Hi,
I'm not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
Thanks.
s.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022, 09:24 Peter Psenak wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
>
> Peter
>
> On 07/12/2022 14:20, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >
> > This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending Dec 21, 2022,
Hi,
as co-author, I support the publication of this draft and I’m not aware of any
undisclosed IPR related to it.
Thanks.
s.
> On Aug 8, 2022, at 12:17 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf
Hi,
I’m not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
Thanks.
s.
> On Feb 17, 2021, at 4:30 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Hi LSR and TEAS,
>
> This begins a joint WG last call for:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/
>
> Please discuss any issues on the LSR
Hi,
as co-author, I support the adoption of draft-chen-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-02.
Thanks.
s.
> On Oct 23, 2020, at 4:42 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)
> wrote:
>
> This is simple BIS update to RFC 5316 is required to support IS-IS Inter-AS
> TE in IPv6 only networks. The authors have asked for WG adop
Hi,
I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this draft.
thanks.
s.
> On Oct 23, 2020, at 4:50 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> Hi Mach, Les, Stefano, Xiaodong,
>
> Are you aware of any IPR associated with the subject draft.
>
> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance wit
support.
s.
> On Jan 23, 2020, at 9:24 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Hi LSR WG and Draft Authors,
>
> The authors originally requested adoption back @ 105; however, some comments
> were received and new version was produced. Moving forward...
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for t
As contributor, I do support the draft and I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
Thanks.
s.
> On Jan 22, 2020, at 1:14 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending after Feb 4, 2020, for
> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
I support the adoption of draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions as WG item.
Thanks.
s.
> On May 9, 2019, at 3:49 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> We been holding off WG adoption until the base SRv6 draft was adopted in
> SPRING. Now
> thathttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv
Hi,
as contributor to draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions I’m not aware of any IPR
related to the draft.
Thanks.
s.
> On May 9, 2019, at 4:23 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> Authors,
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
> draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-05.txt?
>
> If so,
I’m not aware of any IPR related to this document.
Thanks.
s.
> On Apr 10, 2019, at 11:35 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> Authors, Contributors,
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-isis-te-app-06.txt?
>
> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR
Hi All,
> On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:01 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Alvaro –
>
> I am not in agreement with your POV.
>
> The work undertaken for this revision was very specifically to address Errata
> ID: 5293 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810) . This was
>
Les, Acee, Alvaro,
diffs looks ok to me.
s.
> On Aug 31, 2018, at 7:56 AM, RFC Errata System
> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7810,
> "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions".
>
> --
> You may review the report
I'm not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
s.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 9:18 PM 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 no
t;
>
> From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
> Sent: 05 June 2018 17:19
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> Cc: Stefano Previdi (IETF) ; lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] IGP TE Metric Extensions
>
>
>
> Sounds reasonable to me..
&g
On Thu, May 31, 2018, 6:15 PM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
wrote:
> Thanks, Jeff. Would be good to have this clarified
> in draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis. My original message seems to have been
> stripped off, so including it again for the lsr list..
>
> Both RFC 7810 and RFC 7471 say that:
>
>
support.
s.
> On May 23, 2018, at 5:28 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> We're starting a 2 week WG Last Call on
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis/
>
> Please raise any objections or comments before Jun 6th, 2018.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
> ___
I support the publication of this draft.
Thanks.
s.
> On May 23, 2018, at 5:03 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> This begins an LSR WG last call for the subject draft. Please send your
> comments to this list prior to 12:00 AM GMT, June 7th, 2018.
> Thanks,
> Acee and Chris
>
> _
Hi,
I'm not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
Thanks.
s.
- Original Message
Subject:IPR Poll for "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing" Prior
to
WG Last Call
Resent-Date:Tue, 22 May 2018 07:43:53 -0700
Resent-From:
Resent-To: , ,
, , ,
,
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018
support.
s.
> On Apr 23, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> We are starting a new 2 week WG last call on
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/
>
> as there have (*) been some changes to the document since our last WG last
>
I support both drafts.
Thanks.
s.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 4:44 PM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> This begins a two-week adoption poll for the following Flex Algorithm
> drafts:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
Hi Acee, all,
I'm not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this draft.
Thanks.
s.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 9:39 PM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Authors,
>
>
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
> draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00 in addition to the IPR declared on
> RFC 7810:
>
>
>
>
he issue
>> reported
>> > in Errata ID: 5293
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search..php?rfc=7810>
>> >
>> > Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the
>> > ambiguous e
me too.
If we want to align the encoding, we should probably better align the protocol
name directly...
s.
> On Apr 3, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
>
> On 02/04/18 14:19 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> Speaking as WG member:
>>
>> I couldn’t agree more with Ketan. No changes are re
23 matches
Mail list logo
