The proposed changes were accepted as modified in IPNNI-2020-00013R001 / PTSC-2020-00010R001. Agreement Reached: IPNNI-2020-00013R001 / PTSC-2020-00010R001 was approved for publication. Thanks to Doug Bellows for his hard work in championing this document. IPNNI-2020-00014R000 / PTSC-2020-00011R000, Proposed comment consideration reportThis contribution was not discussed.ATIS-1000074.v002, Signature-based Handling of Asserted information toKENs (SHAKEN)IPNNI-2020-00008R000, Signature-based Handing of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN) (revmarked)This contribution was not discussed. IPNNI-2020-00008R001, Signature-based Handing of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN) (clean)This contribution contains the clean version of the baseline with the changes accepted at the November 2019 face-to-face meeting in Reston, VA. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as the new baseline. IPNNI-2020-00016R000, Proposed updates to ATIS-1000074.v002David Hancock (Comcast) presented this contribution, which updates ATIS-1000074.v002 section 5.3.1 to clarify the CRL verification procedure. This contribution was accepted for incorporation into the baseline, which will be updated with a revmarked and a clean version. Action Item: Participants will bring any near-term anticipated changes to ATIS-1000074, ATIS-1000080, and ATIS-1000084 to the virtual meeting on February 19, 2020. Verification Token Use Cases IPNNI-2017-00020R000, Verification Token Use Cases BaselineThere were no contributions submitted for this Issue. It was noted that as this is a living list document, recent use cases need to be incorporated to keep it current. ATIS-1000080.v003, SHAKEN Governance Model and Certificate ManagementIPNNI-2020-00005R001, Proposed new baseline for ATIS-1000080.v003, SHAKEN Governance Model and Certificate Management This contribution was noted. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as the new baseline for ATIS-1000080.v003. IPNNI-2020-00015R000, Proposed updates to ATIS-1000080.v003 David Hancock (Comcast) presented this contribution, proposes changes to ATIS-1000080.v003 to update SHAKEN certificate requirements (section 6.4.1), and to specify CRL requirements (section 6.4.2). It was noted that non-essential changes do have impacts and associated costs, as they necessitate changes in operational software that must be compliant with the standard. This contribution was approved as modified in IPNNI-2020-00015R001 for incorporation into the baseline. Approval for letter ballot will be requested at a future virtual meeting.ATIS-1000084.v002, Technical Report on Operational and Management Considerations for SHAKEN STI Certification Authorities and Policy AdministratorsIPNNI-2019-00146R002, Technical Report on Operational and Management Considerations for SHAKEN STI Certification Authorities and Policy Administrators (baseline)This baseline incorporates the changes accepted at the December 10, 2019 PTSC/IP-NNI virtual meeting. This will be updated with a 2020 document number, Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as the baseline for ATIS-1000084.v002. IPNNI-2020-00017R000, Proposed updates to ATIS-1000084.v002David Hancock (Comcast) presented this contribution, which proposes updates to the Trusted STI-CA List procedures in ATIS-1000084.v002, section 7.2 and 7.3. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as the new revmarked baseline; a clean version will be uploaded as an R1. Action Item: Participants will discuss whether IPNNI-2020-00017R001, ATIS-1000084.v002, is ready for letter ballot at the February 19, 2020, virtual meeting. Robo-MetricsIPNNI-2018-00083R001, Robo-Metrics BaselineThere were no contributions submitted for this Issue. Martin Dolly (AT&T) and Ken Politz (Neustar) will submit contributions to move this Issue forward. SHAKEN Roadmap IPNNI-2018-00038R003, SHAKEN Roadmap BaselineThis document was noted and will be updated for the February 19, 2020, virtual meeting. Action Item: Mary Barnes (Realtime Communications) will update the SHAKEN Roadmap baseline, IP-NNI-2018-00038R003, incorporating the updates contained in IPNNI-2019-00140R000. Action Item: Mary Barnes (Realtime Communications) will update the references to the IP-NNI overview documents in Sections 5.5 and 5.6 of IPNNI-2019-00140R001. ATIS-1000085.v002, SHAKEN Support of “div” PASSporT TokenIPNNI-2019-00152R000, SHAKEN Support of “div” PASSporT (revmarked)This contribution was noted. IPNNI-2019-00152R001, SHAKEN Support of “div” PASSporT (clean)This contribution was noted. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as the clean baseline. Action item: Participants should consider whether any changes are necessary for IPNNI-2019-00152R001, SHAKEN Support of “div” PASSporT, before it can go to letter ballot at the February 19, 2020, virtual meeting. SHAKEN Delegate Certificates IPNNI-2019-00021R004, SHAKEN Delegate Certificates (revmarked)This contribution was noted. IPNNI-2019-00021R005, SHAKEN Delegate Certificates (clean) This contribution was noted. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as the clean baseline. IPNNI-2020-00011R000, Proposed updates to SHAKEN Delegate CertificatesAndy Jurczak (AT&T) presented these proposed updates to the baseline, which provide OSP procedures for processing a SHAKEN PASSporT without RCD claims when associated with a delegate certificate. It was noted that the Originating Service Provider must always sign the delegate certificate. Action Item: Interested participants will discuss proposed edits to the document and return with a consensus when the meeting resumes after lunch. Discussion resumed below with review of IPNNI-2020-00029R000. This contribution was accepted, as modified in IPNNI-2020-00011R001, for incorporation into the baseline. This contribution was superseded by IPNNI-2020-00029R000. IPNNI-2020-00022R000, Document describing delegate certificate framework for SHAKEN Mr. Hancock presented this contribution which describes the delegate certificate framework. This contribution will become the new revmarked baseline. A second revmarked version will incorporate the agreed upon changes that agreed upon in IPNNI-2020-00029R000. IPNNI-2020-00029R000, Proposed updates to SHAKEN Delegate Certificates Chris Wendt (Comcast) presented this contribution to resolve the issue within IPNNI-2020-00011R000, which simplifies the approach to rcd. This is a separate verification service than base SHAKEN verification service. A delegated certificate would never be used to sign a SHAKEN PASSporT. This contribution was accepted for incorporation into the baseline. SHAKEN Calling Name and Rich Call Data Handling Procedures IPNNI-2019-00024R001, SHAKEN Calling Name and Rich Call Data Handling Procedures (baseline)This contribution was not discussed. IPNNI-2020-00025R000, Proposed updates to SHAKEN Calling Name and Rich Call Data Handling ProceduresDavid Hancock (Comcast) presented this proposed update, which adds section 5.1.4. This contribution was accepted as the revmarked baseline; the clean baseline will be uploaded as IPNNI-2020-00025R001. Best Current Practices on the protection of STIR/SHAKEN data between service providers and from service providers to enterprisesIPNNI-2019-00055R000, Best Current Practices on the protection of STIR/SHAKEN data between service providers and from service providers to enterprises (Baseline)There were no contributions submitted for this Issue. Study of Full Attestation Alternatives for Enterprises and Business Entities with Multi-Homing and Other ArrangementsIPNNI-2019-00075R006, Study of Full Attestation Alternatives for Enterprises and Business Entities with Multi-Homing and Other Arrangements (revmarked)This contribution was noted. IPNNI-2019-00075R007, Study of Full Attestation Alternatives for Enterprises and Business Entities with Multi-Homing and Other Arrangements (clean)This contribution was noted. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as the clean baseline. IPNNI-2020-00023R000, Central TN Database Approach to Full Attestation for Enterprises with Multi-Homing and/or Multi-TenancyPeter Brown (Metaswitch) presented this proposed technical report baseline, which is a draft summary of the central TN database approach. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as a new technical report baseline. IPNNI-2020-00024R000, Simplifying the Full Attestation Enterprise Problem with a Central TN DatabaseMr. Brown presented this contribution, which explains the Central TN Database approach for Enterprise attestation uplift detailed in IPNNI-2020-00023R000. This contribution was noted for information. IPNNI-2020-00026R000, LEveraging Model for Originating eNtity Authentication – full aTtestation With an entity Identity in a Secure Token (LEMON TWIST)Mary Barnes (Realtime Communications) presented this contribution, which elaborates on the initial proposal contained in IPNNI-2019-00031R002. This contribution provides detail on the STI-PA role and the additional entity identity (EID) included in the SPC field, along with the TNSP OCN. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as a new technical report baseline. IPNNI-2020-00028R000, Proposed changes to Study of Full Attestation Alternatives for Enterprises and Business Entities with Multi-Homing and Other Arrangements Mary Barnes (Realtime Communications) presented these proposed edits to IPNNI-2019-00075R007 to make it align with Lemon Twist, as contained in IPNNI-2020-00026R000. Ms. Barnes suggested that the various solution options for enterprises that were proposed and discussed in past IP-NNI meetings should be documented as a reference for comparison. It was noted that at the August 2019 face-to-face meeting, there was a consensus to pursue the different solution options and not select one immediately. The Multi-Homing baseline (IPNNI-2019-00075R007) was to see whether things could be filtered down without having to choose different solutions; however, it ended up that multiple solutions are necessary. An agreement was reached to pursue the creation of a baseline document for LEMON-TWIST because the other proposals had detailed documents to elaborate on those solutions, but the proposal for LEMON-TWIST was in presentation format rather than a baseline document. Concern was noted that there is new terminology being proposed. The terminology changes proposed in this document were not approved as they go beyond the scope of the agreement previously reached at the August 2019 meeting. The changes in section A.4, third paragraph, (“The three sub-options differ…”) are agreed upon, but the changes throughout the document that replace “enterprise” with “originating entity” are rejected. Agreement Reached: The accepted changes to the baseline as contained in section A.4, third paragraph, will be incorporated, and the revmarked and clean baselines will be uploaded with 2020 document numbers. The clean baseline is approved for 30-day letter ballot. Methods to Determine SHAKEN Attestation Levels Using Enterprise-Level Credentials and Telephone Number Letter of Authorization ExchangeIPNNI-2019-00102R003, Methods to Determine SHAKEN Attestation Levels Using Enterprise-Level Credentials and Telephone Number Letter of Authorization Exchange (revmarked)This contribution was noted. IPNNI-2019-00102R004, Methods to Determine SHAKEN Attestation Levels Using Enterprise-Level Credentials and Telephone Number Letter of Authorization Exchange (clean)This contribution was noted. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as the clean baseline. This baseline will be re-uploaded with a 2020 document number. Signature-based Handling of SIP RPH Assertion Verification Token Use Cases IPNNI-2020-00021R000, Updated Baseline Text for Draft ATIS Standard on SIP RPH Signing using PASSporT Tokens (revmarked)This contribution was noted. IPNNI-2020-00021R001, Updated Baseline Text for Draft ATIS Standard on SIP RPH Signing using PASSporT Tokens (clean)This contribution was noted. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as the clean baseline. IPNNI-2020-00027R000, Propose Changes for Draft ATIS Standard on SIP RPH Signing using PASSporT TokensRay Singh (Perspecta Labs) presented this contribution, which proposes changes to the baseline contained in IPNNI-2020-00021R001. Action Item: Participants should review IPNNI-2020-00027R001, Propose Changes for Draft ATIS Standard on SIP RPH Signing using PASSporT Tokens, in detail and prepare any comments for the next iteration of this document. It was noted that usage of the term “TN PASSporT” is equivalent to “SHAKEN PASSporT”; even though the same, TN will be changed to SHAKEN. This contribution was accepted as modified in IPNNI-2020-00027R001 for incorporation into the baseline, with an addition of an editor’s note: “Additional clean up to provide clarity on the use of the term “PASSporT” and which namespace in the RPH is used.”SIP RPH Signing in Support of Emergency CallingIPNNI-2020-00010R000, Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Header (RPH) Signing in Support of Emergency Calling [revmarked]This contribution was noted. IPNNI-2020-00010R001, Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Header (RPH) Signing in Support of Emergency Calling [proposed baseline]This contribution was noted. Agreement Reached: This contribution was accepted as the clean baseline. Other Contributions IPNNI-2020-00012R000, STI-GA Policy #2: Terminating TN ValidationBrent Struthers (ATIS) presented this contribution, which details and explains a policy adopted by the STI-GA Board. This GA policy will be posted on their website, likely in the next couple weeks. This contribution was noted for information. IPNNI-2020-00019R000, STIR/SHAKEN Certificate Management OperationChia Li (Comcast) presented this contribution, which details practical considerations for discussion which may lead to best practices of certificate management. It was noted that this an important topic to discuss, but any changes to the PA have an associated cost. However, it is beneficial to consider these things and generate contingencies to implement if and when those operational issues arise. The STI-GA is working on generating a change management process, which will likely be released later this year. A note was made that feedback on operational issues should be brought to one’s Technical Committee/Governance Authority representative. Some suggested the IP-NNI TF is an appropriate forum for a discussion of this nature; however, the associated costs associated with an implementation should be considered. Any spec changes approved by the STI-GA Board will go back to the IP-NNI anyway, as IP-NNI develops the technical specifications. Participants should, however, take care to ensure that changes to the specs are not proposed lightly and should be socialized with other stakeholders within the company. This contribution was noted for information. IPNNI-2020-00020R000, Discussion – Application of SHAKEN Procedures to 9-1-1 Calls with Non-Dialable Callback NumbersTerry Reese (Ericsson) presented this contribution, which discusses potential impacts on the application of SHAKEN authentication procedures to 9-1-1 originations where the caller identity information consists of a non-dialable callback number. For non-registered mobile phones that do not have a callback number, there are two potential solutions: 1) to update a routing document such that that will be added to an attestation; 2) an RPH signing that identifies the call as an emergency call. RPH is what states that a call is a valid emergency call. An assumption can be made that if the RPH is signed, but there is no TN-signing, that the call is being made from a non-dialable callback number. A new attestation level could be created with a TN-signing that states something along the lines of: “this is a non-dialable number, so put this 9-1-1 call through with the understanding that this number cannot be called back.”Having both TN- and RPH-signing makes sense, so that there is an attestation that is absorbed and processed at the terminating end. For 911-originating calls, the destination is known and supported. In normal circumstances both TN and RPH signing are expected – for TN validation and data analytics. Data analytics is allowed for 911 signing, but government emergency call data is not allowed to be passed through to third-party analytics. Having RPH signing for a 9-1-1 is in order to make that number unique. Attestation is to mark the call as a valid 9-1-1 origination, or a valid 9-1-1 callback. TN signing would have to be added to validate anything about the source. Either the P-CSCF / E-CSCF / LRF / STI-AS could provide C attestation. RPH signing attests that this is a call origination or callback. If TN signing is done additionally, give it C-attestation with a separate identity header. This issue will be worked in Release 17 in 3GPP. It was noted that this issue is limited to a working period of a half-session in 3GPP, or else it will be dropped. This contribution was noted for information. REVIEW OF ISSUE STATUS/TARGET RESOLUTION DATESIPNNI-2019-00016R014, IP-NNI Document TrackerThis contribution was noted for information. The updated version of this document is posted as IPNNI-2020-00030R000.IPNNI-2020-00003R001, SHAKEN Progress TrackerThis contribution was not discussed. FUTURE WORK/ASSIGNMENTS/MEETINGSThe following virtual meetings were noted:Wednesday, February 12, 9am – 1pm ETTo discuss: 9-1-1, 3GPP, RPH, ATIS-3GPP spec discrepanciesWednesday, February 19, 10am – 2pm ETLetter ballot documents Tuesday, March 10, 10am – 2pm ETThe following F2F meetings were noted:AMOC: April 27-30, 2020 – San AntonioPTSC: Monday, 1-5pmIP-NNI: Tuesday + Wednesdayjoint meeting on RPH, 9-1-1 [ESIF, WTSC]Q3: Week of August 10 –-Steve Showell is pursuing hosting at CenturyLink in Littleton, CO Q4: Participants noted the Tampa location is preferred; TNS has offered to host ANY OTHER BUSINESSThere was no other business. ADJOURNMENTMr. Dolly thanked participants for attending and adjourned the meeting at 4:44 PM ET on January 29, 2020. ___________________________________________________________Notes submitted by:Anna Karditzas, ATIS Committee Coordinator ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- business review agenda sample
- powerpoint agenda template
- management review agenda examples
- introduction meeting agenda sample
- printable weekly agenda 2020
- agenda for introductory business meeting
- 22 mag vs 22 lr
- 22 hornet vs 22 mag
- 22 hornet versus 22 magnum
- 22 wmr vs 22 lr
- 22 long vs 22 magnum
- 22 wmr vs 22 mag