Uma –
One item I forgot…there are no meaningful nits.
Idnits reports:
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '100' on line 1009
'SRGB = [100, 199]...'
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '199' on line 1009
'SRGB = [100, 199]...'
-- Looks like a reference, but
I am not aware of IPR related to this draft
From: Lsr on behalf of Hannes Gredler
Date: Tuesday, 12 June 2018 at 04:44
To: Uma Chunduri
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16
(Shepherd write-up)
i am not aware of undisclosed IPR.
On
i am not aware of undisclosed IPR.
> On 11.06.2018, at 21:18, Uma Chunduri wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 ?
>
> Sending this email as suggested by LSR chairs - as this was not
I am not aware of any IPR other than what has not been already disclosed.
Thanks
Ahmed
On 6/11/18 1:50 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
I am not aware of any IPR other than what has already been disclosed.
Les
*From:*Lsr *On Behalf Of *Uma Chunduri
*Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2018 12:18
Uma,
I’m not aware of any IPR that has not been previously disclosed.
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Lsr on behalf of Uma Chunduri
Date: Monday, June 11, 2018 at 12:18
To:
Subject: [Lsr] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16
(Shepherd write-up)
Dear All,
Are you
I’m not aware of non-disclosed IPR.
Regards,
--Bruno,
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 9:18 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16
(Shepherd write-up)
Dear All,
Are you aware of
Dear All,
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 ?
Sending this email as suggested by LSR chairs - as this was not noticed
during/around WGLC.
===
If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
Mahend –
In regards to IPv4/IPv6, in IS-IS there are two ways to support this:
1)Multi-topology mode
Here there are topology specific neighbor advertisements and therefore topology
specific link attribute advertisements. Hence no benefit from having
afi-specific bits.
2)Single topology mode
