Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)]

Hello,

I support the adoption of this document.
Also, as a contributor I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this 
document.

Thank you,
Pablo.

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Friday, 27 September 2019 at 12:59
To: "draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[john leddy.net]

As an author, I am not aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR.

I support WG adoption of the draft.

John Leddy

> On September 27, 2019 at 6:59 AM "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
>  
> 
> This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
> draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .
> 
>  
> 
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group 
> list.
> 
>  
> 
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to 
> this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF 
> IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
> 
>  
> 
> If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any 
> relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't 
> progress without answers from all the authors and contributors.
> 
> Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.
> 
>  
> 
> If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please 
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been 
> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
> 
>  
> 
> This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.  
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Matthew and Stephane
> 
>  
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

[Joel M. Halpern]

I just realized reading this note from Greg that he was arguing for 
something different than I understood.  To that degree, I apologize to 
Greg.  My comments do not reflect on Greg's Unified SID work.


Yours,
Joel

PS: Greg, just so you know waht error I made, I connected U-SID with the 
uSID drafts.  Again, sorry, I misread and misunderstood your note.  Yes, 
you referenced your draft.


On 10/6/2019 11:29 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote:

Hi Joel,
thank you for reviewing U-SID draft. I'm looking forward to reading a 
more detailed analysis.


Regards,
Greg

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 8:18 PM Joel M. Halpern > wrote:


No Greg, uSID does not bring all the benefits of SRv6 while using
shorter SIDs.
It also violates the basic IP archtiecture really abdly.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/5/2019 7:44 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
 > Hi Gyan,
 > you're asking very good questions and your arguments are all
correct.
 > But I think that now there are several proposals that address
what is
 > considered the scalability issue of SRv6. Among these is the
Unified SID
 > for SRv6
 > .
 > U-SID benefits from all the advantages SRH provides while adding a
 > higher density of SIDs thus allowing stricter path control.
 >
 > Regards,
 > Greg
 >
 > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:02 PM Gyan Mishra
mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>
 > >> wrote:
 >
 >
 >     In line possible answers
 >
 >     Sent from my iPhone
 >
 >     On Oct 4, 2019, at 8:22 PM, Gyan Mishra
mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>
 >     >> wrote:
 >
 >>
 >>     Bess,
 >>
 >>     What is the benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS for greenfield
 >>     deployments or existing mpls deployments.
 >>
 >     I think I answered my own question but please chime in with your
 >     thoughts..
 >
 >     This NANOG document talks about the state of TE with
providers and
 >     currently the big show stopper with SRv6 which removes it off the
 >     table as a possibility is the SID depth and larger packet
size given
 >     that customers are set to 9100 and the core is 9216 so when
adding
 >     in mpls overhead vpn labels and Ti-LFA EH insertion at PLR
node to
 >     PQ node that adding in the entire SID list for long TE paths that
 >     have huge SID depth makes SRv6 not viable at this point.
 >
 >

https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1646/20180627_Gray_The_State_Of_v1.pdf
 >
 >     For existing implementations it appears from my research a no
 >     brainer to go with SR-MPLS as that is a painless seamless
migration
 >     but SRv6 due to SID depth issues and given limited head room from
 >     customer MTU to the  backbone MTU today we are over the limit
with
 >     larger SID depth for Ti-LFA paths or non protected paths.  Until
 >     that is addressed SRv6 unfortunately may not get much
traction with
 >     service providers which I think due to the SRv6 issues
uSID and
 >     SRv6+ may tend to be more viable and more attractive.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >>     Regards,
 >>
 >>     Gyan Mishra 
 >>
 >>     IT Network Engineering & Technology 
 >>
 >>     Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
 >>
 >>     13101 Columbia Pike
 >>   
   FDC1

 >>     3rd Floor
 >>
 >>     Silver Spring, MD 20904
 >>
 >>     United States
 >>
 >>     Phone: 301 502-1347 
 >>
 >>     Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com

 >>     >
 >>
 >> www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT

 >>     
 >>
 >>
 >>     Sent from my iPhone
 >     ___
 >     BESS mailing list
 > BESS@ietf.org  >
 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
 >
 >
 > ___
 > BESS mailing list
 > BESS@ietf.org 
 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
 >



___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Robert Raszuk]

Support (as co-author).

Also I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document.

Thx,
R.

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 1:00 PM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <
matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for
> draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group
> list.
>
>
>
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
> this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with
> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>
>
>
> If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please
> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
> relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't
> progress without answers from all the authors and contributors.
>
> Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.
>
>
>
> If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been
> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
>
>
> This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matthew and Stephane
>
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/
>
>
>
>
>
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Balaji Pitta Venkatachalapathy (bvenkata)]

Support.

Regards,
Balaji
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>
Date: September 27, 2019 at 4:00:07 AM PDT
To: 
"draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org"
 
mailto:draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org>>,
 "bess@ietf.org" mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

[Greg Mirsky]

Hi Joel,
thank you for reviewing U-SID draft. I'm looking forward to reading a more
detailed analysis.

Regards,
Greg

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 8:18 PM Joel M. Halpern  wrote:

> No Greg, uSID does not bring all the benefits of SRv6 while using
> shorter SIDs.
> It also violates the basic IP archtiecture really abdly.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 10/5/2019 7:44 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > Hi Gyan,
> > you're asking very good questions and your arguments are all correct.
> > But I think that now there are several proposals that address what is
> > considered the scalability issue of SRv6. Among these is the Unified SID
> > for SRv6
> > .
> > U-SID benefits from all the advantages SRH provides while adding a
> > higher density of SIDs thus allowing stricter path control.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:02 PM Gyan Mishra  > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > In line possible answers
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Oct 4, 2019, at 8:22 PM, Gyan Mishra  > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Bess,
> >>
> >> What is the benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS for greenfield
> >> deployments or existing mpls deployments.
> >>
> > I think I answered my own question but please chime in with your
> > thoughts..
> >
> > This NANOG document talks about the state of TE with providers and
> > currently the big show stopper with SRv6 which removes it off the
> > table as a possibility is the SID depth and larger packet size given
> > that customers are set to 9100 and the core is 9216 so when adding
> > in mpls overhead vpn labels and Ti-LFA EH insertion at PLR node to
> > PQ node that adding in the entire SID list for long TE paths that
> > have huge SID depth makes SRv6 not viable at this point.
> >
> >
> https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1646/20180627_Gray_The_State_Of_v1.pdf
> >
> > For existing implementations it appears from my research a no
> > brainer to go with SR-MPLS as that is a painless seamless migration
> > but SRv6 due to SID depth issues and given limited head room from
> > customer MTU to the  backbone MTU today we are over the limit with
> > larger SID depth for Ti-LFA paths or non protected paths.  Until
> > that is addressed SRv6 unfortunately may not get much traction with
> > service providers which I think due to the SRv6 issues uSID and
> > SRv6+ may tend to be more viable and more attractive.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Gyan Mishra 
> >>
> >> IT Network Engineering & Technology 
> >>
> >> Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
> >>
> >> 13101 Columbia Pike
> >>  .com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail=g> FDC1
> >> 3rd Floor
> >>
> >> Silver Spring, MD 20904
> >>
> >> United States
> >>
> >> Phone: 301 502-1347 
> >>
> >> Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com
> >> 
> >>
> >> www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> > ___
> > BESS mailing list
> > BESS@ietf.org 
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >
> >
> > ___
> > BESS mailing list
> > BESS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >
>
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

I support WG adoption.
Thanks,
Acee

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 6:01 AM
To: "draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

[Krzysztof Szarkowicz]

+1

Hence, to avoid such violation, but still to use shorter SIDs, SRv6+ 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus-05 
) architecture 
has been proposed.

Thanks,
Krzysztof


> On 2019-Oct-06, at 05:18, Joel M. Halpern  wrote:
> 
> No Greg, uSID does not bring all the benefits of SRv6 while using shorter 
> SIDs.
> It also violates the basic IP archtiecture really abdly.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 10/5/2019 7:44 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>> Hi Gyan,
>> you're asking very good questions and your arguments are all correct. But I 
>> think that now there are several proposals that address what is considered 
>> the scalability issue of SRv6. Among these is the Unified SID for SRv6 
>> . U-SID 
>> benefits from all the advantages SRH provides while adding a higher density 
>> of SIDs thus allowing stricter path control.
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:02 PM Gyan Mishra > > wrote:
>>In line possible answers
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>On Oct 4, 2019, at 8:22 PM, Gyan Mishra >> wrote:
>>> 
>>>Bess,
>>> 
>>>What is the benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS for greenfield
>>>deployments or existing mpls deployments.
>>> 
>>I think I answered my own question but please chime in with your
>>thoughts..
>>This NANOG document talks about the state of TE with providers and
>>currently the big show stopper with SRv6 which removes it off the
>>table as a possibility is the SID depth and larger packet size given
>>that customers are set to 9100 and the core is 9216 so when adding
>>in mpls overhead vpn labels and Ti-LFA EH insertion at PLR node to
>>PQ node that adding in the entire SID list for long TE paths that
>>have huge SID depth makes SRv6 not viable at this point.
>>
>> https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1646/20180627_Gray_The_State_Of_v1.pdf
>>For existing implementations it appears from my research a no
>>brainer to go with SR-MPLS as that is a painless seamless migration
>>but SRv6 due to SID depth issues and given limited head room from
>>customer MTU to the  backbone MTU today we are over the limit with
>>larger SID depth for Ti-LFA paths or non protected paths.  Until
>>that is addressed SRv6 unfortunately may not get much traction with
>>service providers which I think due to the SRv6 issues uSID and
>>SRv6+ may tend to be more viable and more attractive.
>>>Regards,
>>> 
>>>Gyan Mishra 
>>> 
>>>IT Network Engineering & Technology 
>>> 
>>>Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
>>> 
>>>13101 Columbia Pike
>>>
>>> 
>>>  FDC1
>>>3rd Floor
>>> 
>>>Silver Spring, MD 20904
>>> 
>>>United States
>>> 
>>>Phone: 301 502-1347 
>>> 
>>>Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com
>>>
>>> 
>>>www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>___
>>BESS mailing list
>>BESS@ietf.org 
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>> ___
>> BESS mailing list
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> 
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03

[Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)]

I support the document. It should progress.

Thanks.
Jorge



-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 10:48:42 +
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperat...@ietf.org"
 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call,
 IPR and Implementation poll for
 draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 03:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-From: 


Folks

 

I have only seen a few responses to this WG last call. I am therefore going 
to extend it until Friday 4th October.

 

If you haven’t done so, please review the draft and post any comments to 
the list and indicate whether or not you support publication as a standards 
track RFC.

 

Thanks

 

Matthew

 

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
GB)" 
Date: Tuesday, 10 September 2019 at 15:26
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperat...@ietf.org" 

Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03

 

Hello Working Group,



This email starts a two week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03 [1]. 

 

This poll runs until 25 September 2019.

 

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to 
this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF 
IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

 

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

 

There are currently no IPR disclosures against the document.

 

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

 

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].



Thank you,

Matthew and Stephane

 

[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation/

[2] 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

 

 



___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels)]

I support the adoption.


-Original Message-
From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Friday, 27 September 2019 at 12:59
To: "draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,
 
This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .
 
Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group 
list.
 
We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to 
this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF 
IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
 
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without
 answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.
 
If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.
 
This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.  
 
Regards,
Matthew and Stephane
 
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/
 
 



___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Apoorva Karan (apoorva)]

I support the adoption.

Thanks,
Apoorva

From: BESS  On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 4:00 AM
To: draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Serge Krier (sekrier)]

I support adoption.



From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 4:01 AM
To: "draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02



Hello,



This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .



Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).



If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.



If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.



This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.



Regards,

Matthew and Stephane



[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/




___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess