Re: [alto] IETF 96 agenda requests -- Topology extensions

Hi all since some of our original Internet Drafts association with ALTO "topology extensions" our well out of date, those that are interested may want to look at a technical paper that Young and I put together back in 2012

Re: [alto] IETF 96 agenda requests

On 07/05/2016 12:25 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote: Vijay, Please see inline. [...] OK. We should target posting a spec by this Friday so that we can discuss the spec before the meeting, to remove any confusion/bewilderment. Since the key piece is encoding specification of (1) graph; and (2) path

Re: [alto] IETF 96 agenda requests

Vijay, Please see inline. On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > On Monday, Jul 4, 2016 "Y. Richard Yang" wrote: > > Vijay, Jan, all, >> >> I am replying this email publicly so that all of us can engage more >> in shaping the agenda in

Re: [alto] IETF 96 agenda requests

On 07/05/2016 12:17 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote: It indeed is a good time to quickly converge on the exact encoding details so that we can move forward. This should be a high priority item and let's work out the details during this IETF. I will focus on it and propose an encoding shortly.

Re: [alto] IETF 96 agenda requests

Hi Richard and all, for the last few years I've been teaching and working in the SDN space and mostly agree with Richard's assessment. The only disagreement is with his assessment of "slow" convergence of the network graph/(path vector) drafts. These drafts are basically in conceptual

[alto] IPR disclosure on ietf-alto-alto-deployments

Folks: Pursuant to Mirja's email [1], Jan and I take this opportunity to remind anyone on the list to respond with any concerns on moving draft-ietf-alto-deployments forward. It is imperative that the bounds of this discussion are understood uniformly, and these are: There is no IPR being

Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

I don’t personally know anything about this technology or the patents in question. Also, IANAL and I don’t plan to play on this list. However, a couple of process or general clarifications may be in order. First, anybody can (but does not have to) make third party declaration, if he or she is

Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

Richard, On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:57:45PM -0400, Y. Richard Yang wrote: > I am reading up the patent application. > > Given that one of the inventors is Sabine, who is a quite active member of > this WG, could we ask her to take one more look at the deployment document > and share any comments

Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

Michael, I won’t comment on the content of the application, but please find a couple clarifications inline. > On Jul 5, 2016, at 7:00 AM, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) > wrote: > > Carlos, > > I can only comment on the second document listed in the third-party IPR

Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

Hi Mirja, At 08:47 04-07-2016, Mirja Kühlewind wrote: The IETF last call for draft-ietf-alto-deployments was performed between June 7 and June 21, 2016, while the IPR disclosure was submitted afterwards (as reaction to the OPS-DIR review). If this disclosure raises any concerns regarding

Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

Carlos, I can only comment on the second document listed in the third-party IPR disclosure (http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016039798A1#npl-citations). I have not been aware of the first one. Regarding the second patent application, I am a bit confused by the intent of this IPR disclosure.