<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div>Thanks Daniel!<br>
<br>
Steve</div>
<div><br>
On Jun 15, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Daniel Migault <<a href="mailto:mglt.biz@gmail.com">mglt.biz@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi,<br>
<br>
<div>Please find my comments. I found the document very interesting, and pleasant to read.<br>
<br>
Regarding Steve's questions, here is my opinions.<br>
<br>
1) whether there are any factual errors with the document. <br>
</div>
<div>I did not see any factual error. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
2) whether you agree with the study methodology and the conclusions that are drawn from these studies<br>
</div>
<div>Regarding the methodology, my understanding is that there is an impressive survey of the
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.70" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.894" style="" class="">TTL</span></span> values used that are related to the one specified in the root zone. In addition to this section I think it would be beneficial to have:<br>
- 1) a description of the impact of the <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.72" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.895" style="" class="">TTL</span></span> on <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.71" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.896" style="" class="">ICANN</span></span> operations on the root zone. Such operations may be for example addition/removal of a new
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.73" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.897" style="" class="">gTLD</span></span>, key roll over, emergency key roll-over - of course, the topic should remain the
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.75" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.898" style="" class="">TTLs</span></span>.<br>
- 2) a "theoretical" section that details what RFCs recommends for the various
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.76" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.899" style="" class="">TTL</span></span> settings. From this section I believe we should be able to be able to have a theoretical model, and describe theoretically how
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.78" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.900" style="" class="">TTLs</span></span> impact the <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.79" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.901" style="" class="">ICANN</span></span> operations on the root zone as well as the expected impacts on the traffic. I would also see that section 6.4 can fall into such a section.<br>
</div>
<br>
<div> 3) whether you agree with the findings of the report</div>
<div>I agree with the findings. However, saying that the value should not be changed because most client ignore it does not seems satisfactory. First I would say that the boundary seems to be the "max-cache-<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.902" style="" class="">ttl</span>"
value, and having <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.903" style="" class="">TTL</span> values below it would probably have a major impact. In fact for most of the traffic, max-cache-<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.904" style="" class="">ttl</span> overwrites the
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.905" style="" class="">TTL</span> and becomes the <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.906" style="" class="">
de</span>-facto <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.907" style="" class="">TTL</span>. I think we should elaborate a bit more about has the right
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.908" style="" class="">TTL</span> value (the root zone or the max-cache-<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.909" style="" class="">ttl</span>), and see if there are any recommendations to do for the max-cache-<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.910" style="" class="">ttl</span>
value. I also understand it may be out of scope of the root zone <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.911" style="" class="">
TTL</span>, but change of this value probably impact more the root zone traffic than the current
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.912" style="" class="">TTL</span>.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
4) whether you agree with the recommendations in this report<br>
</div>
<div>I agree with the recommendations. However, I think we should also comment on the max-cache-<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.913" style="" class="">ttl</span>. As
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.914" style="" class="">TTL</span> is related to caching, I also think there should be some additional items on how these caches may be flushed by an authoritative party -- I am really thinking of the red button Joe
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.915" style="" class="">Abley</span> talked about in case of a emergency key-roll over, but it looks this could be useful in other situations. Maybe we should also see some debugging indications when a badly cached value is stored
-- again I am mostly thinking of outdated signatures <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.916" style="" class="">
RRsets</span> cached. <br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> 5) whether you have any advice on which of the mitigation options articulated in section 6.4.3 should be preferred?
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
I also found I couple of nits in the document. <br>
<br>
</div>
1) introduction: The document uses the term "Internet Community": I am wondering whether this community is identified enough to named as such or if Internet community would be more appropriated.<br>
<br>
</div>
2) section 3: Types of data in the <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.81" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.917" style="" class="">DNS</span></span> Root zone:<br>
<br>
</div>
I think that some clarifications should be made in section 3 regarding the type of data. I found it quite confusing to read that most authoritative data are 1d
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.82" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.918" style="" class="">TTL</span></span> as most NS have 2d
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.83" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.919" style="" class="">TTLs</span></span>. This comes from the fact that
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.84" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.920" style="" class="">TLD</span></span> NS are not part of the authoritative data. I looked at
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.85" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.921" style="" class="">dratf</span></span>-<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.86" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.922" style="" class="">ietf</span></span>-<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.87" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.923" style="" class="">dnsop</span></span>-<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.88" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.924" style="" class="">dns</span></span>-terminology
and checked that whether <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.89" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.925" style="" class="">TLD</span></span> NS are authoritative data or not is somehow confusing. So I would suggest to
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.90" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
explicitly</span> state it. The text I would propose could be something like:<br>
<br>
</div>
"In this section we considered three types of <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.91" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.926" style="" class="">DNS</span></span> data. <br>
- authoritative data : the data the root zone has authority for. In our case, we did not consider the
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.92" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.927" style="" class="">TLD</span></span> NS nor the <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.93" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.928" style="" class="">TLD</span></span> Glue <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.94" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.929" style="" class="">RRsets</span></span> (A, <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.95" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.930" style="" class="">AAAA</span></span>).<br>
</div>
- delegation: The definition provided by the terminology section does not fit here as it is not a process.<br>
</div>
- glue: (cf terminology section)<br>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>"<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Another alternative could also consists in clarifying the usage in the terminology section.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At last is there any need to have a specific terminology for these authoritative
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.931" style="" class="">RRsets</span> and have it mentioned in the
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.932" style="" class="">dns</span>-terminology draft ?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
3) section 3 "glue <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.96" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.933" style="" class="">TTLs</span></span> match their associated NS
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.97" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.934" style="" class="">TTLs</span></span>" I think we should specify
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.98" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.935" style="" class="">whether</span></span> this is something observed or if this follows some operational guidance.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>4) section 3.1 "which means it has a negative caching <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.99" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.936" style="" class="">TTL</span></span> of 1 day". I think this may impact the publication of
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.100" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.937" style="" class="">gTLD</span></span>. as well as emergency key-roll over.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>5) section 6.1.1<br>
<br>
The graph below shows each TLD’s authoritative NS <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.101" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.938" style="" class="">TTL</span></span> (y-axis) and its query count in the 2014
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.102" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.939" style="" class="">DITL</span></span> data (x-axis). While there are certainly a large number of less-popular
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.103" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.940" style="" class="">TLDs</span></span> with large <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.104" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.941" style="" class="">RTTs</span></span>, by looking at the lower right section of the graph we can see that the more-popular
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.105" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.942" style="" class="">TLDs</span></span> tend to have larger
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.106" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.943" style="" class="">RTTs</span></span> (Round Trip Times). In other words, there are no popular
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.107" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.944" style="" class="">TLDs</span></span> with small <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.108" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.945" style="" class="">RTTs</span></span>. Overall, 90% of queries in 2014
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.109" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.946" style="" class="">DITL</span></span> data were to
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.110" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.947" style="" class="">TLDs</span></span> having NS <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.111" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.948" style="" class="">TTLs</span></span> greater than or equal to 1 day.
<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>I do not see the relation with <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.112" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.949" style="" class="">RTT</span></span>. Isn't <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.113" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
misspelling</span> of <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.114" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.950" style="" class="">TTL</span></span>?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>6) section 6.2 "The authoritative server returns the <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.115" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.951" style="" class="">TXT</span></span> record without a 10-day
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.116" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.952" style="" class="">TTL</span></span>." Shouldn't be "with" instead of without?<br>
</div>
<div>
<div> <br>
<div class="gmail_extra">7) section 6.3 "The study team did find 20% of the <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.117" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.953" style="" class="">IPs</span></span> made only one request for delegated
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.118" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.954" style="" class="">TLDs</span></span> during collection . ". Shouldn't it be "data collection period" instead?<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">idem for "Nearly 20% of the <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.119" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.955" style="" class="">IPs</span></span> made only request for delegated
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.120" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.956" style="" class="">TLDs</span></span> during collection".<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">8) Section 6.3 <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">"<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.121" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.957" style="" class="">IPs</span></span> sending queries (red line) and providing measurements (blue line)." or
the legend Queries/Measures in figure 4 does not <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.122" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
make</span> obvious the difference between the two lines. Maybe that would be better to clarify that
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.123" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
explicitly</span>. <br>
<br>
9) section 6.3 "Figure 6 and Table 8 below shows" Shouldn't it be "show" <br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">10) section 6.4.1/ section 7 Findings 4: lots of missing white space after ".".<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">11) section 6.4.1 Is there any reason the relation between the different Time is not expressed.
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.124" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.958" style="" class="">SOA</span></span>_Expire + NS_<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.125" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.959" style="" class="">TTL</span></span> <=
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.126" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.960" style="" class="">ZSK</span></span>_validity<br>
<br>
12) section 6.4.2 "Just before day 10, a root server instance experiences a problem which prevents the it from receiving zone" Shouldn't we remove "the"?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">13) Findings 2: <br>
"This likely means that root zone <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.127" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.961" style="" class="">TTLs</span></span> could be reduced to 1 day without any significant impact on traffic levels to root name servers"
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Is that intentional to repeat the sentence?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">14) Findings 6:<br>
<br>
"In Section 6.4, the study team identifies two situations whereby a root name server would return data and signatures that will be cached beyond the signature validity end time. Specifically, in certain situations: "<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Do we have any kind of <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.128" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
formal</span> proof that there is no other corner cases.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">15) section 9:<br>
Don't we need <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.129" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.962" style="" class="">DNSSEC</span></span> mitigation mechanisms to flush cache for example.?<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Steve <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.130" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.963" style="" class="">Sheng</span></span> <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org" target="_blank"><span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.131" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.964" style="" class="">steve</span></span>.<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.132" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.965" style="" class="">sheng</span></span>@<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.133" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.966" style="" class="">icann</span></span>.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>Dear RSSAC Caucus, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> This is a reminder for you to review the draft report on TTLs for the root zone. The review is due by close of business
<i>15 June 2015.</i> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> In particular in your review, it would be great if you could comment on: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> 1) whether there are any factual errors with the document. </div>
<div> 2) whether you agree with the study methodology and the conclusions that are drawn from these studies</div>
<div> 3) whether you agree with the findings of the report</div>
<div> 4) whether you agree with the recommendations in this report </div>
<div> 5) whether you have any advice on which of the mitigation options articulated in section 6.4.3 should be preferred? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Also, are there any interest to have a briefing call on this report? Right now, the most likely time would be Monday 15 June. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks, </div>
<div>Steve</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:11pt;text-align:left;color:black;border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Steve Sheng <<a href="mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org" target="_blank">steve.sheng@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Monday, June 8, 2015 at 1:37 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a href="mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org" target="_blank">rssac-caucus@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org" target="_blank">rssac-caucus@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>[rssac-caucus] FOR REVIEW: DRAFT RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#b5c4df 5 solid;PADDING:0 0 0 5;MARGIN:0 0 0 5">
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Dear RSSAC Caucus, </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> On behalf of the caucus work party on Root Zone TTLs, attached please find for your review the draft RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs. The work party is chaired by Duane Wessels, work party members include Joe Abley, Jaap Akkerhuis,
John Bond, Brian Dickson, Shumon Huque, Warren Kumari, Duane Wessels (work party leader) and <span style="color:rgb(0,0,10)">Matthew Thomas (invited expert). Staff support are: Steve Sheng, Barbara Roseman and Kathy Schnitt. </span></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> Root zone TTLs have not changed since 1999. In this report, the RSSAC caucus studies the extent to which the current root zone TTLs are still appropriate for today’s internet environment. The report contains a number of findings
and recommendations through four sets of empirical analyses. The work party chair invites you to give this report a careful review. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> One thing the chair wish to highlight is that the work party discovered two potential problems related to the interaction between the SOA Expire value and the root zone’s signature validity period. It also identified several
mitigation options, and conducted a preliminary analysis of these options. However, the work party has yet to reach a conclusion to recommend which measure to take. It would be good to hear some feedback from the Caucus. Short of more definitive feedback from
the Caucus, the work party will recommend further consultation in this area. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div> The work party chair requests you provide your review by close of business (anywhere around the world) <i style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">15 June 2015,
</i>if possible. This will allow the work party time to discuss and finalize the document in time for RSSAC consideration in Buenos Aires. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">All the best, </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Steve</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
rssac-caucus mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org" target="_blank">rssac-caucus@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Daniel <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.134" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.967" style="" class="">Migault</span></span><br>
</div>
<div><span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.135" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.968" style="" class="">Ericsson</span></span><br>
8400 boulevard <span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.136" style="background:yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class="">
<span tabindex="-1" id=":xr.969" style="" class="">Decarie</span></span><br>
Montreal, QC H4P 2N2<br>
Canada<br>
<br>
Phone: <a href="tel:%2B1%20514-452-2160" value="+15144522160" target="_blank">+1 514-452-2160</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>